Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:02 am
How can you undermine something that is completely marginal and borderline useless? The national network carries <1% of national passengers. Arguing about diners completely ignores the fact that the train is not a choice for almost anybody, literally, by the numbers. Amtrak could serve fresh lobster and Dom Perignon every day and it wouldn't change things.
Mr. Anderson wants to create a network that means something, that stands for something, that actually provides useful services. Why is that wrong? Who are we hurting when <1% of national passengers choose the train?
Very simple.
You undermine it by underinvesting in the system.
You undermine it by raising the price to a borderline unreasonable price and take away the things that put "value" behind the price.
You undermine it by cutting capacity and diverting your assets away from it
You undermine it by eliminating connecting services and additional territories that can hold the system together.
You undermine it be starving it instead of feeding it.
You undermine it by not maintaining it. How many refreshes has the Acela undergone versus the long-distance fleets? While we're on the subject, the set hasn't even made 20 years and it is being replaced!
When you do all of that, it is no wonder that the system carries less than 1 percent. You actively hacked away at the system, failed to address the needs of the host, and then say "well, no one wants to ride long distance"
The trains may run point to point but the passengers may not. The end to end ridership on the NEC regionals and dare I say the Acelas isn't that outstanding. But they function well as long, corridor trains.
if you added the appropriate capacity to the system and made it price appropriate, you'd attract and retain more riders. The national network should be part of the system and in some places, it should be used as part of an operating pattern. There are plenty of opportunities for the LD to be part of an operating pattern that works with additional services (like the Crescent and the Cardinal working with the Lynchburger). If you could get those trains on time, it would be a boon.
The question in my mind is why does the Cardinal run three times a week when it is in a good slot to be part of a properly timed, multi-service pattern at both ends of the route. We should look to bolster it, with a day train out of CHI between CIN. If they took the 450 million dollars they spent on roughly 9 miles of constant tension catenary on the NEC, they could have funded the improvements to make this viable.
They could have spent that money to bring back the second Pennsylvanian or possibly restored the Broadway through Ohio.
How about the MSP-CHI train that would have worked with 7/8 or a second ATL train that could have worked with the Crescent, a train that used to have the capacity for 450 passengers, until Amtrak diverted the equipment away from it?
Then, they say there is no ridership while they only allow 1 coach to be used for long distances.
Naturally.