And "maintain frequencies" is a very open ended term, I can tell you, it's hard to get places these days. It takes twice as long to fly somewhere now.
Dig the new rr.net Instagram account: @railroad_dot_net
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:03 am That's a mistake. Requiring the airlines to maintain frequencies/service and not lay off employees has resulted in around $100M of cash burn DAILY for that industry.Amtrak is the definition of interference from politicians a little more interference is expected, as long as the checks keep coming.
Amtrak needs the ability to determine its own schedule without interference from politicians.
WASHINGTON — Any savings Amtrak management may achieve by reducing most long-distance trains to triweekly service will be overshadowed by a precipitous drop in revenue, additional unforeseen expenses, and a crippled ability to restart service.
That assessment is the consensus of former Amtrak managers contacted by Trains News Wire: former president and CEOs Thomas Downs and David Gunn; former vice president of transportation Bob Vander Clute; and two product line managers responsible for growing revenue and managing costs in the mid-1990s, when many long-distance train frequencies were reduced in a bid to cut expenses while promising to keep routes intact.
Amtrak has announced plans to cut long-distance frequencies as of Oct. 1 as a result of COVID-19-related revenue losses expected to last through most of 2021. This is the first in a series of articles on the impact Amtrak frequency reductions had in the 1990s, and the historical perspective that might provide the current proposal.
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:52 amFor all the reason Bob Johnston notes in September TRAINS, reduction of the LD's to Tri-Weekly won't save much, if anything. But as I noted much earlier in the topic, "OPTICS".I’m sorry that you had such a bad experience with your last Auto Train trip, Mr. Norman. Why does your poor experience equate to a desire to permanently cancel LD service? I’ve never ridden a “lightly-patronized” LD, from the Crescent and Cardinal to the Builder and Chief. I have had indifferent experiences with rides and personnel (and Tadman has a perennial point with regard to boarding procedure). However, I have never been a first-class passenger on either Amtrak or an airline, let alone on a Golden Era postwar passenger train, so wouldn’t have a basis for comparison. Most of my Amtrak experiences have been the equal of my airline experiences, with poorer timekeeping compensated by more comfortable seating. Once you’re out of sleeper or business class I think you’d find a crowd that does consider Amtrak a very viable option between air and bus/driving - the luxocruise folks may be disappointed, but Congress never intended them to be Amtrak’s target audience.
What I think the "experiential" and advocacy communities are concerned about is that Tri-Weekly frequency is the stepping stone to being "rid of 'em".
Obviously, I'm of mind that the LD's should be gone. My January "more negatives than positives" Auto Train journey "did it" for me and Amtrak, unless I'm in the Northeast, or should I lose my Driver's License (they road test 80yo's biennially here) and wish to go to a concert in Ann Arbor (Detroit or Cleveland, whose orchestras I support, I'll just fly), I'll "think about it".
mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:07 amMr. Stephens, it doesn't.Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:52 amObviously, I'm of mind that the LD's should be gone. My January "more negatives than positives" Auto Train journey "did it" for me and Amtrak...I’m sorry that you had such a bad experience with your last Auto Train trip, Mr. Norman. Why does your poor experience equate to a desire to permanently cancel LD service?
Gilbert B Norman wrote:It can be provided by busses operating on public highways.If there was ever a place where this was proven wrong it's probably Maine.
Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:02 pm But my "anti-LD" sentiments that I have consistently noted since joining this community during '99 are based on the needless providing of a service that was outmoded now some 60 years ago. If government sees some need to provide transportarion to the "can't drives won't fly" segment of the population choosing to reside in regions less populated, then so be it. But that provision need not interfere with operations of the Class I rail sysem to the extent they do - especially even more the case as Precision Railroading (PSR) is adopted. It can be provided by busses operating on public highways.Sadly, I agree with this.
So it's not just that "I'm done with 'em" it is the greater portion of society, and voters, are so done, or could care less.
electricron wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:26 am I’ve avoided joining into this discussion until I could think and chew on it for a while.I think it might be a case of rural people take what they can get , and don't really have an avenue to complain.
It is a mix blessing. It still provides a passenger rail service to rural areas while at the same time making it possible to make more equipment available for more regional train services.
The very first response most new regional services gets is with what equipment, there is now an answer to that question now.
Most of the complaints I seen to the proposed tri-weekly service is not coming from the rural areas, but from the urban areas. Which reinforces my belief all along that the long distance services were not designed to provide services to rural customers, but to urban customers instead. Just like rural interstates, inter connecting large urban cities Is/was more important than servicing rural towns along the way. Rural and fly over cities receiving services as a coincidence, because the service has to go through them to inter connect the cities Amtrak really wants to serve.
I repeat, this development is/will be a mix blessin.