Skip to main content

The 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s were a time of almost incredible highway construction, in both the the U.S. and Europe.  The difference is that in Europe railroad construction and improvement never stopped.  In the US, it largely did.  Expanding cities in Europe and developments in outlying areas lie along public transit routes.  In the US, early developments like Levitown, Long Island were not along public transit routes.  They were built to be accessed via automobile only.  That happened all over the US.

To be fair, the freight tunnels in Europe were already there so that drove down construction costs, but a system like the RER in France ALONE transports more people than the entire US does COMBINED.   And they didn't do it by not paying their debts to the US SEVENTY FIVE YEARS ago.  They continue to invest in it for their "people" instead of insisting that tax cuts for the wealthiest people in their countries will somehow someday for sure bring prosperity for everyone.  They know better.

In Europe, what they call a “commuter rail” operates frequently, all day, and cost the same fare as other local transit. That’s the difference between regional rail and commuter rail.  In the US less than half the population can utilize the public transportation we have built and neglected.  Then some blame the transportation itself instead of the lack of interest or foresight on the part of our elected officials.   How is it possible to convince so many Americans that up is down?

https://ogrforum.com/...5#156561155832183245

John

Rich, as mentioned, that document is just one of many from CBO, across a multitude of investigations. Are you suggesting that in the past 39 years, Amtrak has somehow come to a better place, than when it was prior to 82? Last I checked, airfare is still better priced to go from point a to point b in most locations that Amtrak could transit you to... which STILL lines up with TCtO per seat mile. DCA to Boston is 99$ roundtrip. By Amtrak? 220. And flight is a lot faster.

I still stand by all the data out there, which has consistently, over many decades, shown that federal investment into Amtrak is not producing results. Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can really be solved in a short term project. It is just a sad reality.

Re: roads being a 0 RoE, this isn't true, since gas taxes in some states are used to support road infrastructure. Cant drive a car without roads, and if you are driving a car on roads, you are buying gas, and feeding taxes into the infrastructure pot for that state. Sadly, not all states do this, and as a result there are some places where the term "road" is very loosely used. Bare earth, mixed with occasional spots of asphalt or cratered concrete, definitely doesnt fit it for me. Im lookin at you, rural PA!

edit:

Rich: https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/54773

It is government discretionary funding forecasted to 2028. This took literally 2 seconds to google: (google search: "site:cbo.gov amtrak")

excerpt:

The federal government subsidizes intercity travel in various ways. For example, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation—or Amtrak—received appropriations of about $1.5 billion in 2017 and $1.9 billion in 2018 to subsidize intercity passenger rail services. The 2018 figure includes $650 million in grants for the Northeast Corridor and debt service and about $1.3 billion in grants for the national network that Amtrak operates. For comparison, Amtrak's capital spending in 2017 was $1.6 billion and its operating expenses totaled $4.2 billion (including $0.8 billion in depreciation and amortization costs).

That is a LOT of subsidy.

Last edited by Erik the Newbie

Rich, as mentioned, that document is just one of many from CBO, across a multitude of investigations.

The CBO doesn't do "investigations".  That would be the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office.

I still stand by all the data out there, which has consistently, over many decades, shown that federal investment into Amtrak is not producing results. Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can really be solved in a short term project. It is just a sad reality.

edit:

Rich: https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/54773

It is government discretionary funding forecasted to 2028. This took literally 2 seconds to google: (google search: "site:cbo.gov amtrak")

Like I said, that wasn't an investigation.  On the very first page it says the following:

CBO periodically issues a compendium of policy options (called Options for Reducing the Deficit) covering a broad range of issues, as well as separate reports that include options for changing federal tax and spending policies in particular areas. This option appears in one of those publications. The options are derived from many sources and reflect a range of possibilities. For each option, CBO presents an estimate of its effects on the budget but makes no recommendations. Inclusion or exclusion of any particular option does not imply an endorsement or rejection by CBO.

excerpt:

The federal government subsidizes intercity travel in various ways. For example, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation—or Amtrak—received appropriations of about $1.5 billion in 2017 and $1.9 billion in 2018 to subsidize intercity passenger rail services. The 2018 figure includes $650 million in grants for the Northeast Corridor and debt service and about $1.3 billion in grants for the national network that Amtrak operates. For comparison, Amtrak's capital spending in 2017 was $1.6 billion and its operating expenses totaled $4.2 billion (including $0.8 billion in depreciation and amortization costs).

That is a LOT of subsidy.

NO, it isn't.  I posted a comparison with other countries above on page 2.  In fact it is among the LOWEST

See:  https://ogrforum.com/...0#156561155865103710

John

Last edited by Craftech

Rich, as mentioned, that document is just one of many from CBO, across a multitude of investigations. Are you suggesting that in the past 39 years, Amtrak has somehow come to a better place, than when it was prior to 82?

No! All I was trying to do is point out that you cited a 39-year old publication as if it was current.

I have no dog in this fight. I have never ridden an Amtrak train and have no plans to. I don’t care what we do with Amtrak.

Erik, Your airline vs Amtrak numbers are skewed as it is virtually impossible to fly anywhere in the U.S without flying through a major hub. To put this in the the form of real numbers: on 5/31/21 on one days notice I needed to travel from Boston to my home near Albany; airfare was something north of $1600 and took me through Tampa in a little over 7 hours; Amtrak was $32 and did it in less than 4 hours and without crushing my already damaged knee. 51 years ago when I worked for a NYS Legislative commission I frequently had to fly from Albany to Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Olean, Elmira, Massena, and NYC on a few hours notice. Try doing that by plane or train today. You can't because we've become so dependent on the automobile, and the airline deregulation of the`80's did not offer a suitable alternative for many of us. Rail service between MSA's of a predetermined population might be the answer.

I wish the US had a better rail system. I don't travel much but I never hear anything good about flight. It would be nice to take a train from Youngstown to Chicago (for family) or Pittsburgh (for friends) at a reasonable hour. The available trains are all over night. The Chicago one isn't bad. I could get to get at 2AM when I board and wake up about 7 hours later in Chicago. But there are no trains to board after work on Friday to go down to Pittsburgh to catch a Pirates game.

Hearing the German exchange students talk about the trains in Europe when I was in college really brought the differences into view for me. We'll see what Amtrak can accomplish. I wish them all the best because I do believe the railroad is a good way to move stuff. I also happen to like trains and be a member of a certain forum with an interest in model railroading

Last October, after a $25 billion bailout in grants and a similar amount in loans, the airline industry was looking for more money.  At the start of the pandemic the major carriers threatened massive layoffs if they didn't get federal grants to help them out after people were too scared to get in a fuselage incubator to spread Covid and weren't booking flights.

The airline industry is consistently singled out for favored treatment in economic calamities.   That industry truly does not deserve it because consistently their CEO's have used the money to enrich themselves and spend it on stock buybacks.  Thanks to weak antitrust enforcement, airlines reaped flush profits. 2015 and beyond were the best years for the industry ever.

Despite the history of airlines bleeding cash in recessions — and therefore needing to preserve capital for later — from 2014 through 2019 the big four carriers (American, Delta, United and Southwest) plowed $42 billion into stock repurchases in the hope of improving their share prices. $13 Billion from American Airlines alone.  In a six year period the CEO's of the major 4 carriers pocketed of $340 Million in stock purchases.

Since the pandemic, airline stocks have plunged.  Executives got rich anyway while delivering mediocre or worse returns because their pay was calibrated over short-term periods. Usually that is a problem for the shareholders who coughed up the investment.  But not when the government steps in and refuses to demand that the airline industry maintain adequate capital.   Since the airline industry has done this before they already know (like large banks who do the same) that they can take risks and reap the benefits when times are good and always get a bailout when times are bad and still clean up.   The pandemic bailout came with a few restrictions this time, but for only two years.

They refused to forego their gains and the federal government refuses to force them to.  They do not and will not maintain solvency and this scenario with them will repeat itself over and over.  CEO's will pocket whatever they can grab and next time we will again pay that handful of people their self enrichment guarantee when they threaten layoffs and call themselves a danger to national security if they fail.

John

We need a GOOD reset.  Need complete new BOD's.  And a diversity of outlooks.  Need one for customers.  Another for workers.  If there are no customers, the company is worthless to everybody.  Workers, not so much on wages, but an outlook on how the product line is produced.  No product, or bad product, no customers.  No customers......

Amtrak BOD?

Last edited by Dominic Mazoch
@Craftech posted:

Last October, after a $25 billion bailout in grants and a similar amount in loans, the airline industry was looking for more money.  At the start of the pandemic the major carriers threatened massive layoffs if they didn't get federal grants to help them out after people were too scared to get in a fuselage incubator to spread Covid and weren't booking flights.

The airline industry is consistently singled out for favored treatment in economic calamities.   That industry truly does not deserve it because consistently their CEO's have used the money to enrich themselves and spend it on stock buybacks.  Thanks to weak antitrust enforcement, airlines reaped flush profits. 2015 and beyond were the best years for the industry ever.

Despite the history of airlines bleeding cash in recessions — and therefore needing to preserve capital for later — from 2014 through 2019 the big four carriers (American, Delta, United and Southwest) plowed $42 billion into stock repurchases in the hope of improving their share prices. $13 Billion from American Airlines alone.  In a six year period the CEO's of the major 4 carriers pocketed of $340 Million in stock purchases.

Since the pandemic, airline stocks have plunged.  Executives got rich anyway while delivering mediocre or worse returns because their pay was calibrated over short-term periods. Usually that is a problem for the shareholders who coughed up the investment.  But not when the government steps in and refuses to demand that the airline industry maintain adequate capital.   Since the airline industry has done this before they already know (like large banks who do the same) that they can take risks and reap the benefits when times are good and always get a bailout when times are bad and still clean up.   The pandemic bailout came with a few restrictions this time, but for only two years.

They refused to forego their gains and the federal government refuses to force them to.  They do not and will not maintain solvency and this scenario with them will repeat itself over and over.  CEO's will pocket whatever they can grab and next time we will again pay that handful of people their self enrichment guarantee when they threaten layoffs and call themselves a danger to national security if they fail.

John

Is there anything in here appropriate for this forum?  Where’s the moderator with the big delete key?

Erik, Your airline vs Amtrak numbers are skewed as it is virtually impossible to fly anywhere in the U.S without flying through a major hub. To put this in the the form of real numbers: on 5/31/21 on one days notice I needed to travel from Boston to my home near Albany; airfare was something north of $1600 and took me through Tampa in a little over 7 hours; Amtrak was $32 and did it in less than 4 hours and without crushing my already damaged knee. 51 years ago when I worked for a NYS Legislative commission I frequently had to fly from Albany to Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester, Olean, Elmira, Massena, and NYC on a few hours notice. Try doing that by plane or train today. You can't because we've become so dependent on the automobile, and the airline deregulation of the`80's did not offer a suitable alternative for many of us. Rail service between MSA's of a predetermined population might be the answer.

But you must remember The Big Dig, it had to happen because vehicle traffic couldn't get to Logan, yada, yada. Now we need to spend billions more cuz Americans really want to go west on trains? "If we build it, they will ride."

Today, there are direct flights from Boston to Albany almost every hour but I do remember those days of flying through either Atlanta or Dallas no matter where you were going. I also remember the days when you could board a flight when there was only half the seats occupied.

Is there anything in here appropriate for this forum?  Where’s the moderator with the big delete key?

This is in the real trains forum.  The topic is about Amtrak's plans to extend rail service.  Other folks who have replied have felt the need to bash government involvement in rail service.  Comparisons have been made to other modes of travel.  I think pointing out that the airlines have repeatedly failed at remaining solvent - and have to be bailed out through subsidies - is totally on topic.

If you don't like the topic, just move along.

Is there anything in here appropriate for this forum?  Where’s the moderator with the big delete key?

As a forum member, you are under no obligation to read every single thread posted to the forum.

I can never understand why any forum member would suggest that a thread be deleted just because it doesn't interest them?  In the last 24 hours, there has been 78 active threads, on all types of train related topics, so everyone should be able to find something of interest.

Regards,

Jim

@jd-train posted:

As a forum member, you are under no obligation to read every single thread posted to the forum.

I can never understand why any forum member would suggest that a thread be deleted just because it doesn't interest them?  In the last 24 hours, there has been 78 active threads, on all types of train related topics, so everyone should be able to find something of interest.

Regards,

Jim

Those following this thread and the varying opinions would see that comparisons between the airline and railroad industries and government's role in funding those is germane to the discussion and most of my comments have been about the railroad industry and Amtrak.

Maybe he wanted it deleted because he doesn't agree with it, but you have to admit the discussions on this forum are truly civilized compared to other forums and Facebook.   There are forum members of every political persuasion here and I personally think that our mutual love for model railroading supersedes any differences.  I know it does for me.

John

Last edited by Craftech

Is there anything in here appropriate for this forum?  Where’s the moderator with the big delete key?

What do you mean? If we are discussing the viability of Amtrak which is a government corporation and people are arguing that Amtrak isn't cost effective and requires government subsidies (implying that airline travel is this entity that runs entirely without subsidies and makes billions), then yes, it is valid. If you are going to compare the need for something, you need to look at the reality of both the things being compared, not the image people have. Few businesses in this country, put it this way, operate without some kind of government subsidy or support, as hidden as some of it likely is. Can range from something like road use taxes on trucks, where the truck doesn't pay the total cost of them using the roads (trucks beat the tar, literally, out of road surfaces), to things like depreciation on equipment and other deductions (not saying we shouldn't be doing that, it is in theory how you get businesses to invest in new equipment, the reality is more murky), to a number of other things. 

I don't think there are easy answers with train service, about deciding whether it is worth it or not, but it should be done with facts and figures and what the goal is, not with soundbites or "everyone knows' kind of arguments, that is what people are talking about.

I agree, this has been very civil.

My only point has been, if I am paying tax dollars to subsidize the passenger rail service, then I absolutely want better passenger rail service.

With regards to the air industry, with the LOTS of money that was pumped in during covid and in general (I didn't start that thread!), I don't want to be a sardine either!!!

Agree totally. Personally I think the same thing should be applied with the airline industry, which has been allowed to turn air travel into a flying cattle car, where they are planning to stuff more people into the cabin with even less space and to be able to charge for almost anything, including carry on baggage. One of the reasons they were able to create rules around airlines having to recompense people for being stuck on the tarmac for prolonged periods was because the airlines knew if they balked congress could pull subsidies and the like (one of the reasons that was happening in the first place was airlines scheduled so many flights out of/into an airport that it was at the edge of capacity, any little thing went wrong, boom..might generate a ton of revenue, and if passengers were inconvenienced or stuck on a plane for hours, so what? Money is money).

We have discussed this a lot and it will be interesting to see in the post covid world how all this plays out. Where does rail travel make sense? With the current level of rail technology in the US (which quite frankly stinks, in terms of passenger rail travel) does it make sense? Is something like hyperloop ever going to be a reality, if so then standard rail passenger trail, especially long distance, may be made obsolete (and hyperloop at this point is still science fiction; but if you have something that can deliver people at speeds comparable to an aircraft, it could be viable, assuming it isn't vaporware like fusion power currently is).

And the answer is we don't know. Right now airline travel is really, really heavy, not surprisingly. But long term, is business travel going to be what it was before the pandemic? Business travel was a huge part of their revenue stream, in the day and age of zoom and webex, will that still be used? Business travel is expensive....so will the corporate execs decide it is still needed, that you need to go and talk to customers and the like, or will it be mostly eliminated, saving a lot of cost?

If remote work becomes the norm (I have my doubts in the panacea some claim), you might need high speed rail so remove workers when they do come in can do so efficiently (I am talking more exurbs to population centers, not NY to Chicago).

One of the real problems is that in the US we do a really bad job of trying to plan for tomorrow, we always seem to be planning for the day before yesterday (there was an old statement that is very true, that the military always seems to start out fighting the last war, in WWII they were thinking trench warfare and poison gas, for example). Right now I could make the argument many are, that long distance rail travel makes no sense, but that may not apply to the future. Not just what post covid will bring, but also things like how the heat waves and drought out west potentially could change feelings about climate change (to make this non political, I am not saying anything about Climate change itself, talking perceptions). Will people seeing what we have seen start believing we are in a crisis, and if so, will jet airplanes come under fire for their potential role in what is going on?  Keep in mind that perceptions often matter more than reality, you see what is going on in the world and you see how powerful that is.



rail travel can be a lot 'greener' than airplane travel on a number of reasons, in theory diesel train engines can operate on biodiesel that is co2 neutral, something airliners cannot, or electric engines, even with fossil fuel based power plants, have a much lower co2 signature then airliners or diesel engines running diesel fuel.  Will that play into this?

The car culture is changing, too. Most of us on this board tend to be cranky, older baby boom, maybe some gen x, and older generations where the car was this gee whiz piece of freedom. That isn't true among younger people, that culture isn't there (it is bad enough the car magazines have had more than a few pieces on it). How will that play out in the future, will rail travel be more like Europe? (and again, guys, these are just questions, I offer no answers).

One thing I do know is you can't look at current Amtrak and make any kind of predictions for the future. To be blunt, Amtrak has been kept limping along the way you keep that old clunker car going. You can't say how effective rail travel would be when the way Amtrak operates itself is a mess. It came out of a rail plant that was a disaster (basically private railroads, themselves awash in red ink, chucked it away). In many places it operates over track it doesn't own and often has the priority of a troop train in WWII on the rails (read accounts of WWII vets who traveled on troop trains.....). Its equipment can be state of the art running on track and with signalling systems from the dark ages, or track suited for freight traffic, not high speed passenger.

Honestly Amtrak has never had a mission formalized, it is just like 'keep the trains running'. Some politicians, who are vocal about Amtrak being a waste, are the same politicians when they want to cut out routes, scream bloody murder if it is in their domain. Others who are supportive or claim to be, don't put their money with their mouth is. As others have pointed out, people who talk about high speed rail, point to China as to the way it can be done, are the same people who are fighting creation of high speed rail routes, who say "not in my town".

What is needed is rational analysis that isn't based on perceptions but reality and that is the hard part. We have those who still see the automobile as king of the hill and refuse to see that it may not be king any more, that spending money expanding roads that end up clogged with more traffic might not work. Then we have those who romanticize train travel and think it is the solution to everything, when it isn't. We have those who claim airline travel because it is a 'private' business is superior because it is, and leave out the tangle between it and government entities that help make it viable.  Not to mention there is airline service right now that is mandated that makes absolutely no sense, flying to places with little air travel because they get something out of flying there, not unlike having long distance rail stops in rural west virginia happen. 

I don't expect this all to happen, mind you, like most things if change happens it will be because it is forced, either popular perceptions or because of government mandate. For years, the auto industry in the US claimed people didn't care about quality or safety on cars other than 'eggheads' (you know, people who bought volvos and the like because they promoted safety), said it 'didn't sell'...and it nearly put them out of business because when people saw that cars could have quality, didn't need to fall apart at 30k miles, it became important. People became aware of the number of people dying on the roads, the numbers, and that caused a change in perception and the political will to mandate seat belts and later safety feature.

My guess would be that the perceptions around climate change are going to hit home eventually and that is going to change things. Will rail travel be part of that? Unknown but I wouldn't write it off, either.

Regarding remote work, my son-in-law previous commuted between NYC and Philadelphia constantly, by train. After moving to philadelphia, he was commuting to and from on the local train. After covid, he moved to part-time remote (he works at a hospital), and I moved to full time remote, and will be full time remote for the foreseeable future (cybersecurity architect). My wife at NASA has been on fulltime remote as well doing engineering things. Our car put 5200 miles on it over 16 months.... compared to 12k or so in 12.

In the fedgov space, we are seeing a big reduction in on-prem labor due to cost savings. I don't think it is ever going away, but it may shift some, especially in anything remotely computer-related. I took the Metro into DC for a considerable time, which is no longer necessary. Those funds as a result aren't flowing into the Metro's coffers, which constrains their ability to provide service (there are a lot of studies and statements from DC Metro about this effect). If remote work continues, I forsee DC Metro being seriously constrained to the point of large scale service reduction...

Regarding remote work, my son-in-law previous commuted between NYC and Philadelphia constantly, by train. After moving to philadelphia, he was commuting to and from on the local train. After covid, he moved to part-time remote (he works at a hospital), and I moved to full time remote, and will be full time remote for the foreseeable future (cybersecurity architect). My wife at NASA has been on fulltime remote as well doing engineering things. Our car put 5200 miles on it over 16 months.... compared to 12k or so in 12.

In the fedgov space, we are seeing a big reduction in on-prem labor due to cost savings. I don't think it is ever going away, but it may shift some, especially in anything remotely computer-related. I took the Metro into DC for a considerable time, which is no longer necessary. Those funds as a result aren't flowing into the Metro's coffers, which constrains their ability to provide service (there are a lot of studies and statements from DC Metro about this effect). If remote work continues, I forsee DC Metro being seriously constrained to the point of large scale service reduction...

In the end it is going to depend on how this all works out. I have been working from home since March of last year, but it looks like starting in September we will be in the office. Tech companies have been basically saying "work where you want, you can work remotely" for example, but I also am hearing they are having second thoughts about it, they are running into a lot of the same issues that were there when stuff was outsourced to India and such. Other industries like the financial industry basically want workers back in the office starting in the fall. I don't know how it is all going to work out. I know people that moved from high priced areas like NYC that moved to rural areas with cheap housing might find out that they are going to lose a good part of their salary. The other thing that could work against remote working is the very fact that there is a lot of money in office buildings and the like at present, and the people who own them/manage them can be pretty persuasive in terms of how things play out. There is a large infrastructure around working from offices, a large economy that supports it, and will that play a role in all this? Everything from office suppliers to the people who supply vending machines to yep, car repair places for people who commute, local restaurants and take out places to office buildings, what happens?

Will the remote working continue to work, zoom and webex are okay for getting things done, that was proven out, but will it work when the teams involved have never met and don't know one another? can new people working remotely pick up the culture and be able to work? No one really knows, during the pandemic there wasn't that much shift in jobs.

I agree totally that there will be changes, but I would wager it wont' be the "work anywhere from home, we will all be virtual corporations", I think a lot of towns banking on influxes of people working remotely are going to be disappointed, for a number of reasons. My guess is hybrid offices will be the thing, where you work some days in the office, others at home, whether it is 3 and 2, or you work a certain numbers of days a week at the office, a certain at home, but it remains to be seen.

Many are the preceding arguments regarding Amtrak. The economic and the efficacy, the political and the equitable. Some that I read were well researched and presented, some polite opinion, and of course some hot air presented as fact on both sides.

For myself a small almost inconsequential point that I feel is missed but I now add to the conversation. Beyond the costs, the convenience, in short the hard realities there is also.

Our heritage; train travel, not unlike the national parks, our museums, or the historical markers that flank our highways and byways. None provide profit, none can be justified economically, often majority supported by government dollars yet used only by a minority.

Consider the Post Office, the Libraries, Universities teaching Arts and Humanities. Most could be replaced by a more efficient paradigm or system. However without these institutions our lives are poorer. Their existence is not predicated solely on efficiency but as part of our heritage as options that we enjoy.

The trains provided by Amtrak are far from what we imagine they could be. So we should support efforts and ideas to continue improving train travel.

So that again we may realize a way of travel that for a long time, to many travelers has meant more than an inconvenient necessity rather an experience. Outside passing by our country, our landscape, meeting our neighbors, lost in simple reveries a respite from the days hustle all to that rhythm. Without the distractions of traffic expected with bus travel. Without the herd mentality of air travel. You might be late arriving but that's OK; when you knew ahead it could be expected. But you also knew when you get to your destination you would be aware that you have traveled.

As a society we should preserve this option of train travel, it may cost more than it returns but only in dollars. Fix what needs fixing but don't forever discard. When we have cut out all the inefficiencies in the budget. When we are finally a perfectly efficient society. That day we will realize all we have lost.

Just an opinion....

  • Amtrak wants to run more trains between DFW and HOU?  What about TX Central Rail?

And maybe the airlines are being short sighted in this.  American and Delta, if they wanted to really hurt United and SW, should BUY TC.  Run from DFW Airport to US290 and I610 in Houston.  Geographic center of Harris County.  About 5 miles from Downtown.  Transit connections being planned on Houston end.

Bush is a UA hub, Hobby SW.

(I do know the current DFW terminal is near a convention center.)

For some routes, rail or bus working with air may be better?

Last edited by Dominic Mazoch

To be clear, I have no issue with the opinions, irrespective of whether I agree with them.  But this has clearly veered into policy and politics and traditionally that has been verboten here.  That being said, it's not my forum, it belongs to OGR so it is their call obviously.  

Ray, respectfully, you are mistaken.

There is no prohibition on the discussion of policy.  There is one on discussing politics.

In my opinion, the posters have done a great job of having a very civil discussion of policy, without getting into politics!

Jim

Regarding the article linked above by Doug W

Just to be clear, our intrepid traveler/journalist who was eager to experience the “A road less traveled” may need to find a better approach or should I say departure. I was distressed to hear he had to walk toward the end of the train to find his car. Then on top of that he was forced tonavigate tight hallways with his suitcase; then it got real bad, and I quote.

“ I closed the door and shut the curtains so I could have some privacy. Once I was settled, I enjoyed the views of New York City as they flashed across the window. I also turned on Netflix for some needed entertainment.”

I don't think he enjoyed his train trip. Did Amtrak let him down or did the Netflix fail to entertain???

Robert Frost wrote a famous poem “The Road not Taken” the last lines being:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.





 








That is a good point. I think creature comforts have been an expected item in (our first world) culture. But not for all, and not all the time. An ex from many years past did the youth hostel + backpack tour of parts of Europe, and separately hit Iceland with the same backpack. I think the view she got of both worlds was far different from someone staying in a "proper" hotel, carrying luggage. My family has strived to travel minimally, since it makes things difficult to go, you know, be part of things. But as years wore on, and we ended up with our awesome daughter, that just isn't as feasible, and to be honest an easy way to get luggage into and out of a train car would be nice.

And before someone goes on about "here we go about other country's rail systems", the following is something that SHOULD be standard in American passenger trains... Any non-local train in Japan (specifically the N'ex airport commuter line) has a separate part of the car at the end (right where the door is) where all baggage is expected to go at boarding time (unless its full, in which case only the smallest bags can be taken into the car proper). This leaves the hallway clear, easy access to the bathroom, easy exit (people aren't backing into you or your seat as they try to unload baggage from overhead), and general comfy-ness. Moreover, this management of baggage enables this!!!:

Shinkansen refreshment trolley (image taken from https://www.seat61.com/Japan.htm (ps I LOVE the food carts. Yum.)

Reservations for Seats with an Oversized Baggage Area | Central Japan Railway Company

(image taken from https://global.jrcentral.co.jp...o/oversized-baggage/)

Narita Express luggage space

( image taken from: https://www.seat61.com/Japan.htm (those phone-handset-cord looking are customer set codes that lock with an alarm your baggage to deter theft.))

Do you know how much nicer Amtrak rides would be without the super narrow corridors and the bumping into people all the time as you try to drag your luggage down from the overhead? A good examination of the above pictures shows that it doesn't take much space, just _better use of the space_, to really make a QoL improve in a train ride.

A trainride in India would be a Robert Frost "Experience (tm, @)". Once or twice in my life, hanging off a train moving at speed with hundreds of others would be fun to try. But I am past that age, and like sardine issues, I understand (but do not necessarily agree with) the journalist's observations. Things could be done better and differently, just takes some willingness on Amtrak's part to learn from others! I would sure as rain would take the Marc + Metro into and out of DC and Baltimore, and the occasional trip to see grandkids in PA via Amtrak and Septa, if the trains themselves were just laid out more... comfy? convenient?

Most Amfleet II cars I have ridden in do have baggage racks at the end of the car adjacent to the restrooms. Not sure about the Amfleet I. The quantity of luggage I have seen would probably make the elimination of overhead racks impractical. That was one reason multilevel cars were excluded from consideration as Amfleet replacements as there is zero room for overhead storage on the lower level (and very limited space on the upper level owing to overall clearance restrictions in the Northeast).

---PCJ

@Fast Mail posted:

Regarding the article linked above by Doug W

Just to be clear, our intrepid traveler/journalist who was eager to experience the “A road less traveled” may need to find a better approach or should I say departure. I was distressed to hear he had to walk toward the end of the train to find his car. Then on top of that he was forced tonavigate tight hallways with his suitcase; then it got real bad, and I quote.

“ I closed the door and shut the curtains so I could have some privacy. Once I was settled, I enjoyed the views of New York City as they flashed across the window. I also turned on Netflix for some needed entertainment.”

I don't think he enjoyed his train trip. Did Amtrak let him down or did the Netflix fail to entertain???

Robert Frost wrote a famous poem “The Road not Taken” the last lines being:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.














Hopefully the won't get wiped out by the topic police, but that poem is interesting in that most people don't understand what it really means. Most people assume it means when you come to the fork in the road, take the less travelled path because it is more fulfilling. What it really means is kind of like that immortal philosopher, Yogi Berra, said, when you come to the fork in the road, take it....in other words down the road we convince ourselves that we indeed took the road less travelled and were the better person for it, no matter which fork we took

I am constantly amazed at, and plagued by, many folks on this board who think that because they are sponsors or long-time members, they can tell folks what they can and cannot say on this Board, even if what is being said is totally in compliance with the forum rules.  They don't own this Board.

I trust the Moderators to fairly and judiciously enforce the rules, and everybody else should just move on if they don't like the content.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×