Durham57
Train Attendant
By all means, bring back the full route of Sunset Limited from Los Angeles to Florida!
Here is what the law says:Actually I agree with a lot of the points you make. But I would observe that providing solution for that problem was never Amtrak's charter and it is not today either. Amtrak's charter was to take the passenger trains off of the backs of the freight railroads, keep them running for a while and apparently slowly fade away. That charter has not changed, and the only thing that has happened is that Amtrak has survived against all odds, basically flouting its original charter, and continues to do so quite effectively.
Citation needed.Amtrak has had great leaders in the past and made progress during those years because that leadership could get the things it wanted from Congress regardless of the political winds.
Their fleet expansion/replacement plan says otherwise.Right now a golden opportunity is being squandered because Amtrak had no plans for the future other than hunkering down.
Correct, and since it has not been profitable in 40 years rightfully it should have been liquidated long back. So the rest of the argument is completely moot. Afterall you cannot just pick and choose the parts of the law that you like and ignore the rest now, can you?Here is what the law says:
There is authorized to be created a National Railroad Passenger
Corporation. The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation, the
purpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service,
employing innovative operating and marketing concepts so as to fully
develop the potential of modern rail service in meeting the Nation's
intercity passenger transportation requirements. The Corporation will
not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government.
It shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and, to the extent
consistent with this Act, to the District of Columbia Business Corporation
Act. The right to repeal, alter, or amend this Act at any time is expressly reserved.
Actually, unless I missed something, I believe that the last directive from Congress back during the David Gunn era, was that Amtrak cannot start any new services period, unless some third party (read states, generally) is going to be responsible for covering any losses.The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.
Didn't the PRIIA in 2008 repeal the "no new services" provision, but institute the requirement that routes, other than the Northeast Corridor, under 700 or 750 miles in length (I forget which) have all operating costs covered by states after 2013?Actually, unless I missed something, I believe that the last directive from Congress back during the David Gunn era, was that Amtrak cannot start any new services period, unless some third party (read states, generally) is going to be responsible for covering any losses.The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.
So until and unless Congress changes that general language, or otherwise starts approving individual routes (like those in the studies that Congress ordered), Amtrak cannot start any new long distance services even if it wanted to and actually had the equipment to do so.
That is what I was alluding to. However, for LD, the fact remains that none of them are going to have positive fairbox recovery at the getgo, so money will be needed to start them. The source of that money is most likely going to be the federal or state governments, hence the particular change regarding LD trains is marginal at best. It effectively enables tinkering around at the edges (e.g. through cars from Pennsy to Chicago via the Cap, daily Card, through Eagle and day train SAS - NOL, etc.) and not really do any major growth, absent appropriations to support the same. Being able to tinker is good and Amtrak seems to be stepping upto it, but that is very different from growth strategy with a funding plan that the paymasters stand behind.Didn't the PRIIA in 2008 repeal the "no new services" provision, but institute the requirement that routes, other than the Northeast Corridor, under 700 or 750 miles in length (I forget which) have all operating costs covered by states after 2013?Actually, unless I missed something, I believe that the last directive from Congress back during the David Gunn era, was that Amtrak cannot start any new services period, unless some third party (read states, generally) is going to be responsible for covering any losses.The goals have since been modified several times using those reserved rights mentioned above, the latest being that all intra-state service must be substantially funded by the state which is the beneficiary. Consequently the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New York State will have to dig deeper and come up with operating money for services that are part of the original network.
So until and unless Congress changes that general language, or otherwise starts approving individual routes (like those in the studies that Congress ordered), Amtrak cannot start any new long distance services even if it wanted to and actually had the equipment to do so.
You realize that these two statements are directly linked, no?Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed.
Glad to have SW Airlines here.
Yeah, you do know that Southwest Airlines was at least partially responsible for stopping a Texas high speed project a number of years ago.You realize that these two statements are directly linked, no?Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed.
Glad to have SW Airlines here.
Yes of course. Guys, don't be so harsh. I am sure they are still lobbying against rail service of any kind. But then so are most of the airlines, aren't they? Anyway, it's what we got so we deal with it.Yeah, you do know that Southwest Airlines was at least partially responsible for stopping a Texas high speed project a number of years ago.You realize that these two statements are directly linked, no?Texas being the second largest state in population, is being short changed.
Glad to have SW Airlines here.
Thanks Eric, at least TX has done that much. They also kicked in a few million to keep the Eagle a several years ago. You only list 14 states. There are of course 50 and it only takes a slim majority to kill Amtrak for good. That is why Amtrak at least keeps the long distance routes they have. They realize this as a political necessity. Texas is making progress, very slowly, but at least they are talking about it and they have started a rail plan and a rail division at TXDOT. A daily Sunset/Eagle would help as would an intermodal facility here in Houston. I believe there are only two states with no rail service at all, South Dakota and Wyoming. But there are quite a few with only one train a day.Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the Heartland Flyer), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.
Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the Heartland Flyer), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.
Thanks, eagle628, I figured I left something out, as I didn't look at the Amtrak timetable or anything when I listed those.Many states, including TX (in part with OK for the Heartland Flyer), fund additional Amtrak service, above and beyond what is provided by Amtrak at the federal level. There is nothing to prevent TX from stepping up to the plate to fund additional intercity rail service around the state.
Off the top of my head, states that choose to fund additional Amtrak service include CA, IL, ME, MI, MO, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WA, and WI.
Add VT to that list.
You are right on! If Amtrak had started in 1961 instead of 1971, things would have been much different. In 1961 there was still a large passenger base and the railway postoffices were still very important. Quite a few business travelers were still going by train. From 1962 on many of the passenger railroads did everything they could to drive off passengers and the mail. I traveled by train alot in the 1960s because my Dad worked for a railroad. Even when I was in high school, buds and I would take train trips because we knew many trains would go away. I watched the passenger service deteriorate. There were a few railroads that tried very hard to maintain good service,but as connecting trains started dissappearing at key gateways, it became difficult for all railroads. The Santa Fe, Seaboard Coastline, Burlington Northern and KCS had fairly decent service until the end. KCS even in 1967 said it was in the passenger business for the longterm and purchased new coaches in 1965. But the railway post offices were discontinued in favor of bulk mail traveling by truck so they had no choice but to discontinue trains by 1969 even though there was very little alternative public transportation along its routes.Personally I think before routes are added Amtrak needs to beef up frequencies. Trains are selling out as is, adding extra frequencies will provide more and better times.
I would like to see all LD trains running every 12 hrs in each direction, that way all stations get day and night service. That would end the problem of stations only being served in the middle of the night, and it would also allow overnight sections on the day time portions of the routes.
Once that has been achieved the next step to me would be to look at LD routes and see where there is potental to add corridor services along the routes. The LD's would run as expresses with sleeping accommodations and full meal service, the regional trains would make more stops and would bring intervals between trains down to 6 or 4 hrs.
Of course the host railroads would put up a fight if Amtrak started requesting more slots. So unless we can get strong support from Congress to fund track improvements and equipment acquisition this may never happen. We should have done better at preserving what we once had. I wonder how rail would be if Amtrak came along 10 or 20yrs earlier and had strong funding from the start?
Have a New York - Indinapolis - St. Louis - Knasas City train with a car shuffle with the Cardinal at Indianapolis so as to give a train all the way to KC that bypassses Chicago. This would be return to the early Amtrak National Limited. It was a good idea at the time sabatoged by Penn Central's bad track.The Cardinal re-route would be high on my list. Run it from Indianapolis to St. Louis to provide another east-west connection that avoids the de-tour via Chicago, at the cost of a splitting the train or change for passengers to/from Chicago (I'd keep the Hoosier State to maintain the connection to Chicago)
Enter your email address to join: