Which will be the first to go?

If Congress and the administration will be closing down Amtrak's LD lines, which will be the first to go. Those would be the ones I want to ride at the next opportunity, as I'd like to see as much of my country as possible from the large windows of Amtrak Superliners/Viewliners. How shall I include these probabilities in my travel priorities? I'll be riding the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to the western terminus in a couple of weeks; I hold reservations on the Capital Limited and California Zephyr, coast to coast, next April. Please share your thoughts. John Andrew

If you are willing to ride overnight Coach , then the Three Rivers (Sleeper discontinued Oct 31). This train is set for a March 1 discontinuance, and at this time, there does not appear to be any reprieve in sight.

Let's hope our elected officials get some inspiration to adequately fund passenger rail in this country to maintain and grow the current system.

Let's try to focus on what can be done to keep as much of the system intact as possible?

But I want to actually ride the system, LI Loco, and I want to plan to ride portions of it that may disappear before they disappear. Seems a prudent and reasonable consideraton to me.
JA

I would suspect that the Sunset would be early on the hit list and also
maybe the Cardinal.
I haven't ridden west in train in many years so I probably should not
render an opinion on this section of the country.
I doubt that four Chicago - West Coast trains will remain. Which one is the most likely to come off, possibly the Texas Eagle as it is only tri-weekly west of San Antonio. Which one is the safest, probably the Empire
Builder for the same reason that some of the trains in Canada have lasted
as long as they have, it serves areas that do not have much alternative
transportation options. It also has scenery and a fairly cooperative
railroad to match.
I would hate to see any more trains come off but I am not sure that this is
an option. I hope I am proven wrong.
Noel Weaver

Let's get real. The alleged reason to shut down the "money losing" long distance trains is to save money and reduce subsidies down to the proposed $900 million mark.

Is nobody doing the math? A savings of $200-$300 million a year (which wouldn't even be fully realized for five years) isn't going to solve any of Amtrak's funding problems. The NEC alone will still require a good $1.2-1.5 billion annually. This is why David Gunn says the entire system will shut down on a $900 million budget.

On the other hand, the national network could engage in a major expansion on a budget of $900 million.

The long distance trains are a red herring. They aren't going away, and even if they did, it wouldn't solve anything for anybody. It would only create more problems, such as shifting fixed costs to the few remaining corridors. If that happens, Amtrak's red ink will flow like blood in the middle east.

Indeed, Mr Toy has hit on a point which is overlooked by many of Amtrak's LD detractors.

The LD trains do not cost much to run in the context of the whole. In fact, some (many?) of them contribute money to Amtrak's fixed costs (overhead) and cutting them would result in a requirement for <b>more</b> money to keep the rest alive.

To say nothing of the lost connecting traffic.

cityofmiami wrote:But I want to actually ride the system, LI Loco, and I want to plan to ride portions of it that may disappear before they disappear. Seems a prudent and reasonable consideraton to me.
JA

Then ride for the sake of riding, because it is something you enjoy. I hate to sound like Matt Fels, but it strikes me as hypocritical when railfans only come out and ride a train because they know its going to go away.

If there is a route you haven't covered, it offers something appealing and you have the time and money to ride it, then go for it. Don't wait for the train-off notice. Amtrak needs your support today.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which lines are most vulnerable. But, we don't know how things will turn out.

If things are worse than we anticipate, i.e. all or most of the LDs get axed, you might regret riding a particular route because there was another that appealed to you more and now you cannot afford the trip.

Don't despair LD's future. Three years ago, the entire LD network was threatened. I rode from NYP to Chicago on the Three Rivers and Capitol Ltd. thinking it might be my last LD trip. Well, with few exceptions, the LD network that existed in early 2002 is still here, and I suspect most of it will be here after GWB leaves the White House.

I think that when you look beyond the ideological reasons for eliminating them, the Long-Distance trains probably generate a level of economic activity equal to, or exceeding, the subsidy provided for their operation. The trouble is, most of the beneficiaries are small players (tour operators, motels, miscellaneous small vendors, etc), and this activity is generated at the "expense" of a few large corporations (i.e. the host railroads)

But it seems to be getting harder and harder for the American public (or at least a sizable segment of it) to move beyond either ideology or simple-minded sloganeering.

I personally think that the majority of the LD trains are safe. The Sunset might be at danger, and I for one think that if it can't be improved, maybe it should be either split into two separate trains or annuled. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Starlight scaled back to SEA-OAK in favor of more frequent Bay Area - LA service (but ONLY if more frequent service were provided)

Amtrak looses money

Amtrak runs passenger trains

Therefore all trains loose money.

Run Less trains

Loose less money

Perception is reality, right????

"We" all the above is a crock; But does a Red State voter?

If he really wanted to find out he could, this Blue Stater is not about to call anyone stupid, especially not after this emotion charged election. But unfortunately, the Red Stater, with the (if lucky) "one a day" commin' through (often @ 3AM) really doesn't care; after all he never uses it anyway. It just looses money. Kill it and money will be saved.

Right????

I'm seeing a huge misconception here. The implications on this and other boards seem to be that red-staters (conservatives) are drooling at the prospect of killing Amtrak. Does no one read the news? If it came down to trying to kill, say, the Texas Eagle, Texas lawmakers would have a hissy fit! Likewise if the Chief were on the block. New Mexico would never let that train die without a viscious fight. I won't even go into the Builder and the states it serves.

Concern is great guys, but chicken little was wrong, and not all conservatives hate Amtrak.

Mr. Norman is exactly right. That's the logic, flawed as it is.

The only thing I would add to Mr. Norman's analysis of red-state thinking is the neocon intoxication with privatization initiatives. The neocons will privatize at all costs.

Therefore, it goes like this:

"Dump the money-losing LD trains, and dump tons of public money into the NEC to privatize it."

At the end of the day, America ends up with less service for more public money.

waitn4atrain wrote: .. and not all conservatives hate Amtrak.

Indeed, but the one's currently in 1600 appear to, and those are the ones that are setting the agenda, hopefully enough of the Republicans who do not hold the same views as the admistration stand up for it, but alas, Amtrak is not something many are willing to expend political capital for.

I beg ot differ Mr. Metra, the occupant of 1600 has no where near the power in this issue as do the congress members from the affected states.