@Doug W. posted:California Hi-Speed Rail, I rest my case.
That's the one I was thinking of. 
We no longer need ocean liners to take us to Europe or Asia yet cruise lines flourish. The problem isn't necessarily with passenger rail making money but with the mentality in which it is viewed. The majority of the comments here objecting to it or seeing it as a "boondoggle" view rail as a point to point means of travel. I think rail becomes viable again when the trip is seen as the destination rather the point at which it ends.
@Hot Water posted:Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
Agreed, 💯
@Hot Water posted:Just my opinion but, as a taxpayer, I firmly believe that the U.S. Government needs to get out of the passenger train "business". Many current "young people" keep trying to compare our country to Europe and/or China & Japan as "world class passenger service". Many, MOST seem to forget that our country is essentially based around the automobile and it's industry, with extremely long distances between cities. Our citizens don't seem to desire "duding trains", regardless of speed, instead prefer their own automobile.
Also, remember that hauling passengers is a loosing proposition, as passenger trains can not turn a profit!
Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
I will surprised if my (yet-to-be-born) grandchildren have any more idea what it means to own a personal vehicle than I have any idea what it means to own a horse and buggy.
(Just to be clear: I reject categorically any notion that this issue has anything to do at all with political parties and discourage any attempt to make any partisan hay out of my perspective. I reserve the right to adjust the timeline, however.)
I'm always surprised that a forum filled with train enthusiasts seems to be predominantly anti-Amtrak.
Here is my rhetorical question of the day: why does Amtrak need to make a profit? The airline industry certainly does not (if all costs are included--just ask the Europeans about their privatized air traffic control system), nor does the bus system or shipping industry.
All forms of transportation are subsidized--the main difference is that Amtrak is a direct bill whereas other forms of transportation are subsidized indirectly, such as the FAA, highway spending, waterway management, etc.
The cost to subsidize Amtrak is roughly $5 to $10 per taxpayer per year, if I remember the calculations I made from a previous post correctly. If you (or I) had to directly pay the true cost of flying or driving every time we bought an airline ticket or got in the car, then we would likely do substantially less flying and driving.
Additionally, we maintain a national rail network for other reasons than entertainment. Just as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet is available for military contingencies, so is the national passenger rail network.
Also, aircraft cannot use other types of fuel since the energy density requirements are so high. Trains can, without the very expensive process of converting coal to oil. A 737 size aircraft uses about 800 gallons of fuel per block hour, and fuel prices fluctuate substantially (remember 2008, $150 per barrel of crude).
The willingness to pay for the time convenience of flying quickly disappears when ticket prices escalate even slightly with increases in fuel costs.
@IC EC posted:All forms of transportation are subsidized--the main difference is that Amtrak is a direct bill whereas other forms of transportation are subsidized indirectly, such as the FAA, highway spending, waterway management, etc.
Agree... people who loathe the public funding of rail transportation conveniently overlook the untold billions (trillions?) that have been spent on roads - nearly all on taxpayer dime. While partially driven by fuel tax, deriving some "fee for use" arguments, it's my understanding that the fuel taxes don't cover the total costs. Additionally - what happens when I make a car that runs on solar power?
Now, I'm not saying we should bet the farm on Amtrak, but I think the spending so far has been pretty modest when you look at the benefits. I also enjoy driving my car on our highways on a nice sunny day with the windows down - but that doesn't mean other's should be deprived the right to move about simply because we want to pay for our roads and nothing else.
There was an interesting comparison of why air travel is more profitable (less of a money pit?) than rail travel - and it mostly had to do with labor costs - that in the end boiled down to "trains slower - more labor hours - more cost". If I can find it, I'll share. With self-driving cars afoot - and PTC being the mandate everywhere - I could see a lot of jobs being cut out of the rail industry (for better or worse) and the costs falling enough to make it profitable, outright.
I'm pretty sure there are examples of trams all over the place (ironically at airports) that have no operator - or maybe just one watching over the system remotely.
I don't understand where all this comes from. There is federal mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Here is the breakdown of each percentage wise:
The transportation spending falls under the 30% discretionary spending. Of that 30% the breakdown for transportation is as follows:
How does that translate into wasted tax money? I love the railroads and would like to see more spent on it and less on some of the really bloated budgets.
John
@palallin posted:Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
They'll have to wait for me to die before all the personal automobiles come to an end. 
If you have the thought that if I don't use it then I should not have to pay for it. Well then let's get rid of the schools first.
I think that viewpoint is very short-sighted, Kind of like corporations need not pay at all because "they" never use anything!
@IC EC posted:I'm always surprised that a forum filled with train enthusiasts seems to be predominantly anti-Amtrak.
Here is my rhetorical question of the day: why does Amtrak need to make a profit?
I know you said rhetorical, but I have to weigh in with my two cents
Why does Amtrak need to make a profit?
It doesn't - and that is part of the problem. Losing money is a sign of waste and inefficiency and Amtrak manages to do that WITH the subsidies afforded to it. The real question is, "Do we really need high-speed rail with the other options that are more attractive?" Speed over long distance is covered by the air and customization is covered by motor vehicles. Passenger rail travel is stuck in between - it's not fast enough (even HSR), and it can't go everywhere that everyone wants to go. The NEC may be an exception as it has critical mass, so it could possibly make sense to invest there, but in a time that remote work is transforming the traditional workplace, there is no doubt that ridership will decline. Do we really want to invest all of that money into something with a downward trajectory?
If we, as a nation, had a better than balanced budget and our national debt was not $28 TRILLION at 130% of GDP, then we could start talking about projects that don't really produce an ROI. At this point, we as Americans really need to consider whether our not our taxpayer dollars are spent in a way that makes sense. HSR would not produce a net economic benefit to the overall economy. Rail is really good at moving freight efficiently and we can maintain that freight moving about the country efficiently is a benefit to society as a whole. HSR for passenger travel can't make that same claim.
HSR lines are not essential and do not indicate our ranking in the world. China has the most HSR lines of any country by a long shot with approximately 16,695 miles while the US has 33 miles of HSR. https://www.eesi.org/papers/vi...evelopment-worldwide. In 2014, 88% of American households owned a vehicle while only 17% of Chinese households owned a vehicle. https://www.statista.com/stati...-vehicle-by-country/ Which country would you rather live in now or the next 100 years?
We are nearing a point where our national debt is threat to our own national security. One might say that the HSR infrastructure is a drop in the bucket, but when someone says that about every single project/program, it snowballs into what we have now. As someone in his mid-30s and raising a family, I think it is unconscionable to be leaving the generations to come with the mess of national debt that will severely hinder their opportunity for growth.
With that said, I love the idea of rail travel and have been on a number of excursions and love the extra room and romance of it all. The bottom line, and where the adults in the room need to land is, HSR just doesn't makes sense, sadly as it may be.
"We are nearing a point where our national debt is threat to our own national security. "
Deficits are the difference between revenue and expenditures. 2020 was a year of record breaking revenue loss due to Covid.
Did you notice that all discussions about the national debt only focus on expenditures?
John
Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
Quote:
"As someone in his mid-30s and raising a family, I think it is unconscionable to be leaving the generations to come with the mess of national debt that will severely hinder their opportunity for growth."
End Quote.
Well, for the record, I'd like for it to be known that I'm retired, yet the wife and I managed to amass enough savings (401k), and earn good enough retirements, that we live nicely. We have a home that is paid for, all our vehicles are paid for, etc. Not one red cent of that was granted/given via "entitlement"/whatever by the government.
In fact, we've never received any entitlements over the decades we were in the workplace, and that includes zero "unemployment" checks. WE learned how to manage our funds and take care of business. I think you'll find that there a LOT of "Baby Boomers" that did likewise, thus we get to enjoy our final years in retirement.
The problem isn't the Baby Boomers/etc. No, the problem is strictly the fault of some 500+ individuals that selfishly, carelessly, and stupidly spend OUR income tax. (This includes BOTH parties.) Those individuals are members of Congress, the Executive, and Judiciary branches of the US government. They spend OUR money like it's candy to be passed out, as if there's a never ending flow of YOUR money.
THERE is where the problem lies. NOT at the feet of hard working Americans that worked their azzes off to get where they're at today. WE (responsible Americans) know how to manage our personal funds. THEY don't.
Andre
The government spends lots of money on projects that I don't approve of. The government spends lots of money on projects I approve of, including projects which help me conduct my business, that I am sure others do not approve of. Arguments that start out "As a taxpayer" don't usually hold water with me. They smack of that line from National Treasure 2: "Oh look. My tax dollars at work, coming to arrest me." What matters more are some basic questions: 1) Does it make sense, given the goals of those who are promoting the project? 2) Who benefits and what real benefits are actually provided? 3) Who will be harmed by the project? 4) Are there better ways to accomplish the same goals? 5) Do those alternatives result in those who benefit from the project bearing a greater portion of the cost than the proposal? 6) Will pursuing the project close the door to pursuing other projects, and if so which will provide greater short and long term benefits?
Whether you are pro-mass transit or against it, whether you are pro-Amtrak or against it, some of these projects don't make sense under these tests. True high speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor falls in this category. It makes more sense to be upgrading the existing rail infrastructure along this route so the benefits of existing higher speed trains could be achieved, than it does to rebuild it or build a parallel system for high speed rail.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
That is exactly how they frame it. "Most of us" should not be generating the needed revenue to offset endless cuts to infrastructure and the other things that fall under the pittance they dwell on just for the sake of privatizing every last thing. Look again at the pie graphs I posted above.
Here is who gets a free pass while the rest of us pay the price in losses in healthcare, infrastructure, education, and the ultimate target - the Social Safety Net particularly for the elderly. Not everyone lost during the pandemic (like the small model train stores did). Some got rich off of it and continue to do so while being protected as a class. While we fight over the crumbs that are left and who should get more crumbs than the rest.
https://www.newyorker.com/news...pay-for-our-recovery
EDIT: Hopefully this thread doesn't get political and therefore deleted. I think I am done commenting for that reason alone. I have more in common with everyone than not so I would like to keep it that way.
Regards,
John
@Dominic Mazoch posted:The freight railroads have their own ROW and make a profit.
So, let's take Bloomberg to the max extent.
Privatize most transportation. All controlled access highways become toll roads AND pay taxes.
Privatize airports and the air traffic control system. And have those pay taxes. I think Charles Lindbergh was against government monies for airlines.
Shipping lanes and ports become "toll roads". Same with taxes.
Get rid of most of the gas tax (need it for local roads.), special taxes for air/ports, ET. AL. That will produce true winners and losers.
Interesting proposal, but I suspect a lot of people if you did this would be complaining. If the Airline industry had to pay for full use of airports, if they had to pay the cost of the air traffic control systems, the cost of air travel would skyrocket and people who fly wouldn't be happy. If roads were all privatized and we got rid of road use taxes, simply charged tolls, the trucking industry wouldn't be happy, the road use fees they pay now and the tax on diesel fuel doesn't anywhere nearly cover the cost trucks cause in terms of road wear and tear,private toll road operators would charge them full cost +. What privatization would do is unmask the many hidden subsidies out there. If oil and gas companies had to pay fair use when they lease federal land for drilling, the kind of fees a private land owner would want, oil and gas would not be nearly as economically viable as they are at the moment. The difference with Amtrak is that its subsidies/spending are publicly out there, as part of a budget, people see the x billions to upgrade the NEC, they don't see the Y billions in hidden subsidies the airline industry gets, etc, etc.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:I agree with both points of view. If I have to go a few hundred miles, I'd rather drive than fly. If I have to go a few thousand miles, I'll suck it up and deal with the major inconvenience of the ridiculous regulations now in place to fly.
I'm like Rich, I really miss my airplane and having the ability to take off from SE-PA and be in Denver long before the sun sets. No security idiots to deal with, no hurry up and wait in various lines, etc.
Having rode Amtrak many times from PA to NY and Boston, and I can drive to NY or Boston as fast as the train will get me there, and I have my car when I get there.
If traffic is good, yeah, but with the state of the roads I would argue that one, the traffic on most of the highways at peak times are not good, including endless construction (Connecticut should just put up huge signs they never take down "Our highways stink, drive at your own risk). Doesn't mean that driving doesn't make sense (when I visit my son in Boston from here in Northern NJ, I drive. ).
On the other hand, the Boston/NY/Washington corridor for air travel is a nightmare, it is heavily travelled (in normal times), traffic to the airports is a mess. If I had to go to Boston on business, flying is not easy, for like an hour flight you have to get to the airport several hours early, which means leaving home much earlier to drive there, then you have the fact that most airline flights on that corridor are not on time, then the hassle on landing, then getting into the city.
If you had Amtrak NE service that was better than acela, you are going city center to city center, no TSA. If I had to go from one of the NY airports, I would have to drive, and even Newark, which is relatively close, by the time I drive there, get parking, and get to the terminal, it is prob close to an hour. I can get to Penn Station from my house in an hour and fifteen minutes via NJ Transit, the train itself is like 4 hours and I am in Boston city. If I fly to logan I have an hour to get to the terminal (2 hours before flight time), I cool my heels for the time after TSA, hopefully the flight takes off on time, that is another hour for flight (so up to 4 hours), then have to get off the plane, get transport to Boston and get there, it comes out to be a dead heat (and given how screwed up flights are on that corridor, this is being optimistic). I have done this, and it came out the same way, driving would be roughly the same time.
Imagine if Amtrak had true high speed rail to Boston, maybe 3 hours, and it would be quicker than flying, without the hassles.
I am also a pragmatist, that doesn't mean that long distance passenger travel makes sense, but as others have said, the idea that if it was profitable private business would do it doesn't always hold, there are a lot of businesses that rely on hidden and not so hidden subsidies to operate. As some have pointed out, on long distance train travel a lot of people rely on shorter hops, to get from here to there, and it might be valuable.
You know what be really valuable with train travel? To have real studies done on things like where the costs are in Amtrak, where the need is, the value of providing the service, to have real numbers. The ones I have seen generally are poor or are deliberately slanted, like the claim that the NE corridor doesnt subsidize the rest of the network or does. Problem is, getting funding to actually do an impartial study.
I think the NEC should be a distinct organization supported in part by the States it serves. This is an ideal spine railroad that can and does provide links to several State capitals. The distances are manageable, driving the 95 corridor isn't anyone's idea of fun so the travel time is competitive. Long distance rail, especially those trains that are once daily or even worse thrice weekly are worthless IMO as travel options. Those communities can be better served with a bus. I don't think we need a national passenger rail service but we may benefit from unique regional systems with adequate population and travel demands.
@prrjim posted:I grew up in a small town. I have lived in small cities and towns all my life. The large cities on Amtracks routes intimidate me. I had no desire to go into these center cities before and less now. and That is where trains go, right into the center cities. with all the crime and riots and looting and shootings I hear about every day on the news, call me a coward but I am very frightened of these big center cities. so Amtrak has no use for me. They don't go anywhere I want to go and they are very inconvenient.
You may not, other people might. I also could point out that your small town in your state likely is getting benefit from things other people pay for and don't get anything out of, often things like local schools may have been built thanks to federal block grants earmarked for school building, the electric power that people in your town have was likely paid for by Uncle Sam running the wiring, the infrastruture bills they are proposing ( and already was in place ) is wiring rural areas and small town for high speed broadband internet connections that also likely will be subsidized to make it affordable. I get a little tired of people saying "I am only willing to spend money on what benefits me", when likely they themselves have benefitted from it, when you went to school the school taxes your parents paid likely didn't cover the full cost, people without kids pay those same taxes, or parents who send their kids to private school, etc.
@palallin posted:Unless current social and cultural trends reverse, my sons' generation (I hope I will be dead by then) will see the predominance of the personal automobile come to an end. Recreational travel is being increasingly described as unnecessary privilege, and commercial travel is losing ground to electronic presence. In any case, social pressure is working hard to make such travel uneconomical for anyone. The citizens that you and I know (and are!) are dying off and losing economic and political clout.
I will surprised if my (yet-to-be-born) grandchildren have any more idea what it means to own a personal vehicle than I have any idea what it means to own a horse and buggy.
(Just to be clear: I reject categorically any notion that this issue has anything to do at all with political parties and discourage any attempt to make any partisan hay out of my perspective. I reserve the right to adjust the timeline, however.)
Things change, that is very true. We all grew up in the post WWII generation where the car became kind, prior to WWII a lot of people didn't have cars, they lived close to where they worked, prior to WWII the suburbs weren't what they were afterword. I think reports of the demise of the private car are premature, but it is possible it will happen at some point that you need to go somewhere, you order a self driving car . Younger people don't have the passion we did to drive, that I can tell you, which way it all goes, who knows? Covid is going to change things, the only thing no one knows is how much. It certainly will cut down business travel, but it won't totally eliminate it I am pretty sure, same way I am not sure the remote work model is going to be sustained to this level (I have been working from home since mid march, 2020), but there are reasons why I think it likely isn't going to work the same way people think, virtual offices have their problems...I think hybrid models will happen, which will cut down commuting levels, but won't eliminate it, lot of people don't want to work from home (some do, of course). I don't think leisure travel is going to die off or be made illegal (have heard that one), I don't see any indication of that. Put it this way, in the middle of this mess, the minute restrictions are lifted a bit, you see a surge in people flying and such. Society in 1940 was very different than society in 1950. Some things change, in the 1950's tv was the scourge of the world, now we have the internet and streaming (ok, somethings don't change). With Amtrak, one thing the train potentially can do is cut down pollution, if they are running electric engines with the power generated by potentially less polluting sources, be much less pollution than a jet plane puts out..does that mean that is going to happen? No way to know, just saying the future is going to unfold the way it always has, it likely won't be close to what people predicted it would be.
What ever happened to Elon Musk inventing a bullet train?-
Would the argument change if new technology finally arrived and you could go cross country in an hour?
Use the first dollars for Amtrak to keep the bathrooms clean and hire more polite waiters in the dining car!
One thing we that taxpayers pay for for both air travel and train travel is the TSA. They are only doing their job but in airports they make it a non starter for me. At train stations it is usually 2 guys and dog who spend most of their time keeping people away from trying to pet or say hi to the dog. One woman once was told please don't disturb her she's working to which she said then why can we talk to you, aren't you working?
@barry perlin posted:Use the first dollars for Amtrak to keep the bathrooms clean and hire more polite waiters in the dining car!
There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
There’s a cafe car I know on The Pennsylvanian which my wife surprised me with tickets on from Johnstown to Altoona around the Horseshoe Curve.
@Former Member posted:What ever happened to Elon Musk inventing a bullet train?-
Elon is still working on his train.
Would the argument change if new technology finally arrived and you could go cross country in an hour?
It would depend on the cost. The Concorde flew from NY to London in 3 hours but only the very wealthy or corporations could afford it. NH Joe
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Most of us can't spend what we don't have!
Actually, most Americans can and do spend more than they have. This is the reason that the average American has $8 to $10 thousand in credit card debt at high interest rates. It is also the reason that the average family struggles if they have an unexpected expense of more than $400. The expensive vacation to wherever on credit is more important than dollars in their savings accounts.
Our elected leaders are just like the rest of us. They spend more than comes in both in their private and public lives. They are us. Politicians also support over spending to preserve jobs and get votes.
There are many "good causes" out there that people think should be funded and new "good causes" are discovered every day. This includes the FAA, airports and Amtrak. There are always competing interests for money for each "good cause" or group.
Politics is the art of the deal. I will vote for your Amtrak as long as you vote for my little airport.
NH Joe
I thought the article was pretty good.
I think viable rail service in the NEC is something everyone who is familiar with the NEC agrees is essential. The question seems to be how are the costs divvied up between the federal government, the states of the NEC, and the users.
So here is a wild idea I'd like to throw out there for discussion. The gov subsidizes the airports and pretty much pays for the roads (with some direct tax subsidies), right? But the users of this infrastructure are private. Can the gov build high speed corridors that do not use freight lines and then turn the running of passenger service over to private entities? Is this feasible?
The real structural issue I see outside of the NEC is that most of the sprawling urban areas in the south and west were built for the automobile. We are, after all a young country. The other wild card is, what will travel be like post pandemic and with increasing pressure to address climate change. Will commuting ever go back to pre-Covid levels. Will air travel become even less attractive? I think we have already seen the demise of short air hops. Those are the corridors that could benefit from better rail service. Chicago-Detroit. Dallas-San Antonio. etc.
Signed up here a few weeks ago but have been reading for years.
This is my favorite thread so far. Everyone here loves trains for their own reasons. I have mine.
Both sides of the political spectrum have made good points here.
Trains from A to B places are what built America in between A and B.
Poster rundiii said this about the CA one.
It is not to make trains to nowhere, it is to make trains to somewhere that does not exist today. Specifically, huge sprawling suburbs in the Central Valley. Turn as much of the Central Valley agricultural land into suburbs as possible. Developers are just drooling over all the money they will make. Farmers fight it as much as they can.
Towns grew up along the rails in America not the other way around.
My opinion, the NEC should be completely eliminated to keep the lobbyists and shillsters far away from the "public servants" in Washington DC.
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:There are still dining cars on Amtrak?
Full "traditional" dining car services return on west of Chicago trains in May. No announcement on Eastern trains yet.
Jon 
@Will posted:The gov subsidizes the airports and pretty much pays for the roads (with some direct tax subsidies), right? But the users of this infrastructure are private. Can the gov build high speed corridors that do not use freight lines and then turn the running of passenger service over to private entities? Is this feasible?
Here is the problem with "the private sector can do it better".
Wall Street Analyst Encouraged Rail Company to Lobby Against Train Safety Rules
John
EDIT: I know. I said I was done commenting, but this thread didn't get political which is really nice.
@Craftech posted:Here is the problem with "the private sector can do it better".
Wall Street Analyst Encouraged Rail Company to Lobby Against Train Safety Rules
John
EDIT: I know. I said I was done commenting, but this thread didn't get political which is really nice.
I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
One problem I see is multiple airlines can compete for business on the same route. Trains did that in the passenger era. I'm not sure how that is possible in the scenario proposed.
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
The most recent report says otherwise:
The FAA ignored safety issues ahead of deadly crashes, cozied up with companies it was supposed to regulate Business Insider
John
@Craftech posted:The most recent report says otherwise:
John
Okay, touche. But that link doesn't work, btw.
@Will posted:Okay, touche. But that link doesn't work, btw.
OK sorry. It was in Business Insider - I'll try to fix the link, but here is the actual report:
Committee Investigation Report Aviation Safety Oversight December 2020
I think the link is fixed now
John
I'd take a train from Boston to Toronto; currently there isn't one. I know it would be slow, but I don't want to fly and that's a long drive for me.
You may find it interesting that Amtrak, while it begs the government for assistance, not only charges a lot but has a horrible penalty for cancellation. While the airlines not only have better prices and no change fees, Amtrak shows just how pitiful it is. I had booked the Silver Meteor one-way from DE to FL, hoping to experience what I knew would cost more than flying, about 4 times more ($487). But then AA offered a fare sale, offering a RT for $182! AA easily allowed me to modify my original one-way ticket from FL back to Philly, but when I went to cancel the Amtrak reservation, they stung me with a $116 cancellation charge! They claim you can only cancel for free if you do it at least 121 days before your trip! Huh? At this point, I'd like to see Amtrak die the death that it should have a long time ago. Like other forgotten railroads on my layout, Amtrak should join the list!
@howardih posted:You may find it interesting that Amtrak, while it begs the government for assistance, not only charges a lot but has a horrible penalty for cancellation. While the airlines not only have better prices and no change fees, Amtrak shows just how pitiful it is. I had booked the Silver Meteor one-way from DE to FL, hoping to experience what I knew would cost more than flying, about 4 times more ($487). But then AA offered a fare sale, offering a RT for $182! AA easily allowed me to modify my original one-way ticket from FL back to Philly, but when I went to cancel the Amtrak reservation, they stung me with a $116 cancellation charge! They claim you can only cancel for free if you do it at least 121 days before your trip! Huh? At this point, I'd like to see Amtrak die the death that it should have a long time ago. Like other forgotten railroads on my layout, Amtrak should join the list!
I don't know when you booked that, but if it was anytime within the last year or so, the airlines are offering incredibly low prices because they are hurting for customers thanks to Covid. I have done enough flying, and airlines in general are anything but flexible, if you want a ticket that can be changed without paying a stiff fee they generally were more expensive, a lot of tickets are non refundable even if something changes (or had been). The airline industry right now is hanging on because of government subsidies (and I don't object, it isn't their or the their employees fault we are in the middle of a global pandemic).
Not going to say Amtraks policies are great, though you can get great deals on train travel , and sometimes if you factor in all the costs of airline travel, like parking your car at the airport, then needing transport from the airport to the city, etc, it can be cheaper at times. Again, I will add that the airlines pre covid form the most part (Southwest was one of those who made it easy to change plans) were just as aweful with cancellations or changes, and they nickle and dime you to death with everything , from flights where if you want to take a carry on even they charge extra, charging 25 bucks for luggage you check, all the stuff like that. And i hate to say it but with as crammed in as you are on planes these days, a train is a heck of a lot more comfortable, planes are flying cattle cars, and the next generation is likely even to be worse, thanks to the FAA approving even less space for seating.
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.. The airlines have a very good safety record and the FAA keeps them on a leash and will not hesitate to ground a plane.
One problem I see is multiple airlines can compete for business on the same route. Trains did that in the passenger era. I'm not sure how that is possible in the scenario proposed.
The idea that the private sector always works better, operates more efficiently, etc has been blown out of the water. Yes, it is true that competition can provide better services, often at lower cost, but it also has a downside, that companies always try to avoid competition , they love monopoly or oligopoly because they decide what a customer gets (want a classic example? 3 rail O gauge trains, we complain about quality, because of lack of any real competition it isn't going to change; in the car industry, your quality is bad you buy another car company's products). The dark side of private business is that it often spends a lot of money to be able to duck safety regulations or get them otherwise done so they can save money. With some industries, the regulators often become a cheering section for the industry, the USDA allows packing plants and the like to self inspect now, the FAA is not auditing safety records the way they should (my dad worked in that sector, both military and civilian, for a number of years, there are all kinds of regulations around aircraft maintenance and safety, timetables of when parts have to be swapped out with replacement parts and the pulled out parts tested and certified as being good, procedures when a plane runs into problems. In recent years the FAA has allowed airline companies a a lot of leeway in that they don't audit the maintenance logs, airlines are skirting rules that could lead to a disaster. The Boeing 737 Max disaster happened because issues with the plane were not reported,the FAA never audited the design which might have shown a critical safety system some marketing whiz decided to make an expensive addition. The airline industry does have a good safety record, in part because they know crashes are bad for business, but there is a lot of pressure on airlines thanks to 'activist investors' (I won't tell you what i think of them on here, it is unprintable) and there has been severe pressure on regulators like the FAA to 'let the business do their thing, they have every reason to want to be safe' (would love for them to explain to me the 737 MAX disaster, then, I think Boeing is going to spend a lot of time and money trying to rebuild their reputation after their stupidity, it was bad design from the start, a kluge to begin with, and it went downhill from there, including the FAA letting it fly).
@Will posted:I see your point, but the right of way would be government maintained and the train sets would have to be built and operated under strict regulation. Perhaps this takes the incentive out of it.
The British tried this. It hasn't worked out. Maintenance by the government was just as bad as most infrastructure projects are. This is the reason we have bad roads and other infrastructure. Governments worldwide don't do maintenance well because it isn't a priority for voters.
The private trains that run on the government tracks in Britain are also bad. You can look online at all the complaints about poor service from the various British railroad companies. NH Joe
