New Routes?

[Joel N. Weber II]

What's really needed is cooperation on both sides, along with some solid Federal contributions to both sides. That allows for new track on the freight side, to handle the increased services, and it allows for new equipment on the Amtrak side to increase service on existing routes, as well as to start up new services.

I've also found myself wondering if the attitudes towards long term investment of the freight railroad are a significant factor.

IIRC, the BNSF annual report talks about the need to balance capital investments against short term cash flow. What if most of the BNSF investors are choosing a price they're willing to pay for a share of BNSF based on the assumption that BNSF isn't really ever going to make long term investments, and what if Warren Buffet is buying up BNSF stock seeing the potential for how much money Berkshire Hathaway could be making off the BNSF right of way 20 years from now if Berkshire Hathaway buys up the whole railroad and starts investing major amounts of money in adding more tracks along the existing right of way? (I haven't quite gotten far enough along in investigating ths to figure out whether Berkshire Hathaway has enough money in the bank to add another track along, say, the entire Empire Builder route, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. And then there's the question of which mainlines have space for additional tracks, but I suspect most do.)

 

[daveyb99]

I might add this:

Rather than split the Texas Eagle #421/#422 in San Antonio to join #1/#2, make that split in Fort Worth. The new route would to west to rejoin in El Paso The route is mileage shorter, and there is plenty of time to make the connection.

Equipment is the problem. There is one through Sleeper and Coach now. I see the need for another coach, one Trans sleeper, one diner and one Sightseer, plus one or two engines as needed. Of course, it is only three days per week. --- and more crew.

 

[meatpuff]

I've also found myself wondering if the attitudes towards long term investment of the freight railroad are a significant factor.
IIRC, the BNSF annual report talks about the need to balance capital investments against short term cash flow. What if most of the BNSF investors are choosing a price they're willing to pay for a share of BNSF based on the assumption that BNSF isn't really ever going to make long term investments, and what if Warren Buffet is buying up BNSF stock seeing the potential for how much money Berkshire Hathaway could be making off the BNSF right of way 20 years from now if Berkshire Hathaway buys up the whole railroad and starts investing major amounts of money in adding more tracks along the existing right of way? (I haven't quite gotten far enough along in investigating ths to figure out whether Berkshire Hathaway has enough money in the bank to add another track along, say, the entire Empire Builder route, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. And then there's the question of which mainlines have space for additional tracks, but I suspect most do.)

Looking at BNSF's financial statements from last year, they did make massive capital investments in 2007, $2.2B, an amount larger even than their net profit of $1.8B. I have been reading around various places, including quotes from Alex Kummant (old UP railroader) that freight rail capital expenditures have been historically high and growing for the last few years. So they are putting a large amount of money into expanding.

But they still have plenty of money left over. You make it sound like BNSF is in a cash crunch, and that if only they had the money available they would lay a massive amount of track so they could make tons more money. But that doesn't appear to be the case. BNSF bought back $1.1B of its own stock last year as well. This means the company had $1.1B in cash laying around that it generated last year that it didn't care to pour back into capital expeditures. I.e. it easily had the cash to lay more track, but considered (in a sense) investing in its existing operations likely to return more on its money than expanding might. I might add they made this large stock repurchase on top of burning cash paying out a decent dividend.

So BNSF apparently doesn't see it the way you see it. You have to imagine they're afraid that the current run-up in commodities is just a bubble, and once that runs its course they would end up with loads of spare capacity that costs money to maintain. In other words back to the bad old days of, oh, 1965 to 2000. That, and Wall Street doesn't reward spare capacity. It admires generating as much sales or income using as little assets as possible, and BNSF must first serve its shareholders.

 

[Guest]

Well to go back to the original topic, I would restore the old City of Los Angeles. Chicago to LA by way of Des Moines, Omaha, Las Vegas.

 

[jphjaxfl]

[Well to go back to the original topic, I would restore the old City of Los Angeles. Chicago to LA by way of Des Moines, Omaha, Las Vegas.]

The City of Los Angeles did not go through Des Moines. It operated via the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Omaha via Savannah, Illinois and Marion, Iowa from 1955 through 1971. Prior to 1971 it operated via the Chicago and Northwestern from Chicago to Omaha via Clinton and Cedar Rapids. Both routes were operated north of Des Moines.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

The problem is the freight railroads. Even if the entire national budget was dumped into Amtrak, I doubt it could do more than have some real great passenger cars with some expanded services along the Amtrak-owned routes. Freight railroads do NOT HAVE to cater to the federal government, even if the government "forces" them to, they can still drag out the process and tie it up in all sorts of legal red tape.

like UP for one. THEY HATE AMTRAK. if amtrak could gets lots of funding they could BUY the routes

 

[Walt]

The correct way for this to all have happen, is that Congress should own, maintain, and build new track. That's for both freight and passenger.

That would make trains on par with all other methods of transportation, where taxes are used for all the infrastructure. Airlines own their planes, not the airports. Truckers own their trucks, and not the roads (though they drive like they own the roads. ).

 

[Kramerica]

The correct way for this to all have happen, is that Congress should own, maintain, and build new track. That's for both freight and passenger.
That would make trains on par with all other methods of transportation, where taxes are used for all the infrastructure. Airlines own their planes, not the airports. Truckers own their trucks, and not the roads (though they drive like they own the roads. ).

I agree. That would truly put rail at a pretty even position with roads. To take it a step farther, if the tracks & stations were government owned, then there could be private operators of vehicles on that track, for both freight and rail. The equivalent of the FAA would control the dispatching. Passenger rail might become profitable then and we'd see private operators. Amtrak may still be needed to have a uniform reservation system, but maybe not.

 

[WICT106]

Under the current US Constitution, anything along the lines of a proposal to nationalize the railroad lines would promptly be met with demands from the stockholders and private RR's for Just And Fair Compensation for the taking of private property. It would cost in the multiple billions of dollars in order to accomplish this - and the stockholders would be vigorously howling in their demands for financial compensation.

 

[JohnF]

The correct way for this to all have happen, is that Congress should own, maintain, and build new track. That's for both freight and passenger.
That would make trains on par with all other methods of transportation, where taxes are used for all the infrastructure. Airlines own their planes, not the airports. Truckers own their trucks, and not the roads (though they drive like they own the roads. ).

I agree. That would truly put rail at a pretty even position with roads. To take it a step farther, if the tracks & stations were government owned, then there could be private operators of vehicles on that track, for both freight and rail. The equivalent of the FAA would control the dispatching. Passenger rail might become profitable then and we'd see private operators. Amtrak may still be needed to have a uniform reservation system, but maybe not.

This is nothing more than an appeal for European style socialism which I would oppose. We have the best and most efficient freight rail system in the world and the only one that makes money. No passenger rail system makes money. If the feds want to enhance certain routes and pay what it costs to run premium service level trains then the privately owned railroads would be glad to accomodate them and would run the trains much better and more efficiently than any quasi govt agency could. Right now Amtrak does not pay for more than just mediocre accomodation service, but expects premium service. Perhaps the way to go for the future is to turn operation of passenger trains outside the NE corridor over to the privately owned railroads and pay them to run them. Amtrak has been in existance for over 37 years now and it is still a mess. If you want to make passenger trains competitive financially, then start charging tolls for interstate highway use, raise the gasoline tax and make the airlines pay for their airports, air traffic controllers and other perks the feds provide for free. Take the NE corridor and make it stand alone as a separate operation. In case you haven't noticed the Europeans are abandoning government operated passenger trains just as fast as they can. They still maintain the infrastructure(but their infrastructure is mostly passenger oriented) but outsource the operation of trains. They also charge a lot more per mile than any US trains charge and their gasoline taxes are in the $4-5 per gallon range vs our pennies a gallon. In other words there is a huge huge difference between Europe and the US when it comes to how railroads are financed and operated. If passenger trains are so necessary and so efficient and convenient then the free market will take over and provide the service.

 

[haolerider]

The correct way for this to all have happen, is that Congress should own, maintain, and build new track. That's for both freight and passenger.
That would make trains on par with all other methods of transportation, where taxes are used for all the infrastructure. Airlines own their planes, not the airports. Truckers own their trucks, and not the roads (though they drive like they own the roads. ).

I agree. That would truly put rail at a pretty even position with roads. To take it a step farther, if the tracks & stations were government owned, then there could be private operators of vehicles on that track, for both freight and rail. The equivalent of the FAA would control the dispatching. Passenger rail might become profitable then and we'd see private operators. Amtrak may still be needed to have a uniform reservation system, but maybe not.

This is nothing more than an appeal for European style socialism which I would oppose. We have the best and most efficient freight rail system in the world and the only one that makes money. No passenger rail system makes money. If the feds want to enhance certain routes and pay what it costs to run premium service level trains then the privately owned railroads would be glad to accomodate them and would run the trains much better and more efficiently than any quasi govt agency could. Right now Amtrak does not pay for more than just mediocre accomodation service, but expects premium service. Perhaps the way to go for the future is to turn operation of passenger trains outside the NE corridor over to the privately owned railroads and pay them to run them. Amtrak has been in existance for over 37 years now and it is still a mess. If you want to make passenger trains competitive financially, then start charging tolls for interstate highway use, raise the gasoline tax and make the airlines pay for their airports, air traffic controllers and other perks the feds provide for free. Take the NE corridor and make it stand alone as a separate operation. In case you haven't noticed the Europeans are abandoning government operated passenger trains just as fast as they can. They still maintain the infrastructure(but their infrastructure is mostly passenger oriented) but outsource the operation of trains. They also charge a lot more per mile than any US trains charge and their gasoline taxes are in the $4-5 per gallon range vs our pennies a gallon. In other words there is a huge huge difference between Europe and the US when it comes to how railroads are financed and operated. If passenger trains are so necessary and so efficient and convenient then the free market will take over and provide the service.

All well and good, but you must remember that the "free market" begged to get out of the passenger rail business 37 years ago and if this market is so anxious to get back into the business they will do so, but I fail to see anyone rushing to the table to negotiate for Amtrak routes - without a federal subsidy. you mention that Amtrak is still a mess, but I would argue that given the costs to run passenger service, versus the fares that the market will bear and the limited subsidies provided by the government it is quite amazing that Amtrak still exists at all.

You indicate that Amtrak is looking for premium service, but only willing to pay for mediocre service. If I am correct, there is still a requirement for the freight railroads to give priority access to the passenger rail service, but the reality is that since the freights own/control/dispatch the tracks, no matter what bonus payment Amtrak is willing to pay, the freights make more money by moving their own equipment and shipments.

I don't agree with the idea that the government should take over the tracks or dispatching, but there has to be a middle ground to allow for mutual existance of both passenger and freight traffic on the railroad.

 

[JohnF]

This is nothing more than an appeal for European style socialism which I would oppose. We have the best and most efficient freight rail system in the world and the only one that makes money. No passenger rail system makes money. If the feds want to enhance certain routes and pay what it costs to run premium service level trains then the privately owned railroads would be glad to accomodate them and would run the trains much better and more efficiently than any quasi govt agency could. Right now Amtrak does not pay for more than just mediocre accomodation service, but expects premium service. Perhaps the way to go for the future is to turn operation of passenger trains outside the NE corridor over to the privately owned railroads and pay them to run them. Amtrak has been in existance for over 37 years now and it is still a mess. If you want to make passenger trains competitive financially, then start charging tolls for interstate highway use, raise the gasoline tax and make the airlines pay for their airports, air traffic controllers and other perks the feds provide for free. Take the NE corridor and make it stand alone as a separate operation. In case you haven\'t noticed the Europeans are abandoning government operated passenger trains just as fast as they can. They still maintain the infrastructure(but their infrastructure is mostly passenger oriented) but outsource the operation of trains. They also charge a lot more per mile than any US trains charge and their gasoline taxes are in the $4-5 per gallon range vs our pennies a gallon. In other words there is a huge huge difference between Europe and the US when it comes to how railroads are financed and operated. If passenger trains are so necessary and so efficient and convenient then the free market will take over and provide the service.

All well and good, but you must remember that the \"free market\" begged to get out of the passenger rail business 37 years ago and if this market is so anxious to get back into the business they will do so, but I fail to see anyone rushing to the table to negotiate for Amtrak routes - without a federal subsidy. you mention that Amtrak is still a mess, but I would argue that given the costs to run passenger service, versus the fares that the market will bear and the limited subsidies provided by the government it is quite amazing that Amtrak still exists at all.

You indicate that Amtrak is looking for premium service, but only willing to pay for mediocre service. If I am correct, there is still a requirement for the freight railroads to give priority access to the passenger rail service, but the reality is that since the freights own/control/dispatch the tracks, no matter what bonus payment Amtrak is willing to pay, the freights make more money by moving their own equipment and shipments.

I don\'t agree with the idea that the government should take over the tracks or dispatching, but there has to be a middle ground to allow for mutual existance of both passenger and freight traffic on the railroad.

Well I have to agree with you on that point....it IS amazing that Amtrak still exists. I am not against passenger rail, in fact quite the opposite. I am just wondering out loud if it isn\'t time to try a different approach and welcome your discussion on that. I really don\'t think the freight railroads deliberately stab Amtrak even though we have seen posts to that effect. I believe that they are just so choked with traffic they have a problem dispatching passenger trains in a most efficient manner. If all your sidings are full or your double track rr is bumper to bumper is is really impossible to run Amtrak around a bunch of other trains. They have to just mosey along with the crowd until an opportunity comes along to make a pass. If you have ridden Amtrak anywhere except the NE corridor you can see examples of this all the time. I have to give CN credit, when I took the Canadian last May they managed to keep it pretty much on time inspite of heavy traffic in both directions. Many times though we had to take the siding as the opposing trains were just too long to do so. It really worked out better anyway as the long heavy freights did not have to stop and take the siding which would have created much delay for them and us. Once they passed we could easily make up the time.

 

[puck71]

Extension of the Heartland Flyer north to KC and eventually to Minneapolis/St Paul and south to San Antonio.

I second this. I think it's a glaring hole (admittedly among many glaring holes on the Amtrak route map) not having a North-South route through the middle of the country (Dallas-KC-Minneapolis would be the biggest stops). Supposedly some of this is underway, but connecting all the way to MSP would be great.

 

[JohnF]

Extension of the Heartland Flyer north to KC and eventually to Minneapolis/St Paul and south to San Antonio.

I second this. I think it's a glaring hole (admittedly among many glaring holes on the Amtrak route map) not having a North-South route through the middle of the country (Dallas-KC-Minneapolis would be the biggest stops). Supposedly some of this is underway, but connecting all the way to MSP would be great.

The other long distance glaring hole is Dallas/FW to Denver. Plus still no service between Houston and Dallas.....a natural HS corridor.

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

I vote for the Midwest Flyer, the Pelican or the Tennessean continuing as the Choctaw or Oklahoman to Denver, the Southwind alternating with the Floridian extension of the HOOSIER STATE and continuing as the Fast Flying Virginian alternating with the CARDINAL for daily service on that route, the Shoshoni alternating with the El Pasoan, the Gulf Wind and TEXAS EAGLE alternating with the SUNSET LIMITED (restored east of New Orleans) for daily service on that route, the Idahoan and the Utahn. At any rate, all through trains need to depart at 6:31pm and arrive at 6:31am about every 300 miles from origin to destination.

I agree that AMTRAK must pull itself up. In order to ensure that AMTRAK can fund it's own renaissance rather than beg unsympathetic politicians or their supporters, replace non-revenue dining and lounge cars (I, too, love the diners and lounges) with a carry-out cafe compartment on the sleeper next to the coaches, partitioned from the rest of the car by a door, for coach class and one on the next sleeper for sleeping car class. Perhaps offer coach compartment seating and shower privileges on half of each coach for double coach fare. Sell a minimum of 68 inside advertisement spaces along top of insides of each revenue car at coach fare rates per trip and a minimum of 34 outside ads on all cars at sleeper compartment rates. Charge a reasonable rate for baggage and express enough, along with advertising, to cover the cost of such cars-- including strictly regulated carriage of pets. Charge only uniform fares, being the fraction of the cost of each train of the entire cost of AMTRAK's operation, including the full cost of operating on host railroad tracks, divided by the number of passenger spaces per train and the number of stations departed. Charge quadruple coach fares for roomettes and eight times for rooms. Charge fares only per party booked together, regardless the number of passengers per party, not per passenger (driving divides the cost of travel by the number of passengers, current pricing of fares multiplies the cost of train travel by the number in a party traveling together).

Taking AMTRAK's public statements of its revenues and expenses, these reforms could garner enough revenue to put AMTRAK on a course towards equipment and service increases. Certainly, any increases in revenue need to go toward increasing routes, capacity and compensation to host railroads, not bureacracy.

 

[AlanB]

I agree that AMTRAK must pull itself up. In order to ensure that AMTRAK can fund it's own renaissance rather than beg unsympathetic politicians or their supporters, replace non-revenue dining and lounge cars (I, too, love the diners and lounges)

Amtrak last year got $1.3 Billion in subsidies last year and is looking for $1.7 or so this year IIRC. The losses on all food service cars was just over $100 Million two years ago, and I read somewhere once that a little more than half of that loss came from the short haul runs, not the long distance runs. So dropping the diners isn't going to do much to help the bottom line, a point that Congress didn't understand when they passed the legislation that ordered Amtrak to cut food service losses.

And of course with SDS and other programs, Amtrak has already cut that $100 Million down. So dropping diners and lounges isn't going to do much to help make Amtrak profitable. And profitability isn't an achievable goal anyway IMHO. At best, Amtrak with enough routes, proper management, and the gradually changing mindset of Americans, can achieve is to cover its operating expenses. That would be a laudable goal IMHO. But they'll always need help to cover the capitol expenses no matter what.

 

[Guest_George Harris_*]

Much as I would like to see restoration of the Tennessean and several others on the list, it is not worth doing without major speed-up. I know I have more round trips by rail on the Tennessean between Memphis and Knoxville than any other route, and it was a nice overnight ride, but, even by the mid-1960's, Trailways could beat its time by 2 hours. With I-40 giving you a drive time of about 6 hours, there is no way that a train taking 11 hours can compete. That extends to the entire Memphis to Washington route, as well.

The Tennessean took about 24 hours end to end covering about 925 miles, giving it an average of something like 38 mph. I just don't see it having any ridership with that sort of run time. If the run time could be gotten down to something in the 15 to 18 hour range, in other words a 50 mph to 60 mph average, then it might be worth doing, but that would require major realignments in the Appalachian portion, which means a lot of the route.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I have had discussions with members of congress on expansion of Amtrak routes. All of them seem to think that expansions of service will be the development of corridor routes where states paricipate in the funding of service along with the federal government's participation. This would include funding for Equipment and rail capcity expansion. The Amtrak California model that has seemed to work. Two or more states could form a coalition such as Midwest HSR if they wanted to develop a longer distance route. Getting mutiple states to agree may be difficult. Some states like Illinois and North Carolina are way ahead with their development planning but some states with larger populations have even started. Florida is a good example. There are 4 major population centers that would be perfect for corridor service in addition to expanded long distance service from outside the state. Florida voters approved a high speed rail plan a number of years ago, but the political machine was approved to get voters to un approve it by creating myths and non truths about what would happen. Most people in 2008 have no concept about what passenger rail is so they are easily influenced that it is not good.

In 25 years from now, I don't foresee an Amtrak or passenger rail system that will be like the 1950s including trains like the Tennessean and South Wind. It will likely be a national system of existing routes with a few additions or deletions, but a great many corridor routes with frequent service such as

Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Charlotte-Atlanta, Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta and many others where cities and states work with Amtrak and the freight railroads to develop routes.

 

[Tony]

The losses on all food service cars was just over $100 Million two years ago, and I read somewhere once that a little more than half of that loss came from the short haul runs, not the long distance runs. So dropping the diners isn't going to do much to help the bottom line, a point that Congress didn't understand when they passed the legislation that ordered Amtrak to cut food service losses.

Does anyone know why Amtrak looses so much money on food service? Their prices for food and drinks seem to be on the high side. High enough that a stationary land diner could make money. Why can't Amtrak?

Is there some unusual, and rather major, expense that Amtrak has, that a land diner doesn't have?

I had thought that the problem might be inappropriate or insucient transferring of enough money from the sleeper's revenue to the dining car, for LD trains (especially when the LD train runs late and additional meals need to be served to sleeper passengers). However, if LD runs don't have a financial problem, that can't be it.

I am in agreement, that a solution can't be found until the root cause is well known. Crippling the dining car's service level and quality, can't be the right thing to do.

 

[AlanB]

The losses on all food service cars was just over $100 Million two years ago, and I read somewhere once that a little more than half of that loss came from the short haul runs, not the long distance runs. So dropping the diners isn't going to do much to help the bottom line, a point that Congress didn't understand when they passed the legislation that ordered Amtrak to cut food service losses.

Does anyone know why Amtrak looses so much money on food service? Their prices for food and drinks seem to be on the high side. High enough that a stationary land diner could make money. Why can't Amtrak?

Is there some unusual, and rather major, expense that Amtrak has, that a land diner doesn't have?

Sure, lots of them. They have to pay to overnight the crews, they have to pay higher salaries than a land diner in order to attract workers, the cars are more expensive to maintain, food has to be constantly loaded on and then off loaded, just to name a few. And then there is the expense of a late running train that now has to provide more meals that originally intended and covered by the sleeper fares.

I had thought that the problem might be inappropriate or insucient transferring of enough money from the sleeper's revenue to the dining car, for LD trains (especially when the LD train runs late and additional meals need to be served to sleeper passengers). However, if LD runs don't have a financial problem, that can't be it.

I didn't say that the LD's didn't have some losses, and it might well be attributable to a failure to transfer enough sleeper money to cover the expenses. I don't know that that's true, but it is one thing that people have speculated about for years. But I'm betting that some of the other reasons above also contribute, if they aren't the sole reason.

I am in agreement, that a solution can't be found until the root cause is well known. Crippling the dining car's service level and quality, can't be the right thing to do.

Even if one finds the root cause of food service losses, who cares? I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood. A loss of $100 M is meaningless and a mere drop in the bucket when one is looking for $1.7 Billion to plug a hole in the budget.

 

[Walt]

Even if one finds the root cause of food service losses, who cares? I'm reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike trying to hold back the flood. A loss of $100 M is meaningless and a mere drop in the bucket when one is looking for $1.7 Billion to plug a hole in the budget.

Well, I care.

I care because without knowing what the true cause is, it appears to me that both Amtrak and Congress are guessing and taking "pot shots". And taking actions based on those guesses which are missing the target. I have personally seen how the "dining car experience" has declined over just the past few years, because of the cut backs Amtrak has taken. I don't think those cut backs have really reduced the food service's losses, at least not enough to out weigh the loss of the experience.

I am worried that pretty soon, the LD dining car experience will echo what use to be the coach airline food experience. One choice (ok, plus the veggie/kosher/diet alternate), on a small plastic microwave tray with a spork. You know, a diner roll size sandwich for super, and a package of two crackers as your side. Desert? One chocolate mint.

A loss of $100M might be meaningless, but it is that loss which is getting a significant attention.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

We have the best and most efficient freight rail system in the world and the only one that makes money.

I suspect part of the reason the freight rail system makes money is that the less profitable freight hauling is handed off to the Interstate Highway system. It's quite possible that we're penny wise and pound foolish in letting that happen.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Under the current US Constitution, anything along the lines of a proposal to nationalize the railroad lines would promptly be met with demands from the stockholders and private RR's for Just And Fair Compensation for the taking of private property. It would cost in the multiple billions of dollars in order to accomplish this - and the stockholders would be vigorously howling in their demands for financial compensation.

If we were going to nationalize the freight tracks, one way we could do it would be to pass a law that left each freight railroad with two options:

1) Continue to be private.

2) Give the track and associated land to the US government in exchange for rights to operate however many trains they'd been operating over that track each day at a fixed trackage fee that would be linked to inflation. The US government would be responsible for all maintenance, and if the track condition was improved or tracks added, the US government could then sell the rights to operate trains using that added capacity to any other railroad.

The only reason for a railroad to favor 2 would be if the trackage fees would cost less than the maintenance, though. And there may well be some subtle flaws in that scheme such that it ought to be refined further before carrying it out.

 

[Guest_timetableflagman_*]

It is the cost of a non-revenue car such as the diner and lounge that is expensive. That's especially so if just compensation is paid to the host railroad for use of their tracks. By the way, meals should not be complementary as with First Class. Today's clientele are accustomed to fast food and eating out of their laps in their autos and trucks. If anything, the "forced" sit-down meals on the relatively fancy dining car (which I think is the gem and the jewel of passenger train service) is somewhat wasted on today's culture. Indeed, the usual approach to modern passenger trains is that of the 1950's. That is what is unusable and unaffordable.

I don't advocate shoddy or unsatisfactory service. On the contrary. I advocate frugal, efficient and sufficient service that only meets today's expectations and the desires of the majority of the traveling public-- not the whishful wants of us railfans.

Unless we railfans are able and willing to foot the entire bill for our rather 1950's-style luxurious "dinner and cocktail nostalgia photo-op excursion" trains arguably foisted as national railroad passenger service, we really shouldn't expect the government to coerce tax money from hard working taxpayers to finance trains that those workers can't even effectively use because the trains leave in the middle of the work day and arrive too late in the day for anything except a night's layover and another day for the purpose of the trip and yet another for return departure. An hour or two or even a few here or there in daytime arrival time makes no difference if the overall unnecessary loss of a day's or even more work time is effected.

Comparing rail travel to driving or flying ignores the advantages of conventional-speed and stunts the eventual success, usability, affordability and sustainability of future high-speed rail. By using nighttime sleeping car travel (especially if through-car service is provided to prevent the need to wake in order to change connecting trains), nights can be used for travel time, effectively reducing the number of days needed for travel by train and even allowing for slower, more freight-compatible speeds for passenger trains.

Seasoned rail travelers usually don't have trouble sleeping on trains. Many actually find the usually gentle motion and relative quiet of sleeping car travel to be rather sleep-inducing, after their initial wide-eyed expectations of something uncustomary. The transition from an automotive and aviation culture back to a rail culture, albeit with today's amenities such as laptops, cellphones, etc., is possibly the major element necessary for the renaissance of rail passenger service. Having good, usable trains to board and discover prvides that element.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Even when private railroads operated passenger trains in the US and the passenger trains made a small profit, the dining cars or other food service cars did not cover expenses. In the days before dining cars, trains would have meal stops along the route at hotels with dining rooms or restaurants that catered to rail passengers. The meals were usually rushed and stopping for 30 minutes to an hour for a meal is not very efficient in getting to one's destination. I think dining and lounge car service is absolutely necessary on medium and long distance trains to allow passengers to dine and enjoy a relaxed beverage while they travel to their destination. As others have pointed out, dining cars or lounges cannot be compared to regular restaurants or bars. The staff must be trained in safety of passengers as well cook and serve meals as the train moves. I think Amtrak has cut all the excess out of food and bar service. Any more cuts will keep passengers from traveling again. Many members of Congress involved in providing funding for Amtrak including food service have no clue as to what food service on trains is like or what its needed. Many of them think of airplane flights which with the exceptions of international flights or flights to Hawaii are 3-4 hours and airlines have been able to cut out most of the food sevice. The same philosphy does not work for passenger trains.