Trump proposes cutting long distance support

A problem is that Amtrak does not serve a lot of cities in these "flyover" states. So I think it may be easier to get funding at a local level ( city or town ), than at state level. Not necessarily sending a check to Amtrak, its probably easier for a town council to arrange cleaning of a station than Amtrak from D.C. If a town wants a station agent and/or baggage service, maybe they can pay or contribute.

Noel Weaver wrote:Cut off the LD trains whether it be Montana or Georgia or anywhere else and those folks in congress will not fund Amtrak in the NEC or anywhere else. This is the reality of politics today. I rather doubt if much will happen over this, they will come up with the funding for most if not all of the nationwide existing trains. What Pennsylvania really needs to do is to provide some funding for a couple more round trips between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the sooner the better.
Noel Weaver

I used to agree with this. I'm not sure it applies in the Trump Administration. His FY18 appropriation request (we call it the Federal Budget) cuts huge lines across the non-Defense/non-Homeland Security lines. I honestly believe the 218 and the 51 are going to be looking at far more important projects which matter to them than 20 jobs each in Lincoln, Denver, or La Junta.

John_Perkowski wrote:I used to agree with this. I'm not sure it applies in the Trump Administration. His FY18 appropriation request (we call it the Federal Budget) cuts huge lines across the non-Defense/non-Homeland Security lines. I honestly believe the 218 and the 51 are going to be looking at far more important projects which matter to them than 20 jobs each in Lincoln, Denver, or La Junta.

While I agree the long distance trains will never be profitable or move enough passengers to be worth the money being spent on them, we shouldn't ignore the political consequences of eliminating them.
The NEC may pay for its operations, it doesn't pay for its maintenance and upkeep. At a time Amtrak seeks and needs over $100 billion from US taxpayers to place the NEC into a state of good repair, the last thing they should be doing is making it easier for congressman and senators to ignore them entirely. Amtrak needs to keep as many of them as possible friendly to its needs, or it will never see that $100 billion. Drop long distance service, you should expect more derailments and disruptions of service on the NEC.
Golly, if you can't find $500 million per year in the budget to keep the long distance trains running, how do you expect to find over $100 billion to repair the NEC?

Remember, guys, I'm the one out here in flyover country, with a major city station that has six movements per day.

I'm looking at political reality for the 535. Who among you can look me in the eye and tell me you can find 218 votes for the FY16 Amtrak appropriation (since that is what we are running on under a continuing resolution) going forward to FY18? Remember all the other pet hogs Trump has proposed to dump. Look at the number of jobs Amtrak creates in MO, KS, CO, WY, UT, NV, OR, MT, ID, SD ...

The Republican 218 have only so much political capital, and they spent a lot of it with their bases on not getting ACA repeal and replace done. Killing the LD subsidy is an easy vote for them.

If you are not getting friends to write your 3 congresscritters to write, file, and support an alternate Amtrak funding bill, then get ready to see this:

electricron wrote:
While I agree the long distance trains will never be profitable or move enough passengers to be worth the money being spent on them, we shouldn't ignore the political consequences of eliminating them.
The NEC may pay for its operations, it doesn't pay for its maintenance and upkeep. At a time Amtrak seeks and needs over $100 billion from US taxpayers to place the NEC into a state of good repair, the last thing they should be doing is making it easier for congressman and senators to ignore them entirely. Amtrak needs to keep as many of them as possible friendly to its needs, or it will never see that $100 billion. Drop long distance service, you should expect more derailments and disruptions of service on the NEC.
Golly, if you can't find $500 million per year in the budget to keep the long distance trains running, how do you expect to find over $100 billion to repair the NEC?

Congress. Can't live with them, can't live without them. You can say Congress is the reason Amtrak still exists but they are also the reason they aren't healthier financially. I know this is a train group but like it or not I think some Amtrak trains are a waste of taxpayer money and if I think that way with several trains through Philly imagine what people in Las Vegas think about Amtrak. It will never happen but I'd rather have Congress a check and let Amtrak decide what routes exist and what don't than demand Amtrak mandate worthless routes through nowhere which not only waste taxpayer money but keep Amtrak from running trains that would benefit more people. Congress just needs to get out of Amtrak's way. No, they don't need to kill the entire LD system, they just need to cut the fat. Right now 94% of operating costs are covered by ticket revenue. Amtrak can afford some of the LD routes. Keep the right ones and the LD system will still exist for 90-95% of the population but at a huge savings to the American public.

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:It will never happen but I'd rather have Congress a check and let Amtrak decide what routes exist and what don't than demand Amtrak mandate worthless routes through nowhere which not only waste taxpayer money but keep Amtrak from running trains that would benefit more people.

We don't agree on a lot, but a base yearly amount with few strings attached sounds like a grand idea. I do believe in the basic necessity of LD trains and a national passenger railroad system, so instead of an utter free-for-all I'd prefer to see a Federal rule (CFR, not a law in the Federal code) giving a transparent cost-share formula. Should states and communities want your Cardinal, they should be able to see their necessary share (higher costs but a lower proportion for LDs, and a surcharge for sleepers and diners.)

The other fallacy is that if Amtrak doesn't run LD service, they'll dedicate that equipment to Regionals, preferably at a low cost. They won't. There will just be a lot of cars parked at Beech, Bear, Wilmington, and Chicago Coach Yard. Also, don't expect Amtrak to formally discontinue any routes if defunded - unless Congress explicitly repeals the Amtrak mandate and right of access.

mtuandrew wrote:The other fallacy is that if Amtrak doesn't run LD service, they'll dedicate that equipment to Regionals, preferably at a low cost. They won't. There will just be a lot of cars parked at Beech, Bear, Wilmington, and Chicago Coach Yard.

Can you indicate why this is a fallacy? I have seen no evidence that says they will park surplus cars. Given the existing system-wide shortage of cars, and the continuing growth in regional services, and the utter inability of a manufacturer to deliver cars on a reasonable timeline, I can't see any other option.

Fair point, Tad. A better phrase is that I believe that Amtrak would hold at least a portion of its coaches in reserve for future resumption of LD service. I'm sure that Amtrak would hold all of its sleepers and diners until it could be certain that LD service would never return.

This I tend to agree with. They would not sell or scrap the cars, in other words. And if they were parked at Beech or somewhere, sooner or later many of them would find their way to regional service, especially the coaches, after some modification for higher density service.

I'd be curios how the food service equation shakes out if there were a superliner coach with high density seating upstairs and a small snack bar downstairs. Now you're not dragging around (or switching out) a non-rev car, it's a revenue earning coach with a small non-rev space. I seem to remember a few of these are already on the system, perhaps having used one on the Capital.

I have an easy answer for that. Take a lounge. Strip out the lounge seating. Install coach seating.

Frankly, I'd put the food service on the upper deck of one of the coaches. Allows better movement.

As I recall, ATSF Hi-levels were 72 seats, so 3 80 seat cars, one of them with a snack bar, voila, 240 pax. Displace all the single levels in non-electric territory, and you've added equipment for the Corridor.

One other option for the lounges is to make them business class cars.

You could cannibalize the Sightseers, but it makes just as much sense to use Dining Cars as business class table seating. As the Hoosier State showed, operating authorities pay extra for domes for their patrons, and Metro-North reminds us that bar cars bring in plenty of money.

Any business would start reallocating coaches and diners to state-sponsored & NEC trains within a month of any suspension of service where there is a demand. As for reconfiguring seats or repurposing, I would imagine there would be a delay of 6mo to a year or more depending on the "payback" period for changing them over and maybe back.

Oh yeah employees too, they wouldn't want to be unemployed waiting for routes to be reinstated.

mtuandrew wrote:Metro-North reminds us that bar cars bring in plenty of money.

Correction, Conn. DoT reminds us that bar cars bring in money and customer satisfaction, Metro-North reminds us that making money and pleasing the customers is not the prime mission of a commuter agency.