End of the Line????

In all the years of all this rumors of Amtrak shutting down do you think that they are really serious now?

Lest we note, Mr. Burke, no Administration spokesman, mainly Secretary Mineta, has said they wish to kill rail passenger service in its entirety.

Obviously existing rail commuter service is quite safe, and, if the local initiative is there, I would not exclude other operations to be inaugurated. Case in point; the 'front range' proposals through Denver.

The Northeast Corridor, be it operated by Amtrak or a successor agency is also safe; I further believe that two differentiated classes of service will continue to be offered. One thing that can be said for the Acelas, they are a commercial success in that people are quite prepared (and I believe will continue when they are restored) to pay a steep premium to ride 'em.

The Administration has shown that where there is a local initiative to pay for a passenger train, there will be "apparatus' in place to ensure it will be run. At present, that means Amtrak. The Administration has noted that initiatives such as that presently existing in California, are AOK with them.

Well, now we get to the LD's; I personally think the party's over; the housemother is walking towards the light switch and they soon will "click'. Some fifty years from now, or long after they are extinct, historians will wonder how did they survive some 30 or so years by fiat in a deregulated railroad transportation environment.

The Northeast Corridor, be it operated by Amtrak or a successor agency is also safe

Depends on what you call "safe". I regard the possibility of the NEC being slowed down to 79 mph as being anything but "safe" in terms of the NYP-WAS business.

Obviously existing rail commuter service is quite safe

No, that's not so obvious. Funding cuts to rail in general will result in cuts to off-peak service and, indeed, to whole rail lines.

Well, now we get to the LD's; I personally think the party's over

People don't ride them to "party". And they do indeed ride them.

Some fifty years from now, or long after they are extinct, historians will wonder how did they survive some 30 or so years by fiat in a deregulated railroad transportation environment

The FRA upholding the ICC's edicts about signaling requirements relating to running speed and adding a few of their own, as well as instituting Tiers I and II relating to crashworthiness and emissions, I would not call "deregulation" by a long shot. Nor do I regard continued taxation of railroad rights-of-way by states "deregulation", or diesel fuel tax revenue going into the general fund.

Bias in DC? The recent $295 billion highway spending bill says it all.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Depends on what you call "safe". I regard the possibility of the NEC being slowed down to 79 mph as being anything but "safe" in terms of the NYP-WAS business.

There is no evidence or suggestion that an Amtrak successor agency would have to or desire to operate the NEC at less than today's level of service. The future NEC will operate at today's speeds or better whether the name on the cars says Amtrak or not.

Add to NARP's list of Amtrak myths this one: "Only Amtrak can operate intercity trains." That belief is total nonsense.

Your points are indeed noted, Mr. Chieftain.

Of course railroads ARE and will continue to be regulated with respect to operational and safety matters. That regulation will only increase in the future. Bureauacraies once entrenched "don't let go'.

My point, and admittedly it should have been better clarified, is that since enactment and implementation of the 1980 Staggers Act, railroads have been deregulated with regards to rates and commodities handled. A railroad today is free to charge and handle whatever it wishes. The marketplace becomes the regulator.

prr60 wrote:There is no evidence or suggestion that an Amtrak successor agency would have to or desire to operate the NEC at less than today's level of service. The future NEC will operate at today's speeds or better whether the name on the cars says Amtrak or not.

And where, may I ask, is your evidence to support your view? How would an "Amtrak successor agency" be funded? How would cooperation between states be coordinated? What guarantee would there be for further investment to allow high-speed operation?

Must I point out yet again that running speeds on the order of the NEC are only currently supported on rails that Amtrak owns? On the ConnDOT, MTA and MBTA-owned segments of the NEC, there is no 125-mph running. If the parts of the NEC that are currently under Amtrak's auspices are left to state DOTs, no 125-mph running will be sustained.

Add to NARP's list of Amtrak myths this one: "Only Amtrak can operate intercity trains." That belief is total nonsense.

Where, may I ask, does NARP have this in writing?

The very creation of Amtrak in the first place bottom-lines the fact that nobody else wants to operate intercity trains. No private concern will operate them, except as a contract operator without responsibility for rolling stock and/or track/signal upkeep and/or dispatching.

I think Mr. Burkeman started some interesting discussion.

There is no question whatever that the most economic and efficient way to provide the passenger service that various agencies direct to be operated would be to have a single agency, national in scope, to operate such.

Funny thing is we have one right now; uh, WAZZITKALLED, uh Amtrak!!

But the flip side is the lesson in geography. so everyone get out your LaRousse and go to work.

• "La carte rouge et bleue de l'état"

The problem is that Amtrak is perceived by someone residing in areas that put and kept the incumbent Administration @ 1600 is something that nobody rides, looses lots of money, and at best does not go where or when they want to go. The Administration wants this broad constituency, even if barely a majority, to know they are "doing something about Amtrak".

Only problem is that the "solution" of killing it as we know it ignores the likelihood that more $$$$ would be spent than simply leaving it in place.

Of course you guys know im a Conductor for Amtrak but I've been wondering if Amtrak states "don't have money to operate our trains" where is the money coming from to hire new Assitant Conductors? When I was working in Sunnyside the other day I saw a new batch of AC training in the yard. Im saying to myself why would Amtrak hire them just to fire them. There is alot of under the table talks that we don' know about. Everyone comes on this Forum talking about rumors. Granted that some rumors are true and it happens, but alot of them are not true. Either way you put it we need Amtrak, we need some kind of rail service. What's going to happen when a bad snow storm comes through and all the roads are tied up and the airplanes can't take off?. I remember when the blizzard hit earlier this year I think most of the people flocked to Amtrak. Well the way it is if Amtrak was to shut down, America would feel the burn by the overcrowding of the highways and buses and airplanes can't pick up the mass amount of people we take. Let's wait and see what happens, but my thought is Amtrak we keep rolling no matter what.

I hear what Mr. Burkeman is saying about Amtrak being needed to supply transportation alternatives. Unfortunately, however, based on Amtrak's performance in recent years, a likely answer to his rhetorical question is as follows:

When the Blizzard comes, the affected airports will shut down for a few hours until the runways can be plowed. Amtrak, on the other hand, will likely suspend service to entire regions of the United States for several days.

But I totally understand Mr. Burkeman's larger point: America needs Amtrak's services -- all of them, and then some.

Also, Mr. Norman makes a point that I believe is profoundly correct:

Only problem is that the "solution" of killing it as we know it ignores the likelihood that more $$$$ would be spent than simply leaving it in place.

The very creation of Amtrak in the first place bottom-lines the fact that nobody else wants to operate intercity trains.

Add to NARP's list of Amtrak myths this one: "Only Amtrak can operate intercity trains." That belief is total nonsense.

Wait a minute... What about NJT service from Philadelphia to New York City through Trenton? Ignoring the fact that Amtrak recently contracted with NJT to take over some Amtrak Clocker trains between those points; was not NJT forced to discontinue existing "through" service from NYP to PHL by Amtrak? Wasn't there an "anti-compete" clause in the Amtrak enabling legislation that prohibited any other transit agency from running trains that connected cities in more than 2 states? What was New Jersey going to do; drop service to New York City so they could run to Philadelphia? NOT! So the through service ended.

NJT terminated at Trenton, where you then had to get off the train, purchase a SEPTA ticket (or get surcharged for purchasing it on the train), then get back on a SEPTA train for the trip to Philadelphia. Much inconvenience and about 20 minutes added to the schedules to allow for the purchasing of tickets and change of trains. The Amtrak charge from NYP to PHL was twice that of NJT, so most NJT passengers weren't going to jump to Amtrak; and I doubt that many Amtrak passengers wanted to jump over to NJT for a longer trip on what was a "local" compared to Amtrak. All this accomplished was to annoy commuters... I do not know if any sort of "through" ticketing between NJT and SEPTA exists today; that may allow a quicker trip with a shorter layover between trains.

Without an Amtrak restriction on intercity service, let SEPTA and NJT hammer out an agreement for both to run their trains between NYP to PHL, eliminating a change at Trenton. Let each agency run every other train to keep it fair....

I think there is a lot more to NJT not running trains all teh way to Philly on the Clockers that its now "temporarily" running.

number one being NJT is short of equipment, and running a train back and forth that extra distance to Philly would hurt their own operations.

Number two being that although there are some crews (conductors adn engineers) qualfied to Philly, a majority of NJT's aren't, and that would limit the crew dispatchers filling the jobs, adn people bidding on the jobs to work them.

Lastly, NJT is a NJ operation, adn a majority of Clcoker riders are NJT riders with Monthly or weekly passes. Maybe NJT talked with Septa about running into Philly, and they didn't want to contribute any funds or equipment or whatever towards it. Even though Amtrak may have contracted out the clockers to NJT, its still tying up NJT equipment and crews, adn money can't compensate for everything.

I do think that the NEC, if NJT were to operate it, would at least stay a 100mph railroad. Tahts what NJT equipment is good for (coaches) and with the number of trains that are run on NJT NEC line, they need every MPH they can get.

I highly doubt it's the end of the line personally.

AmtrakFan wrote:I highly doubt it's the end of the line personally.

But if Amtrak survives with a bunch of lousy trains with no food service and sparse amenities, is it even worth having?

hsr_fan wrote:But if Amtrak survives with a bunch of lousy trains with no food service and sparse amenities, is it even worth having?

Yes. I ride Amtrak for transportation. The food service and amenities are used and appreciated, but I'm not taking Amtrak from PHL to BAL and back tomorrow for the food.

My personal thoughts are that Amtrak will not survive another five years in its present form. However, it will NOT go away.

Instead, it may very well become a contractor /operator for state and local authorities who have the funding to operate short- and medium-distance trains in markets where rail passenger service is a necessity, a viable alternative to driving, or just a political necessity for local governments. Examples:
- The NE Corridor, and feeder lines
- The Empire Service routes
- California
- Seattle-Eugene

In addition, some states might wish to pool ISTEA funds and sponsor rail service to areas where highway transportation is inadequate, or freeway expansion is not practical. The "Empire Builder" route comes to mind as a service that fits this category.

It's also possible Amtrak might operate long distance "cruise trains" on a for-profit basis, possibly as the operating contractor for private "for-profit" entities, similar to the operations over the CP in Western Canada. Such a service might be financially viable at "market price" as long as the pricing is kept below the level of the old American-Orient Express.

But I see no future for services such as the Cardinal or the Sunset Limited.