Dated, But Concise

While this material was produced during 2016, the players may have changed, but the program hasn't:

Been working as a railroad attorney for over a decade. Gotta say, this is pretty spot on. There were, and are, certainly other factors, like how the construction of the interstate highway system had a huge impact on ridership and how antitrust exemptions for freight rail companies like the Staggers Act made it harder to establish passenger services. That being said, great job!

I believe the video is wrong about the purpose for Amtrak at the time of its creation. It was not created to "save" passenger trains but to relieve railroads of the burden of operating inter-city passenger trains and to provide for their orderly discontinuance.

That is a position that you could intelligently defend for sure.

As GBN has said more than once, the people who created Amtrak thought it would be a ramp down over 10 years. They didn’t realize that it would require a political constituency of its own (which it did).

That's just how it was -- Amtrak was intended as hospice care for intercity passenger service until it died a natural death. The "for profit" part was put in to get enough votes in Congress to get it passed.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:31 pm That's just how it was -- Amtrak was intended as hospice care for intercity passenger service until it died a natural death. The "for profit" part was put in to get enough votes in Congress to get it passed.

Just another example of politicians overpromising to get funding for their pet projects, then underdelivering on those projects. No one fully gets what was promised.

Within the first few years of Amtrak's launch:
1973: RTG turboliners begin service
1973: order Amfleet I ... 500 cars delivered by 1977
1973: Superliner I RFP ... order in 1975 ... 300 cars delivered 1978-9
1976: RTL turboliners begin service

If the goal were to shut down the operation in 10 years, the people in procurement and the funders sure didn't get the memo!

True -- some of the people working for Amtrak were true believers and really made an effort to make it work, confounding the powers who were blindsided by all those people who insisted on traveling by train and who didn't realize they weren't supposed to want that.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:20 pm True -- some of the people working for Amtrak were true believers and really made an effort to make it work, confounding the powers who were blindsided by all those people who insisted on traveling by train and who didn't realize they weren't supposed to want that.

Now no one has any idea how many persons want to travel on trains that now operate due to capacity limitations. The need for a second train on parts of the present route structure also needs examination. I can think of a CHI <> DEN, ATL <> WASH / NYC either present Crescent or thru RGH / RVR. CHI <> MSP, Florida - do not know if Brightline has taken any rides away or if Silvers still doing just as well, Daytime LSL train, CHI <> MEM, OAK <> RENO, Night train LAX <> downtown San Fran, Tucson <> LAX, to name a few. The first order of business is reducing the 750-mile restriction to say 300 miles and even less for possible routes / trains thru 2 or more states.

Then again, every new route especially the new FRA proposals may have some rides that will make connections to present trains. A few of the new routes will need all or portions with more than one train. All this means a lot more revenue & non revenue cars, + locos.

Some of these items will take congressional action.
The main item will be limitations of freight RRs delaying new & additional services. Infrastructure improvements tax exempt. As well, 750-mile restrictions, requirement that Amtrak keep all present equipment in good passenger worthy condition, purchase of equipment funds although Siemens seems booked up thru 2032-
87 New Airo trains are not going to be enough.

One point that seems to be left out is that prior to 1973, Amtrak was to manage decline of most passenger train service. The Arab oil embargo caused a sea change in opinion. I feel that that action really saved Amtrak. Also, there is one other Amtrak service that operates in the black: Auto Train.

rohr turbo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:58 pm Within the first few years of Amtrak's launch:
1973: RTG turboliners begin service
1973: order Amfleet I ... 500 cars delivered by 1977
1973: Superliner I RFP ... order in 1975 ... 300 cars delivered 1978-9
1976: RTL turboliners begin service

If the goal were to shut down the operation in 10 years, the people in procurement and the funders sure didn't get the memo!

I strongly believe this was why they ordered all that wildass specialty equipment, because it was useless for anything else. If they had bought 200 SDP40/45's like 10+ private railroads had, it would've been easier to shut down and sell off. Government organizations are known for making sport of expanding their scope.

One one had this made the operation last, on the other hand it did not help reliability with regard to some of the more experimental equipment. It was also a time before budget airlines and unregulated airlines existed, so the myth of needing 79mph operations cross-country was not a myth.

west point wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 1:05 am
Now no one has any idea how many persons want to travel on trains that now operate due to capacity limitations. The need for a second train on parts of the present route structure also needs examination.

Agree and disagree. I think they under-predict the potential ridership on corridors such as the new Mobile route. I think on over-750 miles routes its pretty easy to see the ridership seriously tapers over three-plus hours. Even on the longer corridors people fly between endpoints such as Chicago and Detroit but gladly travel from midpoints to endpoints. ON corridors, I think more frequencies and less emphasis on connections with LD trains would drive ridership.

west point wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 1:05 am As well, 750-mile restrictions, requirement that Amtrak keep all present equipment in good passenger worthy condition, purchase of equipment funds although Siemens seems booked up thru 2032-
87 New Airo trains are not going to be enough.

And herein lies the problem. The new winners will be the sub-750 mile trains. For reference, CHI-PHL is 760 miles. The empirical evidence shows passengers in serious volume are not intersted in a 750 mile ride, but the federal government doesnt want to fund trains under 750 miles. How many 750 mile routes are multi-state? Absolutely every possible route. The current supposedly pro-Amtrak administration needs to step up and change this, but I don't see it happening.

Tadman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:25 am Even on the longer corridors people fly between endpoints such as Chicago and Detroit but gladly travel from midpoints to endpoints. ON corridors, I think more frequencies and less emphasis on connections with LD trains would drive ridership.

Exactly. People in Jackson or Battle Creek who need to go to Chicago are more concerned with a choice of arrival times at Chicago than with connections for points beyond. (That's the historical reason why so many trains terminated at Chicago in the first place; that's where most of their passengers were going.) There has to be a choice of departure times (preferably without the need for advance reservations), and the shorter the journey time the greater the frequency needs to be; nobody's going to wait longer for the next train than the trip itself is going to take.

A national rail passenger network doesn't require a whole lot of transcontinental trains. A functioning system of corridor trains over connected regional routes meets a national need.