What will Amtrak do with $800M?

[Larry H.]

I guess I got on the NRPA mailing list, most likely by using my Guest Rewards points last year. I was interested in the map they propose for expanded, or should I say, Restored, rail service. That is something I have long proposed to which would increase the usage of the rail service immensely. I have a feeling that if we had decent dependable rail to many more locations it would not be the quoted as having 1% of the traveling public use. Duh!!, you have to go somewhere to have passengers.

If you're talking about NARP, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, I don't think their plan really goes far enough at all. The countries that have successful rail systems haven't been merely restoring the service levels that were available 60 years ago, which seems to be some approximation of NARP's goal; they've been building new high speed lines (which the Acela is not an example of) on their major routes.

Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step. Having to go though Chicago, while seemingly fine by many, is not the way to get the most people on board when they are going from points that take over a day or mores travel in each direction out of there way.. It would be almost like having high speed rail to save all that time and expense by more direct routes. That is the biggest flaw in the system as it is. Not to mention of course having many more sleepers and diners, cars in general.

That comment above about having two diners with 10 sleepers might indeed be true. I just was reading an old article about the updated 20th century and other trains in the heyday of travel, they mentioned in it that some trains had either full length diners with a second car as kitchen or two diners on board. Many trains ran with 6 or more sleepers on a regular basis, they surely could do it now. The whole idea that you can't or it takes too many people is where we seem to have been stuck for ever..

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm
I hope this one works, if not just google Money for Acorn in Stimulus Plan and you will find all the information to back my "wild" claim. You see most people don't know what a mess they vote for. That said, I voted FOR obama, mostly on health and rail issues, but I don't like the politics as usual in the guise of change that is going on. Fleeceing of America I think they have been calling it for some time now. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I like everything he does, or dislikes everything he does which is a far cry from what the others have done to the past president.

When you have an organization handling billions of dollars, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect that there couldn't possibly be one percent of one percent of the organization that's corrupt, regardless of what that organization is doing. The article you've linked to doesn't provide me with any reason to think that they're not doing truly valuable work with at least 99% of that money, which is more than can be said for an awful lot of government programs.

Also, even if they do have a few people who are corrupt, where did those people come from? Are you absolutely sure that the organization's opponents didn't decide to get hired by that organization and then intentionally do something wrong?

 

[Larry H.]

Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.

Got a link to back up that wild assertion?

no link, just comedian Rush Limbaugh.

and No, this is not true.

The link is above several post and is working, they have plenty of more links to it if you only really wished to find out the truth instead of playing "gotcha" games. This is why we are where we are in todays world, people just blinding take one side or the other with no regard to actual circumstances.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step.

The only problem with this is that the airplane and automobile redefined convenient when they became popular.

Having to go though Chicago, while seemingly fine by many, is not the way to get the most people on board when they are going from points that take over a day or mores travel in each direction out of there way.. It would be almost like having high speed rail to save all that time and expense by more direct routes.

There's also the problem that running on freight railroads is not ideal for on time performance, ride quality, speed, or service frequencies. You can see this particularily clearly when you compare the experiences of commuter rail agencies that largely own their tracks (like the MBTA) to the commuter agencies that largely rely on freight railroads (like MARC).

 

[Larry H.]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm
I hope this one works, if not just google Money for Acorn in Stimulus Plan and you will find all the information to back my "wild" claim. You see most people don't know what a mess they vote for. That said, I voted FOR obama, mostly on health and rail issues, but I don't like the politics as usual in the guise of change that is going on. Fleeceing of America I think they have been calling it for some time now. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I like everything he does, or dislikes everything he does which is a far cry from what the others have done to the past president.

When you have an organization handling billions of dollars, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect that there couldn't possibly be one percent of one percent of the organization that's corrupt, regardless of what that organization is doing. The article you've linked to doesn't provide me with any reason to think that they're not doing truly valuable work with at least 99% of that money, which is more than can be said for an awful lot of government programs.

Also, even if they do have a few people who are corrupt, where did those people come from? Are you absolutely sure that the organization's opponents didn't decide to get hired by that organization and then intentionally do something wrong?

Lets put it this way.. Is the money really a Job stimulus or a political game to increase or pay back votes. I would much rather have better Amtrak service instead of what actually turned out to be 4 billion.. Even higher than I kept mentioning. To me there is a difference between rewarding some instead of providing a service which serves all, and could serve them much better.

 

[Larry H.]

Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step.

The only problem with this is that the airplane and automobile redefined convenient when they became popular.

Having to go though Chicago, while seemingly fine by many, is not the way to get the most people on board when they are going from points that take over a day or mores travel in each direction out of there way.. It would be almost like having high speed rail to save all that time and expense by more direct routes.

There's also the problem that running on freight railroads is not ideal for on time performance, ride quality, speed, or service frequencies. You can see this particularily clearly when you compare the experiences of commuter rail agencies that largely own their tracks (like the MBTA) to the commuter agencies that largely rely on freight railroads (like MARC).

I am really not trying to pick at your post, even though that is what is happening from both parties. But again, lets face reality here. All passenger service used to operate on Freight Railroads. They owned the lines. Many prided them selves in people being able to set their watches by there on time performance. I can still remember often seeing trains stopping exactly at the moment of scheduled arrival. A rarity in todays world. I will say that where I live now I can hear the Chicago Carbondale trains passing within a mile or so and often to this day they are within a few minutes of being on time unless some uncontrollable circumstance has happened on the CN. I know that is more or less the minority of service today, but it used to be the way things were run. They aren't today because the railroads no longer care in some cases and have created trains that will not allow for being sided to let the passenger trains to pass without having to wait.

I would be for separate tracks, but that expense is so great, particularly if it only being used by one long distance train a day in each direction as to be impossible to justify. What should be and could be done is to "double track" once again where the other track was removed in the 70's when rail was thought to be in a loosing situation. That would apply to the CN as well. I hated to see them rip up the second "mainline as they called it" some years ago. I know they wish they had it now, and even better on time performance could be obtained if they did. But double tracking other major routes would be a great start, for both removing so many trucks from the road, but allowing for increased and more on time passenger service on existing routes. The cost of a set of high speed tracks in areas other than a few heavy use areas would be an expense no one can justify. But double tracking would have put all kinds of people to work building, grading, installing, planing for the work.. That is where some of those Community billions should have gone..

 

[Green Maned Lion]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm

I am not going to argue your point Larry, because I can't be bothered to figure out how much validity there is to it, I don't know and don't particularly care. However, you just linked to the NYPost, a news paper owned by raghound Rupert Murdoch. Who owns a lot of different papers- including the Enquirer. I've stopped reading the WSJ since he bought it- the decline in the quality and objectivity of the news within was palpable. The stuff his papers report tend to range from highly exaggerated to outright untrue nonsense. And that includes recent WSJ stuff, too.

I question the validity of your source.

 

[Larry H.]

Its interesting indeed that when you search say the New York Times you get no mention of this, as well as several other known liberal papers. So I went to CNN which brought up the following list of references. Frankly I didn't know a thing about the New York Post. But I would say that nearly every newspaper seems to have a leaning one way or the other when it comes to politics. So its not surprising that some will mention it and others will not. At any rate here are the pages that CNN have on their list. It won't prove anything to anyone that wishes not to believe it, but I doubt all of them are lying.

http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=mon...web&sortBy=

 

[Green Maned Lion]

As I said, I don't care to argue with you on the subject because I don't really care- its politics. This **** happens. Had your guy won, we'd have people on my side accusing your guy of whatever claptrap nonsense people like to dream up.

Check the ownership of the sources you check. Murdoch owns most right-leaning publications in the country- including Fox News. The company is called "News Corp".

 

[AlanB]

As I said, I don't care to argue with you on the subject because I don't really care- its politics. This **** happens. Had your guy won, we'd have people on my side accusing your guy of whatever claptrap nonsense people like to dream up.

Just for the record, his guy did win. He said that he voted for President Obama and I have no reason to doubt him.

And now that said, let me put on my moderator's hat here and remind people to keep things both civil and off politics except where those politics directly affect Amtrak. I'm not saying that anyone has not been civil, but I fear that we're getting very close here and we're definately getting of course as far as how this political discussion affects Amtrak.

 

[Ryan]

Its interesting indeed that when you search say the New York Times you get no mention of this, as well as several other known liberal papers. So I went to CNN which brought up the following list of references. Frankly I didn't know a thing about the New York Post. But I would say that nearly every newspaper seems to have a leaning one way or the other when it comes to politics. So its not surprising that some will mention it and others will not. At any rate here are the pages that CNN have on their list. It won't prove anything to anyone that wishes not to believe it, but I doubt all of them are lying.
http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=mon...web&sortBy=

The fact that mainstream news outlets aren't reporting on this tells you something - that list is nothing but a bunch of right leaning blogs that hardly qualify for "news" (I mean c'mon, newsmax???).

So what you're saying is that perhaps maybe an organization that perhaps maybe had some unethical dealings tied to Obama maybe perhaps may be getting some money that maybe perhaps might be in "payback" for "gathering votes" in what was a "not even close" election is a shining example of politics as usual???

Right.

Sorry for the dearail folks, but this kind of polarizing BS that does nothing to get this country any closer to where we need to be really gets my dander up.

Edit: Sorry Alan, your post wasn't there when I started - feel free to mod as you see fit. Either way, I'll let it drop.

 

[Larry H.]

Yes Allan,

Any discussion that brings up the way in which Amtrak was short changed is most likely political. Yes I indeed did vote for Obama.. But as I said, I did it with the hopes that Amtrak would at least garner some real support. When I see the unbalanced way the money is alloted, just makes one wonder about the fairness of it. Where the money goes should be the peoples business and fair to point out how it could be better spent.

Polarizing is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[frj1983]

OK,

I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!

 

[Larry H.]

Joel,

Politics aside. I read with some wonder your comments about the plane and car now defining convenience so that it no longer should apply to rail? And the idea that anyone is then going to build a separate set of high speed tracks all across the country is almost completely the opposite of the first comment. Why build it if no one wants it? If you read the UPRA newsletter above yesterdays edition it shows clearly that when the government decided to limit the places trains ran the ridership plummeted. That isn't rocket science. Besides its a lot easier to feel like rail service is convenient when one is living on the eastern rail hubs. Nothing remotely like that any where else. The rest of the public deserves it too.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

OK,
I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!

Everything that's repairable would be repaired with a lot of money left over. What people like to forget is some of those 81 Amfleet cars and those numerous Superliners are actually beyond repair. Also, I believe the repair price for the average Amfleet is 100,000 a car, give or take. Which would mean 8.1 million would cover it.

 

[WICT106]

If that is the case, Green mane Lion, then Amtrak could do with some new rolling stock. many of the coaches are beginning to look very high mileage. Amtrak could also start doling out grants to certain states where a simple re-routing would increase ridership. For Example, routing the empire Builder through Madison, Wisconsin, between Portage and Milwaukee, would dramatically increase the number of passengers on that train. The main problem is that neither Amtrak nor the State of Wisconsin have the funds necessary ( some $ 350 to 400 million at last estimate) to upgrade the tracks to FRA Class 3 (59 mph passenger speed limit) or better.

$ 800 million would also go some ways towards setting up a Trust Fund, in which Amtrak could start paying the "landlord" freight railroads to reduce the number of speed restrictions, slower speed zones, and areas of congestion along the various passenger rail routes. Before anyone entertains any thought of high speed rail, it should be pointed out that there might be more value for the money ("bang for the buck") by increasing the average train speed, straightening curves, et cetera.

 

[Larry H.]

If that is the case, Green mane Lion, then Amtrak could do with some new rolling stock. many of the coaches are beginning to look very high mileage. Amtrak could also start doling out grants to certain states where a simple re-routing would increase ridership. For Example, routing the empire Builder through Madison, Wisconsin, between Portage and Milwaukee, would dramatically increase the number of passengers on that train. The main problem is that neither Amtrak nor the State of Wisconsin have the funds necessary ( some $ 350 to 400 million at last estimate) to upgrade the tracks to FRA Class 3 (59 mph passenger speed limit) or better.
$ 800 million would also go some ways towards setting up a Trust Fund, in which Amtrak could start paying the "landlord" freight railroads to reduce the number of speed restrictions, slower speed zones, and areas of congestion along the various passenger rail routes. Before anyone entertains any thought of high speed rail, it should be pointed out that there might be more value for the money ("bang for the buck") by increasing the average train speed, straightening curves, et cetera.

They could run a heck of a lot of diners and lounges with real people and cooks for ever with what that would cost. Maybe even add sleepers that they desperately need. No one really can say what kind of demand is for rail service when most of the time you get "sold out" on rooms. Like how many passengers are we talking about, does anyone really know?

 

[AlanB]

Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.

Alan, does anybody have and idea how many Superliners are awaiting repairs at BG this moment???

 

[AlanB]

Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.

Alan, does anybody have and idea how many Superliners are awaiting repairs at BG this moment???

Yeah, Amtrak does. :lol:

Outside of Amtrak I haven't heard if anyone else knows precisely. However there have been a few more accidents since Stan's report, at least a few cars were scrapped, and I suspect that a few more cars were wrecked beyond repair. As of 10/20/08 there were 41 Superliners sitting in Beech Grove. Exactly how many of them are repairable is up for debate, but I'd say that it's probably a pretty safe guess to conclude that at least 15 of them are beyond repair. So that would leave us with some 25 or so that could be repaired with stimulous money.

 

[had8ley]

Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.

Alan, does anybody have and idea how many Superliners are awaiting repairs at BG this moment???

Yeah, Amtrak does. :lol:

Outside of Amtrak I haven't heard if anyone else knows precisely. However there have been a few more accidents since Stan's report, at least a few cars were scrapped, and I suspect that a few more cars were wrecked beyond repair. As of 10/20/08 there were 41 Superliners sitting in Beech Grove. Exactly how many of them are repairable is up for debate, but I'd say that it's probably a pretty safe guess to conclude that at least 15 of them are beyond repair. So that would leave us with some 25 or so that could be repaired with stimulous money.

And that is probably one of Amtrak's worst self-defeating stances. They'll scream bloody murder, almost standing at each station door with a tin cup, about the needs and wants of a taxpayer subsidized entity yet won't release basic information, such as how many and much it would take to repair shopped cars, in order to justify the filling of the tin cup.

 

[wayman]

OK,
I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!

Everything that's repairable would be repaired with a lot of money left over. What people like to forget is some of those 81 Amfleet cars and those numerous Superliners are actually beyond repair. Also, I believe the repair price for the average Amfleet is 100,000 a car, give or take. Which would mean 8.1 million would cover it.

Given how cheap repairing everything would be and how "shovel-ready" those repairs are, Amtrak has no excuse for not starting with getting absolutely everything that can be repaired through the shops and out on the rails. I mean, it sounds like it'll cost peanuts out of the 800-million, but the benefits would be huge and nationwide.

And yet, this is Amtrak. I have this sinking feeling that while they could spend 8-million on car repair and 792-million on NEC catenary, they'll just wind up spending all 800-million on NEC catenary... so they can ask for more money to repair cars.

 

[had8ley]

OK,
I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!

Everything that's repairable would be repaired with a lot of money left over. What people like to forget is some of those 81 Amfleet cars and those numerous Superliners are actually beyond repair. Also, I believe the repair price for the average Amfleet is 100,000 a car, give or take. Which would mean 8.1 million would cover it.

Given how cheap repairing everything would be and how "shovel-ready" those repairs are, Amtrak has no excuse for not starting with getting absolutely everything that can be repaired through the shops and out on the rails. I mean, it sounds like it'll cost peanuts out of the 800-million, but the benefits would be huge and nationwide.

And yet, this is Amtrak. I have this sinking feeling that while they could spend 8-million on car repair and 792-million on NEC catenary, they'll just wind up spending all 800-million on NEC catenary... so they can ask for more money to repair cars.

I'm impressed; somebody else has been watching the Amtrak shell game also. Don't take this as a cheap shot ; I like riding as much as the next poster BUT when something so very obvious pops up it's almost a sin not to point it out. BTW, what's a 100 grand in comparison to letting a car rot on the rip track and order a new one at the million plus prices? Now, where's that tin cup???

 

[birdy]

I propose AMTRAK spend a few hundred dollars to immediately notify ALL stations in ARIZONA that service will be discontinued.
Once again, false information and a flawed (and rejected) amendment by REP FLAKE (R-AZ) to cut AMTRAK funding in HR1 was proposed.

The false info? FLAKE claimed last year AMTRAK was subsidized by an average of $210 per passenger. It is more like $45.

Seems the delegation from Arizona has no desire for AMTRAK service, so I propose that service be eliminated entirely.

discuss....................

Don't get me started on Arizona politicans. Just be thankful you don't live there. The days of the Goldwaters, Udalls, and Rhodes are long gone. the 'Zonies customarily spend more on their prisons than they do their universities. The bi-weekly publicity stunt by Sheiff Joe counts as statesmanship. Now they are busily dismantling their three universities too. They make the locals here look like the Roman Senate. Janet Napolitano is practically a refugee at Homeland Security.

* * * *

One thing I found out: A lot of the public just assumes that Amtrak is roughly the size of the US postal service, about as efficient, and much less necessary, hence all the animosity. $800 mill is NOTHING.

As a matter of fact, why can't we have true high speed service? You guys are so downcast you sound like characters out of Dickens when it comes to this stuff. It defies logic to think that usage patterns in europe, where lines typically grow loadings at 10% compounded per year are so radically different than here. High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.

No need for a dime of new debt, either. (although I don't have a problem saddling my children with debt for stuff they will use). IRS reported yesterday that the top 400 taxpayers as measured by AGI reported last year paid a puny 17% in aggregate federal income tax, down from an aggregate 26% in the communistic days of 1992. If we raised their rates back up to 1992 levels we could collect $10 bil right there.

By the way, the cut off for Mr. 400 is about $270 million per year income. At 26%, he has to limp along on $200 million per year. The repubs have resorted to party-line votes and grandstanding on this stuff, so why should Rahm Emmanuel and O'Bama play the patsy for those guys. Raise their taxes, build these systems and see whose side the public takes. I'm betting its on the side of rail instead of the guys who buy a new G5 every year.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

OK,
I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!

Everything that's repairable would be repaired with a lot of money left over. What people like to forget is some of those 81 Amfleet cars and those numerous Superliners are actually beyond repair. Also, I believe the repair price for the average Amfleet is 100,000 a car, give or take. Which would mean 8.1 million would cover it.

Given how cheap repairing everything would be and how "shovel-ready" those repairs are, Amtrak has no excuse for not starting with getting absolutely everything that can be repaired through the shops and out on the rails. I mean, it sounds like it'll cost peanuts out of the 800-million, but the benefits would be huge and nationwide.

And yet, this is Amtrak. I have this sinking feeling that while they could spend 8-million on car repair and 792-million on NEC catenary, they'll just wind up spending all 800-million on NEC catenary... so they can ask for more money to repair cars.

I'm impressed; somebody else has been watching the Amtrak shell game also. Don't take this as a cheap shot ; I like riding as much as the next poster BUT when something so very obvious pops up it's almost a sin not to point it out. BTW, what's a 100 grand in comparison to letting a car rot on the rip track and order a new one at the million plus prices? Now, where's that tin cup???

Meh, they've been doing this for decades. Think of all the Heritage cars they scrapped and didn't have to.