Intercity rail and bus industries

[Allen Dee]

The Great Depression severely hurt both of these industries. The tremendous growth of passenger volume during World War II overwhelmed both industries.

After the war, both industries experienced heavily declining ridership. What was the cause of this?

During the war, military personnel were usually transported by bus and/or train. The bus companies and railroads generally assigned their oldest equipment to military moves. After the war, many of these veterans vowed to never ride a bus or train again. The advent of the affordable automobile and improved highways furthered this decline.

Surplus military cargo aircraft were rapidly being converted to passenger airplanes. As a result, by the mid 1950s, the airlines surpassed both rail and bus for total passenger mileage; and this was well before the jet age.

The railroads responded by introducing more streamliners, many of which lasted into the Amtrak era. The bus industry responded similarly. GM offered its model PD-4104 in 1953. This was the first mass-produced intercity bus to offer air-ride suspension, and, to this day, it has never been surpassed in number of coaches produced. In 1954 Greyhound introduced the Scenicruiser (GM model PD-4501). A short time later Trailways came out with the Eagle coaches.

Then came the jet age. The first American-made pure-jet transport was the Boeing 707, but it came about because the USAF needed a faster aerial refueling tanker than the KC-97. The resulting KC-135 is actually the same airframe as a Boeing 720, a shorter-range version of the 707.

Next came the Interstate Highway System. Automobile drivers found an easier way to travel long distances. Trucking companies discovered this, too.

The intercity bus industry also realized they could offer express service over these new highways.

This became the bane of the railroad industry. They were losing freight to the trucking industry. They were also losing passeners to the airplane, the bus, and the private automobile.

Let's take a look at the system today: most of the airlines are in or near bankruptcy, the truck lines are the railroads' biggest customers, Greyhound is cutting service to many communities, and Amtrak is recording the highest passenger counts of all time.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Good points, all, Allan Dee.

I agree. I would list three big things: 1. improvements in roads, 2. improvements in air but also a third, the loss of the U. S. mail contract in the early or mid-60's. This caused the death of a lot of trains almost overnight. Remember, say, the Santa Fe R.R. , and that it trimmed its huge self down to its top 6 or 7 trains.

One point about streamlining---and also, diesels, and air conditioning and reclining seats....these things were just begiinning to be introduced before U.S. involvement in WW11. The plants had to stop making railroad equipment and start making products more directly war-related.

Thus, If only streamlining, and the items above, had been introduced about five years earlier and more of our military persons could have ridden around in roomettes, domes, air conditioning etc DURING THE WAR, then they would not have the memories of three tier un-air conditioned open window troop sleepers(which, come to think of it, had almost no windows) and the like.

I think the rails and the buses did the best they could with what they had. Imagine having to take box cars and convert them to three level bed-tiers troop sleepers. The idea was not to create a "bad" car but to create space at all. As it is, the military folks rode around in largely substandard equipment (as you said, the railroads and buses were overwhelmed with the war) and equated bad train and bus rides with the war, so of course they were starving for something brand new. But if only the war had come later, or streamlining, diesels, reclining seats, air conditioning, roomettes, domes etc had come earlier.....

Then there might have been a more favorable mindset to continue using the trains after the war. But, alas, it did not happen that way---it is just wishful thinking.

People today think of the romance of steam locomotives, and of course I buy into that, too, up to a degree. But combine steam, smoke, soot with open windows (due to lack of air conditioning) , going thruogh tunnels (they tried to announce tunnels ahead of time--but not with a p.a. system, not invented yet) and to close the windows.

Anyone who has ever taken a soft gentle delightful 3 or 4 hours voluntary steam excursion comes back home and has to shower his head three times, you know what I am talking about that. Imagine riding all around the country that way.

Off to fight a war. For their country. No wander they were ready for the open roads and the open skies, unfortunately.

Again, the raiilroads really did try. I have some old 40's timetables and believe it or not they encouraged the public NOT to travel for unnecssary reasons, so space would be available for troops. They also printed ads that made it plain that military ate first in the diner. Say it came 5 p.m. on a train en route---the soldiers ate first, then the civvies, around 7 or so whenever the fighting guys finished. Even in my lifetime I distinctly remember being on a train once in the early or mid-50's when a troop movement ate dinner first. I was starving, and too young to appreciate that.

How is this for a trivia question---- name the train which had the shortest lifespan of all. It was a train called the "Dixiana" put in service around Dec. 6 or so 1941 to run between Chicago and Miami. It had been in service about two days when Pearl Harbor was struck. It was a fancy winter only pullman train to carry the snow birds to Florida. It was discontined immedately so far as that the purpose went and its sleepers spread around the system to help our troops(guess they started calling them up immediately). Or mabye I am remembering that wrong---rmaybe it began in early Janaury of 1942 and after about two days the rairlroad realized it was needed elsewhere...anyway, I am certain for a fact that it only ran about two days so the equipment could be used for the troops exclusively.

The railroads were that willing to help all they could---they axed that luxuryliner dead in its tracks. The troops came first.

Too bad the troops didn't stay with us.

 

[Tanner929]

While the depression and changes in transportation dented the long distance trains it was the lack of infrastructure on the commuter lines. Anyone who remembers the last days of the PRR PC and New Haven Railroads how bad the railroads where. My dad (till his retirement) always caught the Metro North trains an hour earlier then he needed to because of the unreliability of the NH Railroad. Today the tracks and electrical systems need to be upgraded in heavy traffic areas this must be job one.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Where both Europe and Japan were rebuilt from scratch after WW-II (largely at U.S. expense), huge parts of the U.S. infrastructure still date from the 19th century. The U.S. was the only viable economy for decades after WW-II. Filling the world-wide power vacuum, our economy quickly dominated the world’s energy resources, which we squandered on inefficient energy distribution and transportation systems, and over-centralized production centers. We made the situation even worse social changes that eventually brought us, for example, laws that favor single-family housing and isolating that housing from shopping and employment areas – forcing everyone into cars. Continued prosperity (paid for with cheap energy) gave rise to the big cars and the big highways of the 1960s. Today, now that energy costs are hurting us, we see some really strange things like the rebuilding –from scratch and at enormous costs– intra-city rail systems that replace those torn down and replaced by highways in the late 1940s and early 1950s. We are victims of our own success.

 

[IceColdMintJulep]

I think one of the biggest detractors of bus travel today is the scum that ride them. Don't get me wrong, not everyone riding busses is bad news, but generally the cost was low and that was the only option for poorer folks that aren't the nicest people. My mother took the bus from SC to OK a couple of times in the last year or so and she has some real horror stories. I remember taking the bus alot as a kid. I have rode from CA to GA. I still remember some of the lowlifes that traveled then and I will do whatever it takes to avoid a bus. Southwest Airlines is having a similar problem, just watch the Airline show on Discovery and you will see what kind of people low low fares attract. Again not all are bad. I think Amtrak's biggest problem is being late. People today can't handle that. Unfortunatly some of them take it out on the crew and make a scene that is bad for everyone. I'd like to knock the crap out of some of them once and awhile. If the freight rr's could make Amtrak run on-time, people would be quite pleased with rail travel.

 

[saxman]

All make good points. Except I don't think Southwest Airlines atracts "low-lifes." It just because the show"Airline", on A&E, finds these people because they are the most interesting to film. There really aren't that many "low-lifes" that fly anyway. We see the same number of drunks and "scum" here at American Airlines too.

Yup people did take to the roads and the skies. Lots of money was poured into that, saying that was the way of the future. They didn't think about the consequenses of now 25% of the worlds oil usage, as well as pollution, and urban sprawl. What can I say, it's the American Dream. (not that there's anything wrong with that) Yet now that dream is starting to become more a hassle. Heavy traffic along major interstates, airlines cutting back the luxury services they once had. Safety, security, terrorism, long lines, bitter employees taking big pay cuts.... you name it.

Now we know, it can be fun to take road trips with friends in college, fly an airplane across the country to ski or lay on the beach, or I'll even take a bus if its under 4 or 5 hours. But there's that point, when gas gets above $2 a gallon, the airlines will be increasing fares for the same reason (even Southwest). Ahhh...what a nice ride on the train would be, where I read, and not worry about falling asleep on the road, while I enjoy my steak dinner in the diner car. Sounds like a deal to me!

Chris

 

[IceColdMintJulep]

No, not everybody on Southwest are lowlifes, but having traveled on other airlines, there is a distinct difference in clientel-at least from what I've seen. Greyhound is actually getting quite pricy and Southwest will attract more of that crowd making it a little worse. Southwest has the best flight attendents and maintenance though, which is nice.

 

[Tanner929]

Well you don't have to be rich to be courteous and respectful to fellow travelers. As I recall it was in the Business class of a British Airways flight where the investment banker got drunk and defecated on the beverage cart.

We all get fuzzy about the golden age of Train Travel or Airline travel but how many of us have the funds to travel. Deregulation in the late 70's allowed more of us to fly and see the world you don't have to pay for class you just have to act like you have it.