City of New Orleans train in jeopardy.

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Have you been under a rock recently? The budget has already been discussed in at least two threads.
 
There was a news story about the possibility of this train going away due to budget cuts. http://m.fox8live.com/wvuefox8/db_354681/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=jOW3DVcQ
Trump and Ryan are cutting Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion to eliminate ALL long distance!!
Don't worry, according to the people who voted these yahoos into office it's just a "bargaining chip" and Amtrak will continue to be funded at roughly the same levels no matter what. The fact that both sides of the "bargain" are targeting the same cuts doesn't seem to phase them in the slightest. Although losing one or more long distance routes would suck at least it would shut up the clueless hypocrites who keep pretending there are no serious consequences for repeatedly electing anti-rail politicians.
 
Maybe there is a secret plan to re-introduce coal burning steam locomotives, given Trump's climate change outlook?

These folk just need to try harder to make life worse for us all...

Ed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well when i was in America earlier this year, during our loxton america by rail vacation 2017, i had an amazing time riding that fathers magic carpet made of steel!

it was amazing rolling along through the marshland of the deep south of america then through the missisippi darkness..
 
I am one of the "clueless hypocrites" who voted for politicians that are trying to cut the budget. I do think Trump couldn't care less about Amtrak one way or the other. Think tanks obsess about zeroing out its budget and that gets translated to several politicians that would zero it out as well. But there are tons of GOP Senators and Representatives that are elected by voters that rely on Amtrak. And those GOP pols know where there bread is buttered. Amtrak will in all likelihood get pretty much the same funding under Trump as under Obama, if rail passengers stick up for their transportation choice. Call your representative and let them know how you feel.

That having been said, if Amtrak LD train funding gets zeroed out, I would be disappointed but I would still vote GOP in the next election because Amtrak is a nice option to have but it is about 15th or 20th on the list of things that shape my vote. I love train travel but America is about more than my love of trains.

Amtrak just isn't that important.

There was a news story about the possibility of this train going away due to budget cuts. http://m.fox8live.com/wvuefox8/db_354681/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=jOW3DVcQ
Trump and Ryan are cutting Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion to eliminate ALL long distance!!
Don't worry, according to the people who voted these yahoos into office it's just a "bargaining chip" and Amtrak will continue to be funded at roughly the same levels no matter what. The fact that both sides of the "bargain" are targeting the same cuts doesn't seem to phase them in the slightest. Although losing one or more long distance routes would suck at least it would shut up the clueless hypocrites who keep pretending there are no serious consequences for repeatedly electing anti-rail politicians.
 
I agree as important as Amtrak is it's not in the top ten. Social security, healthcare, education are all more important to name a few and the Republicans want to destroy those programs as well. Facts are facts the current version of the GOP has a very anti middle class agenda. Sad for the wealthiest country in the world. We are light years behind the rest of the world on almost level.
 
Which industrialized countries, if any, on the planet do not have a national passenger train service?
There also aren't many countries with the square miles the US has. Canada's train system isn't any better than the US's. China obviously has a better system but could that be in part by Communism? France is about the size of Texas. A train system serving Texas (or California) alone would be much cheaper than funding trains through 48 states. California's economy I believe matches up well with many other countries.
 
Which industrialized countries, if any, on the planet do not have a national passenger train service?
There also aren't many countries with the square miles the US has. Canada's train system isn't any better than the US's. China obviously has a better system but could that be in part by Communism? France is about the size of Texas. A train system serving Texas (or California) alone would be much cheaper than funding trains through 48 states. California's economy I believe matches up well with many other countries.
Argentina does have a passenger train system, but it has been heavily decimated and at present isn't even contiguous any more. There are some lines that you can only reach by riding a bus. There are also trains that run as little as once a week. Many sections are torturously slow because the track are in poor condition. Fares are kept artificially low because many riders are very poor, but this means the system loses heaps of money and makes it open to all sorts of attacks.

With a lot of new equipment coming in from China lately, quality has improved somewhat, but until recently most services were being run with trains that were well beyond their economic lifespan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quite frankly I do not buy into the hysteria that I hear about Amtrak eliminating routes. A good many of the LD trains pass through states that have little transportation options. A good many are "red" states. Politicians are often irrational but they are not stupid. The current administration and congress cannot survive without support from those Western States. IMO, no Amtrak routes will be eliminated but we could see fares rising to put Amtrak at the break even point. If that happens this will impact ridership and put things back to square one. If you disagree with this analysis, please feel free to remind me how I was wrong after the final budget is set
 
Which industrialized countries, if any, on the planet do not have a national passenger train service?
You don't have to look far. Mexico has not had a national passenger service since the privatization of NdeM and the sale of its railroad system to companies including Kansas City Southern. I believe the only true passenger train left in the country is the one through a scenic canyon in the northern part of the company. There might be some commuter service in Mexico City and Mexico City does have an extensive heavy rail subway system, but no inter-city service.

I also believe Brazil only has a fragmented passenger system.
 
There was a news story about the possibility of this train going away due to budget cuts.

http://m.fox8live.com/wvuefox8/db_354681/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=jOW3DVcQ
That's a pretty good story for local TV news, and very good for Fox. LOL.

++++++++++

New Orleans and Amtrak are at a pivot point in their relationship.

As soon as enuff dollars and equipment can be lined up, New Orleans is in line to gain, in effect, a fourth train (after the Crescent, CONO, Sunset Ltd) with restored service along the Gulf Coast to Florida.

The same study that came up with the plan to connect to Orlando by extending the CONO also proposed an overlapping short corridor train New Orleans-Gulfport (casino coast) Biloxi-Mobile. They would work together, with the EB Florida train leaving NOLA around 5 p.m., and WB arriving NOLA at 9 the next morning. The EB corridor train would leave NOLA in the morning, returning WB from Mobile in the evening. So, two trains each way, with commuter service and possible same-day, go-and-return trips to the cities at the corridor's ends.

Meanwhile, the same outfit, Southern Rail Commission recently secured grants to build or restore stations in Baton Rouge and two stops en route to NOLA. That would make sense if that corridor had any passenger trains, but at this time it doesn't! It only makes sense if someone seriously believes that passenger trains are coming and the stations will be needed.

Linking the Baton Rouge metro with 835,00 residents to a corridor with New Orleans (metro population 1,269,000), Gulfport-Biloxi (pop 392,000) and Mobile (metro pop 415,000) gives a solid market to draw from. btw Louisiana doesn't really have a beach; the coastline is marshy. The closest good beaches are on the Mississippi and Alabama shores.

In a few years, when the Texas Eagle combines with the Sunset Ltd at San Antonio to go daily to L.A., a Sunset Shuttle will run NOLA-Houston-San Antonio, another heavily populated route.

At the present juncture, riding from, say, Jacksonville to San Antonio, or L.A., requires an "overnight connection" in NOLA. Not everyone is up for spending 23 hours in any place, not even the Big Easy. But the WB Florida train will arrive at 9:30 a.m., while the Sunset Shuttle departs at 9 a.m. LOL.

A solution to the "overnight connection" is simple (not cheap) and another example that the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.

First, the NOLA-Schriever (for Houma)-New Iberia-Lafayette-Lake Charles-Beaumont-Houston-San Antonio segment needs a big speed up in any case. The Sunset currently takes 15 hours and averages less than 40 mph. Getting that speed up to 50 mph would allow the WB Sunset Shuttle to depart after[/i] the Florida train arrives, allowing an easy connection. Or the tracks Mobile-NOLA could be upgraded to allow the Florida train to arrive earlier. Or both.

 

It will depend on whether any, and which of, the states (Texas, LA, MS, AL) are willing to invest in better infrastructure. Another frequency or three on this corridor would help to justify the capital investment. (Plenty of Horizon cars can be used here.) Four round trips would require an operating subsidy, but also make good connections to the CONO and the Crescent, and give good times at San Antonio. Meanwhile, I haven't yet worked out the EB "overnight connection" problem, LOL, but I think the solution involves the four daily round trips.

 

On a related note, the Southern Rail Commission plans to push for a extension of the Crescent to break off at Meridian, MS, then Jackson-Monroe-Ruston-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth. (Shreveport's casinos serve the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex, so that segment will have heavy ridership for sure.) Adding this second line and end-points to the Crescent would greatly help the imbalance of ridership on the southern section (ATL-NOLA) vs the northern section (ATL-NEC).

 

That Dallas line would not connect to Baton Rouge and NOLA at first. But say 10 years down the line, a new train could go NOLA-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Natchitoches (we need this wonderful name in the national system)-Shreveport-Longview-Dallas-Ft Worth-(and beyond?).

 

Any Baton Rouge corridor train, the daily Sunset Shuttle to Houston and San Antonio, and the Shreveport-Nachitoches-Alexandria-Baton Rouge-NOLA train would feed connections to/from the Crescent, again helping with the imbalance of northern/southern segment ridership on that LD train.

 

Taken together, these new and improved routes would make NOLA a second Amtrak hub, while greatly improving service not only to Louisiana but to under-served Texas as well.

 

Alternatively, the haters could kill all the LD trains and shift the fixed overhead onto the NEC and state-supported corridor trains, in the end leaving New Orleans bereft of passenger trains.
 
Quite frankly I do not buy into the hysteria that I hear about Amtrak eliminating routes. A good many of the LD trains pass through states that have little transportation options. A good many are "red" states. Politicians are often irrational but they are not stupid. The current administration and congress cannot survive without support from those Western States. IMO, no Amtrak routes will be eliminated but we could see fares rising to put Amtrak at the break even point. If that happens this will impact ridership and put things back to square one. If you disagree with this analysis, please feel free to remind me how I was wrong after the final budget is set
They could always cut eastern routes to save money. Sure it doesn't make sense but when has Amtrak ever made cuts that made sense? It's not like they've cut a more successful train and kept a less successful one.
 
Which industrialized countries, if any, on the planet do not have a national passenger train service?
There also aren't many countries with the square miles the US has.
Can I introduce you to Russia? 7-10 days between Moscow and Vladivostok and multiple trains running? And an extensive network linking virtually if not all every major city?
 
Quite frankly I do not buy into the hysteria that I hear about Amtrak eliminating routes. A good many of the LD trains pass through states that have little transportation options. A good many are "red" states. Politicians are often irrational but they are not stupid. The current administration and congress cannot survive without support from those Western States. IMO, no Amtrak routes will be eliminated but we could see fares rising to put Amtrak at the break even point. If that happens this will impact ridership and put things back to square one. If you disagree with this analysis, please feel free to remind me how I was wrong after the final budget is set
They could always cut eastern routes to save money. Sure it doesn't make sense but when has Amtrak ever made cuts that made sense? It's not like they've cut a more successful train and kept a less successful one.
It's again a matter of support them all or you lose them all. You don't want to set a precedent that allows cuts to be made to add services. The best solution is to get more equipment and expand from there. Besides wouldn't philly lose from pulling east coast service?
 
It's again a matter of support them all or you lose them all. You don't want to set a precedent that allows cuts to be made to add services. The best solution is to get more equipment and expand from there. Besides wouldn't philly lose from pulling east coast service?
Never said I wanted it, I'm saying it's happened in the past.
 
So the negotiations by Ryan and the Anti-Amtrak House members start with Ryan proposing eliminating the entire almost $1.6B verses the pro-Amtrak members who hopefully are starting with increasing the allocation. Who is the more powerful? Looking at the Healthcare battle that just occurred, Ryan & Co. are not that powerful. What is the path of least resistance? Leave it the same and discuss next year. Isn't that how Congress seems to operate? First of all, I wouldn't give in offering up something to be cut. In a previous battle, I remember it was all or nothing. When Amtrak started the shutting down procedures, Congress started getting nervous that they would have a major PR nightmare, because nothing meant so much more than the 30M plus passengers, but also all the local operations that do not go into that count. Congress backed away when Amtrak stood firm with all or nothing.
 
Canada and Australia are large peer countries. Both countries have corridors, but are down to one or two high-cost weekly long distance trains. Probably the future of Amtrak if there is bipartisan support of NEC liberals and the Tea Party to reduce costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top