by WesternNation
With all of the hub-bub on what going to be happening with Amtrak's long-distance trains, it's very easy to be worried as to what the future of Amtrak will be. Personally, I believe that things will turn out for the better and Anderson just isn't communicating his agenda for some reason. Call me an optimist. Although I disagree with the dining car decision, the excursion halt makes some sense. Amtrak needs to prove that they can do their "core competency" (moving passengers on the advertised) without derailment or other problem that would bring negative press. It's bad enough that scheduled trains were involved in fatal accidents. Imagine what the headlines would be if it was an excursion train. The Republican-chartered train is a good example. Although it wasn't a derailment and was nowhere near Amtrak's fault, the general public still saw it as another Amtrak-involved fatal accident, furthering the perception that Amtrak is not a safe form of travel. I believe that Anderson is attempting to cover Amtrak's @$$ here, until this accident streak is in the rear-view mirror with the public. If I am wrong, and this is a permanent thing, then I will be sure to write to my representatives to make my feelings known. I am aware that people's companies and livelihoods are on the line here. I do not wish them ill. But this decision was probably for the best, at least temporarily.
Now, to my real point. It has been circulating for some time that Anderson is planning on ditching the long-distance trains in favor of a massively-expanded corridor network. While I do support such a network, I do not believe it should be made at the expense of the long-distance trains. I rode around the country on three of them last summer: the Southwest Chief, the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder. I loved the experience. It let me see areas of the country that I had looked at but never really seen. The LD trains also provided an important service to those smaller towns, connecting them with the outside world.
However, after watching a docuseries called "Keeping Britain On Track", I realized that there is a way to have our cake and eat it too. Right now, passenger service in the UK is made up of two types of services: fast service and stopping service. Fast service is like the Acela, making stops in larger cities while the stopping services (the NE Regionals) take care of the smaller stops. Amtrak can apply this to the national network as well, with Anderson's proposed corridor network acting as a "stopping service" while the LD trains act as the "fast service". This allows for reduced running times for LD trains (making them a more attractive option when comparing to cars and buses), while still keeping the experience of actually seeing the country. Connections can be made in major cities for passengers wanting to continue down the line.
An example of this would be the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited stopping in Toledo and Cleveland, bypassing the smaller stations. Those smaller stations will have corridor service, with the ability to connect to the long-distance trains in Toledo.
There are problems with this operational scheme. The big one is equipment. Running both a massive corridor network and a LD network will put a massive strain on the available equipment pool for Amtrak. We've seen recently that Amtrak is having equipment troubles as it is. A second big issue is manpower. It's going to take a lot of people to crew, clean, and maintain these trains. The third is the host railroads. They already don't like Amtrak leeching their network capacity. Something like this is probably going to piss them off even more. A lot of these problems can be solved with increased funding, diverted from military spending or other bloated programs. The freight railroad issue will involve a lot of negotiation. But I think that it can work if all parties involved allow it to. Amtrak needs to grow and tap into markets where it has the most potential. Cutting services only alienates the public.
If you've made it this far: thanks for reading.
-WN
Now, to my real point. It has been circulating for some time that Anderson is planning on ditching the long-distance trains in favor of a massively-expanded corridor network. While I do support such a network, I do not believe it should be made at the expense of the long-distance trains. I rode around the country on three of them last summer: the Southwest Chief, the Coast Starlight and the Empire Builder. I loved the experience. It let me see areas of the country that I had looked at but never really seen. The LD trains also provided an important service to those smaller towns, connecting them with the outside world.
However, after watching a docuseries called "Keeping Britain On Track", I realized that there is a way to have our cake and eat it too. Right now, passenger service in the UK is made up of two types of services: fast service and stopping service. Fast service is like the Acela, making stops in larger cities while the stopping services (the NE Regionals) take care of the smaller stops. Amtrak can apply this to the national network as well, with Anderson's proposed corridor network acting as a "stopping service" while the LD trains act as the "fast service". This allows for reduced running times for LD trains (making them a more attractive option when comparing to cars and buses), while still keeping the experience of actually seeing the country. Connections can be made in major cities for passengers wanting to continue down the line.
An example of this would be the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited stopping in Toledo and Cleveland, bypassing the smaller stations. Those smaller stations will have corridor service, with the ability to connect to the long-distance trains in Toledo.
There are problems with this operational scheme. The big one is equipment. Running both a massive corridor network and a LD network will put a massive strain on the available equipment pool for Amtrak. We've seen recently that Amtrak is having equipment troubles as it is. A second big issue is manpower. It's going to take a lot of people to crew, clean, and maintain these trains. The third is the host railroads. They already don't like Amtrak leeching their network capacity. Something like this is probably going to piss them off even more. A lot of these problems can be solved with increased funding, diverted from military spending or other bloated programs. The freight railroad issue will involve a lot of negotiation. But I think that it can work if all parties involved allow it to. Amtrak needs to grow and tap into markets where it has the most potential. Cutting services only alienates the public.
If you've made it this far: thanks for reading.
-WN