AMTRAK to suspend long distance trains article

Long distance Amtrak service has been hanging by a thread since day one of Amtrak. We can't discuss the politics of the Congressional funding of Amtrak but therein lies the problem. Since the end of WWII all rail passenger service has run in the red and the railroads were delighted to offload this service onto Amtrak. Every year taxpayer $$ are used to make up the difference between operating revenue and operating costs, thus the political football.

Lew

Hi Sam,

 Searching for the other threads about this is not easy due to the topic titles.   Here's one where we discussed part of the issue

https://ogrforum.com/...11#80128401253742111

Just my opinion but, the Amtrak long distance passenger trains are really more of a vacation outing, rather than used for business personnel, or purely transportation. Pretty hard to rationalize taking a 3 day "business trip" from, say Chicago to either Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Thus, if vacationers desire to take a "land cruise", then they should be prepared to pay the full-boat costs of such a trip, WITHOUT taxpayer assistance.

Just like the highways and airplanes? 

Farmer_Bill posted:

Just like the highways and airplanes? 

Unlike the "highways" and "air ports", the U.S. railroads are private businesses, that not only pay income taxes, but also massive realestate/property taxes. Yes, the airlines are also private business, but have the luxury of taxpayer constructed air ports. The railroads do not have that same luxury.

Just finished this excellent book which covers this and many other topics. The author documents in detail how passenger service has been dying for decades. Way before Amtrak.

https://www.goodreads.com/book...romance-of-the-rails

Virtually all of the world's excellent passenger rail transportation is government subsidized, and the citizens of those diverse countries are all too glad to support that system. It could work here if there was the political will to do so. The focus on major intercity passenger rail upgrades might be a start. The US rail system is heavily freight oriented, and that system is currently in a state of transition to a more efficient and leaner structure. Those so-called "Land Cruise" passengers probably should bear a greater share of the cost for such non-essential travel.

This debate will be endless.  All transportation forms are supported by government subsidies in some form.  Here in CA we are spending millions on bike lanes and trails even though only a tiny percentage of the population uses bikes to get around.  Scooters and bikes from companies such as Lime Bike have become a safety and pollution problem because riders leave them on the side walks and streets.

Whether or not a train is cost efficient almost always depends on how the accounting is done.  It is easy to allocate expenses and income in many different ways depending on the point that an organization wants to make.  I suppose we will find out if passenger trains can be successful if the new Bright Line (spelling ?) service in FL succeeds.  As I understand it, the trains are mostly privately funded. 

Long distance passenger provide a service just as subsidized airline service to small airports provides a service.  There are no right, wrong or easy answers to this question.   NH Joe

This is a great idea by Amtrak.  This way the government will be subsidizing transportation that actually serves the public interest by offering more options for transportation on busy intercity corridors and alleviating the burden on the roads.   Right now the subsidy is being used to benefit vacationers on long haul routes.

Very little chance of this happening however because Congress loves to ***** about Amtrak subsidies while they act in a manner that makes it impossible for the railroad to be more efficient.  Also, the unions will go beserk because the long haul routes add to Amtrak’s already out-of-whack labor costs relative to other railroads.  So all the old geezers can relax, they will still have vacation trains subsidized by the remainder of the U.S. taxpayers.  

Highways and airports are heavily government subsidized (socialism?) quite simply because they are the MAIN systems of passenger transport in the US. With the exception of the Northeast Corridor and a few other routes, there does not really exist a concensus for government support of the entire Amtrak system with the politicians or their constituents.

As NH JOE stated above, there are NO easy answers, and the debate continues!

Hot Water posted:

Just my opinion but, the Amtrak long distance passenger trains are really more of a vacation outing, rather than used for business personnel, or purely transportation. Pretty hard to rationalize taking a 3 day "business trip" from, say Chicago to either Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Thus, if vacationers desire to take a "land cruise", then they should be prepared to pay the full-boat costs of such a trip, WITHOUT taxpayer assistance.

I have no idea what they numbers are, but whatever they are, it's not a matter of opinion. A certain percentage is made up of people who, for one reason or other, do not fly.

But in a way, what would have happened if there was no Amtrak?  Part of the reason for it was to "help" the PC.  However, would most of the freight railroads would have gone into Conrail or something like it if they had to keep up the passenger trains they had?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

But in a way, what would have happened if there was no Amtrak?  Part of the reason for it was to "help" the PC.  However, would most of the freight railroads would have gone into Conrail or something like it if they had to keep up the passenger trains they had?

Good grief!!!!  Where do you come up with such stuff?????

Hot Water posted:

Just my opinion but, the Amtrak long distance passenger trains are really more of a vacation outing, rather than used for business personnel, or purely transportation. Pretty hard to rationalize taking a 3 day "business trip" from, say Chicago to either Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Thus, if vacationers desire to take a "land cruise", then they should be prepared to pay the full-boat costs of such a trip, WITHOUT taxpayer assistance.

Wonder what the customer full-boat costs would be? Maybe 5-6 times todays' cost?  Sure some AMTRAK green shade visor bean counter has the cost to the penny.

I thought I heard that Amtrak was funded at current levels on the spending bill last week.

The railroads have been wanting to dump the long distance trains for a long time, but I just don't see them going away. The sky is always falling on Amtrak, but they're like cockroaches, can't get rid of them. 

Glad I rode the Empire Builder to Seattle. I'll keep following it til it actually stops. The map is going to look weird without the four big trains:

1. Sunset Limited
2. Southwest Chief
3. California Zephyr
4. Empire Builder

As a railfan this is the real national emergency.

I've said this many times in the past, but for the US, rail travel is a geography problem. It will never be profitable on it's own and will always need government support. The west just doesn't have the population density to ever have a train  turn anything close to a profit. The counterargument is does the public good outweigh the expense? Compared to other budget items, Amtrak is a drop in the bucket.

President Trump who had executive ordered Fed money, as a starter for a multi-billion, or even trillion dollar west coast mass transit system, recently became so frustrated with West Coast politics, he canceled the Fed contribution.  IMO, The water on the west coast must be different, IMO.  Use to call it progressive think, not sure what you called it today.   Yoy!!   

Mike CT posted:

President Trump who had executive ordered Fed money, as a starter for a multi-billion, or even trillion dollar west coast mass transit system, recently became so frustrated with West Coast politics, he canceled the Fed contribution.  IMO, The water on the west coast must be different, IMO.  Use to call it progressive think, not sure what you called it today.   Yoy!!   

I heard a very different story on that, that it was the Governor of California that pulled the plug on the project, by not continuing state funding. That action made the federal funding go away. Didn't have anything to do with Trump. The Governor happens to be a Democrat, as was his predecessor whose pet project it was originally. The project didn't even start on Trump's watch. It's been going on a lot longer than he's been in office. He doesn't deserve credit or blame for this one.

I'm doing my very best to not be political, but when it comes to money and real trains, there's really no worthwhile discussion without it.

Big_Boy_4005 posted:

Mike CT posted:

President Trump who had executive ordered Fed money, as a starter for a multi-billion, or even trillion dollar west coast mass transit system, recently became so frustrated with West Coast politics, he canceled the Fed contribution.  IMO, The water on the west coast must be different, IMO.  Use to call it progressive think, not sure what you called it today.   Yoy!!   

I heard a very different story on that, that it was the Governor of California that pulled the plug on the project, by not continuing state funding. That action made the federal funding go away. Didn't have anything to do with Trump. The Governor happens to be a Democrat, as was his predecessor whose pet project it was originally.

Correct, and that was quite some days ago that the NEW California Governor "pulled the plug" on the ridiculous HSR mess within his own state.

I'm doing my very best to not be political, but when it comes to money and real trains, there's really no worthwhile discussion without it.

Thanks Jack, I always worry that people who rely on certain "news" sources  don't get the truth. I'm a firm believer in truth, despite what comes out of the President these days. I have a good ear for BS when I hear it.

The LA Times reports that the governor just called a pause in the project, allowing the Bakersfield/Merced line to proceed.

I am among those who would like to see Amtrak upgraded to track speeds and frequencies that would be useful - those of 1950 spring to mind.  I have heard that it wouldn't take all that many billions to do a reasonable upgrade.

I personally see no use for "bullet trains".  Having driven large things at 300 mph, there is just no way I want any part of a train hurtling down the tracks at speeds like that.  Eighty is plenty - maybe 110 on the straight parts.  The very nice Coast Starlight averages below 40 mph, which is why it is more like a luxury cruise than a transportation system.

This seems like a smart move if it really happens although losing a few trains will probably not impact the Amtrak bottom line all that much.  For what it is worth the North East Corridor should be spun off as an entirely separate business unit.  California seems to handle rail fairly well perhaps that should be a separate business unit as well, it appears Florida is well on its way with the Brightline experiment.  Other than nostalgia it just doesn't make any business sense to have once daily trains crossing the country at a pace just above wagon train speed and frequently late.  Better to concentrate on something that can provide quality service and build out from there.

From Amtrak website today

Tinplate Art posted:

Those so-called "Land Cruise" passengers probably should bear a greater share of the cost for such non-essential travel.

And perhaps "land cruise" motorists going on vacations should pay more highway taxes, and airline passengers on pleasure trips should pay more costs of the FAA, and airport security, and airport construction and maintenance, and etc. etc.

bob2 posted:

I am among those who would like to see Amtrak upgraded to track speeds and frequencies that would be useful - those of 1950 spring to mind.  I have heard that it wouldn't take all that many billions to do a reasonable upgrade.

I personally see no use for "bullet trains".  Having driven large things at 300 mph, there is just no way I want any part of a train hurtling down the tracks at speeds like that.  Eighty is plenty - maybe 110 on the straight parts. 

Not sure where you heard that. As most folks know, the speed problems with Amtrak primarily stem from the fact that they have to use infrastruction that belongs to the private freight railroads, and guess who takes priority? It's not a matter of upgrading Amtrak's track speeds and frequencies - freight schedules effectively keep a lid on it. Not sure what a "reasonable upgrade" would be, other than adding more dedicated track for Amtrak's use, but that cost would be enormous. 

Don't want any part of bullet trains? China, Japan, and Europe are leaving you in the dust. And the U.S. air system is becoming saturated. Now what? Then there are those who think the U.S. is "too big" for high speed rail. Really? China soars while America sleeps.

      "Beijing-Shanghai high speed train link the two megacities 1,318 km (819 mi) away in just 4.5 hours. By 2018, China          keeps the world's largest high speed rail (HSR) network with a length totaling over 29,000 km (18,000 mi). The                    world's longest HSR line, Beijing - Hong Kong High Speed Railway, extends 2,440 km (1,516 mi)."

necrails posted:

Other than nostalgia it just doesn't make any business sense to have once daily trains crossing the country at a pace just above wagon train speed and frequently late.  Better to concentrate on something that can provide quality service and build out from there.

Perhaps better to adequately fund something that's already in place but has been strangled by budget cuts, and build out from there.

To further muddy the waters:

From Railway Age:

America without Greyhound—and no replacement passenger trains

It's a "what if" piece, so cool your jets. But the "if" is currently playing out in Canada, so cautionary tale, or a prophecy...?

---PCJ 

I hardly call it a vacation..getting to one place or another..

Fly or bus is what's left...or drive. And the cost of gas nicks that. Plus motel/motel. Costs.

Not everyone makes a 100 grand a year.

As discussed before, the cost per taxpayer to subsidize Amtrak is less than $10.00 per year.  There is no vast cost savings in cutting Amtrak partially or fully, and to pretend that fuel prices are always going to be as low as they are now is short-sighted at best.

Farmer_Bill posted:

From Amtrak website today

Save up to 25% Across the Country

Book early with Saver Fares. Book Today

 

It should probably read, "Book early so you can't take advantage of 25% savings fares later on". My case with booking the Sunset Limited and Cresent a month ago for May.

It's not unusual to fund "money losers" with "money makers". The Delaware River Port Authority funds the Cape May/Lewes Ferry with profits from the Delaware Memorial Bridge up north. The ferry is a time and distance saver for cars and trucks, many of them coming from/to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel. On the NJ side, it links directly to the Garden State Parkway. BTW, passage on the ferry is NOT inexpensive.

necrails posted:

 it just doesn't make any business sense to have once daily trains crossing the country

The Sunset Limited, New Orleans to LA, is just 3 days per week.

breezinup posted:

Don't want any part of bullet trains? China, Japan, and Europe are leaving you in the dust. And the U.S. air system is becoming saturated. Now what? Then there are those who think the U.S. is "too big" for high speed rail. Really? China soars while America sleeps.

      "Beijing-Shanghai high speed train link the two megacities 1,318 km (819 mi) away in just 4.5 hours. By 2018, China          keeps the world's largest high speed rail (HSR) network with a length totaling over 29,000 km (18,000 mi). The                    world's longest HSR line, Beijing - Hong Kong High Speed Railway, extends 2,440 km (1,516 mi)."

Wonder if Beijing to Tibet will ever make a profit?  (think CHI to LA)

It is a fact that the rest of the world has outpaced us with high speed rail technology including some limited mag-lev operations. Most, if not all, employ electric propulsion, and operate on dedicated crossing-free rights of way. Americans, with our independent streak, quickly adopted the automobile and airplane as the dominant modes of travel, while the passenger railroads, and their antiquated infrastructure, were largely "left in the dust" only to be quasi-rescued by Amtrak. The political will (on all sides) just really was not there, and consequently, we settled for the least common denominator. The several intercity lines such as those in Florida and California are perhaps bright spots (pun intended) in what is otherwise a very pale reflection of the modern and efficient railroads of most of the developed world! "When will they ever learn?" - Pete Seeger

Matt_GNo27 posted:

Hot Water posted:

Just my opinion but, the Amtrak long distance passenger trains are really more of a vacation outing, rather than used for business personnel, or purely transportation. Pretty hard to rationalize taking a 3 day "business trip" from, say Chicago to either Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle. Thus, if vacationers desire to take a "land cruise", then they should be prepared to pay the full-boat costs of such a trip, WITHOUT taxpayer assistance.

I have no idea what they numbers are, but whatever they are, it's not a matter of opinion. A certain percentage is made up of people who, for one reason or other, do not fly.

Is it the job of the American taxpayer to pay for another option because a few people don't like the other two options?  The fact of the matter is, people moving aside, the highway system and the air system support our economy by moving goods and providing services.  Passenger rail travel is one dimensional and redundant.  As I said on another forum the other day, if AMTRAK suspended ALL operations outside of a couple corridors tomorrow at 8AM, the ONLY way 98% of the population would even be aware of it is by seeing the news reports of it.  THAT is how inconsequential and unimportant rail travel is to the VAST majority of the nation.  I've managed to survive 51 years (in which I have visited 30 states) without ever setting foot on an AMTRAK train.

I checked one-way flight from Chicago to Seattle at 2PM this Saturday - $300

Then the same trip via Amtrak, also leaving 2PM this Saturday - $400

Amtrak travel is much cheaper per hour than flying.  I'm surprised more businessmen don't choose it. 

Outside of selected high density urban corridors, passenger rail travel in the US is practically invisible to the vast majority of Americans. Farmer Bill's suggestion above about state initiated and sponsored intercity travel has merit. Maybe it is also time to rededicate the remaining long distance Amtrak trains as true land cruises with appropriate increased revenue structures to pay for their operation. The folks who are patrons due to an aversion to flying are probably fewer than the rail cruise customers, so the greater good would be served. Amenities and gourmet meals could be added to justify the increased fares, and maybe even a mini-spa and hair salon.

Well, then, I'd better book a ride soon. It's a nice way to go if you're not in a hurry.

Farmer_Bill posted:

I checked one-way flight from Chicago to Seattle at 2PM this Saturday - $300

Then the same trip via Amtrak, also leaving 2PM this Saturday - $400

Amtrak travel is much cheaper per hour than flying.  I'm surprised more businessmen don't choose it. 

True, until fuel prices rise again.  A 737 size airplane uses about 800 gallons of jet fuel per hour.  Fuel makes up about half the operating cost of airlines, so any change in price has a disproportionate impact on ticket cost compared to the railroads.  In the 70s, the demand for rail travel rose dramatically after the oil embargo.  More recently, the 2008 spike in oil prices with gasoline topping $5.00 per gallon caused a net reduction in the total miles driven in the United States.  It will not take much to cause another economic disaster and, suddenly, the time required to travel by train does not seem so bad after all.