Why isn't Amtrak more competitive?

[xeemzor]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Why isn't Amtrak more competative?

Because the other companies can spell.

Congrats on being a spelling NAZI. We need more people like you.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: xeemzor

Why isn't Amtrak more competative?

Because the other companies can spell.

Congrats on being a spelling NAZI. We need more people like you.

hey...we agree. EVARYWON shud be a spaling Natzi...

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why is it that Amtrak is so uncompetitive in the US?

Because the rail companies who now own or control something like 80% of the tracks in the USA hate passenger service and have lobbied very hard for many years to kill it. They are required by law to let Amtrak use their rails, but are free to treat Amtrak as a second-class citizen.

Freight gets priority on the tracks. I sh-t you not, I've sat on a train stopped in the middle of nowhere (like Utah) for two f-cking hours, waiting for a freight train to catch up and pass us, so that our frequent stops wouldn't hold-up the freight train. Whenever there is a conflict between the schedules of an Amtrak and freight train, Amtrak must defer. I've taken the California Zephyr from Sacramento to Denver (round trip) three times in the past six or seven years. I've never arrived in Denver on time, the worst was four hours late. There are miles upon miles of track in certain areas where the train cannot go faster than 15 ~ 20 MPH because it would derail or break something, the tracks are in such poor condition. However, the return trip usually arrives in Sacramento reasonably on-time (even 15 minutes early once). I'm guessing that freight trains have a different route from East to West, that's why we are usually on time going back.

Traveling by coach isn't too bad as long as you aren't on the train longer than 24 hours, but after 24 hours, you start to get anxious about arriving at your destination. If you have a sleeper, you can tolerate another day or two on the train, but sleepers are expensive (the price does include three meals per day in the dining car, and the food is pretty fair). The train crew is kept to a bare minimum, so they don't have enough people to keep all the lavatories cleaned and stocked until the train stops at some major restocking/change-over point. And the general public are slobs, of course, so the lavatories can get nasty.

I would hugely prefer to travel by train when I have no particular need or interest in the speed of traveling by air, but our rail system is a G-D embarrassment (as is public transit in many areas of the country). And there is nothing Amtrak can do about this, because the political will doesn't exist to make rail a first-class citizen in the national transportation system. Among the reasons there is no political will are:

- the rail industry hasn't enjoyed the status of the air and highway industries for almost 50 years, and thus cannot match the lobbying power of the airline, auto, concrete/asphalt, and oil companies
- the rail companies are happy enough with the freight business, being they aren't really powerful enough to make a go at anything else
- demand for passenger rail service has been low

Demand for passenger rail has been low in no small part due to how horribly inferior rail service is compared to air and highway travel, which in no small part is because we have invested nearly $2 trillion dollars funding air travel and highways since 1970 compared to approx. $35 billion in subsidies to Amtrak since it was created in 1971. I'm not counting any funding that has overwhelming benefitted the freight companies.

So what's not to like? Slow, unreliable schedules, extremely limited service, expensive, bathrooms that may or may not be clean. Its what $35 billion v. $2 trillion over 39 years predictably will buy.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.

All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.

My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.

How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT

QF MFT

I'd like to disagree with Amtrak getting priority. My brother has recently used Amtrak a couple times to visit back home with us and every time, his train has had significant delays due to freight trains having priority on the tracks.

And as a railroad manager I can assure you that the railroad was fined for it.

Perhaps on your railroad that's the case, but where I am out west, it's just like XabanakFanatik described. Freight has priority; the Starlate and Cascades have to pull over for all freight traffic, which makes them consistently behind schedule.

 

[manlymatt83]

I like Amtrak, but they make mistakes. For instance, building the Acela 4 inches too wide.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why is it that Amtrak is so uncompetitive in the US?

Because the rail companies who now own or control something like 80% of the tracks in the USA hate passenger service and have lobbied very hard for many years to kill it. They are required by law to let Amtrak use their rails, but are free to treat Amtrak as a second-class citizen.

Freight gets priority on the tracks. I sh-t you not, I've sat on a train stopped in the middle of nowhere (like Utah) for two f-cking hours, waiting for a freight train to catch up and pass us, so that our frequent stops wouldn't hold-up the freight train. Whenever there is a conflict between the schedules of an Amtrak and freight train, Amtrak must defer. I've taken the California Zephyr from Sacramento to Denver (round trip) three times in the past six or seven years. I've never arrived in Denver on time, the worst was four hours late. There are miles upon miles of track in certain areas where the train cannot go faster than 15 ~ 20 MPH because it would derail or break something, the tracks are in such poor condition. However, the return trip usually arrives in Sacramento reasonably on-time (even 15 minutes early once). I'm guessing that freight trains have a different route from East to West, that's why we are usually on time going back.

Traveling by coach isn't too bad as long as you aren't on the train longer than 24 hours, but after 24 hours, you start to get anxious about arriving at your destination. If you have a sleeper, you can tolerate another day or two on the train, but sleepers are expensive (the price does include three meals per day in the dining car, and the food is pretty fair). The train crew is kept to a bare minimum, so they don't have enough people to keep all the lavatories cleaned and stocked until the train stops at some major restocking/change-over point. And the general public are slobs, of course, so the lavatories can get nasty.

I would hugely prefer to travel by train when I have no particular need or interest in the speed of traveling by air, but our rail system is a G-D embarrassment (as is public transit in many areas of the country). And there is nothing Amtrak can do about this, because the political will doesn't exist to make rail a first-class citizen in the national transportation system. Among the reasons there is no political will are:

- the rail industry hasn't enjoyed the status of the air and highway industries for almost 50 years, and thus cannot match the lobbying power of the airline, auto, concrete/asphalt, and oil companies
- the rail companies are happy enough with the freight business, being they aren't really powerful enough to make a go at anything else
- demand for passenger rail service has been low

Demand for passenger rail has been low in no small part due to how horribly inferior rail service is compared to air and highway travel, which in no small part is because we have invested nearly $2 trillion dollars funding air travel and highways since 1970 compared to approx. $35 billion in subsidies to Amtrak since it was created in 1971. I'm not counting any funding that has overwhelming benefitted the freight companies.

So what's not to like? Slow, unreliable schedules, extremely limited service, expensive, bathrooms that may or may not be clean. Its what $35 billion v. $2 trillion over 39 years predictably will buy.

Good stuff - pretty much covered every angle.

 

[erub]

So what? Fly or drive then. I see no reason to take a train.

 

[Zee]

railways are for shipments and cargoes.

 

[McCarthy]

Why isn't Amtrak more competitive?
Who is John Galt?

 

[tm37]

I have traveled to europe serval times (Denmark and Germany) and I can say that the rail ervice in europe is pretty good.

Having said that the difference between europe and the US is pretty grand on serval levels.

You could look to NYC and the subway system or the bart system in san fran and say why don't we do that in san diego? or minneapolis (cities I have lived in)

The main difference is the suburbs. and the number of people. look at the density of the population as well.

NYC 27,147/sq mi
Berlin 9,946 /sq mi
San Diego 3,871.5/sq mi
Twin cities 489.7/sq mi

any moron can see that if you cram alot of people into a small area mass transit can work and if you try and use an area with a small density it will fail.

Trains could work in large traffic routes of short distances (less than 4 or five hours) but the airlines can keep those rates low. ( I am pricing a ticket MPS to Chicago in april for $90) Where as going from MPS to say des moines is pretty spendy (not many people are taking that route)

You can fly a commuter plane and drop the load to say 50 people and you can make it work. You can not run a train with that few people.

Transportation is dicey as you need to evaluate what people want and need and they look to meet that need. Govermant is by far the worst group at doing this.

 

[alkemyst]

I had an amtrak pass that was $150 for one year...I could travel anywhere from miami or so as far north (Pennsylvania?) that it went. I used it to travel back and forth to orlando for a chick I was dating. The nice thing about the train is you can get stuff done...the bad was a 2.5hour trip took 4 hours heading north...most of the problem due to handicapped and old fucks that can't board a train in less than 15 mins. The REALLY BAD was if I was catching the train back south, usually it was last...sometimes over 4hours late and they'd send a bus. It was really unreliable getting back south. I am sure in the middle of the train line (like North/south carolina) it's probably more moderate.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.

All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.

My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.

How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT

QF MFT

I'd like to disagree with Amtrak getting priority. My brother has recently used Amtrak a couple times to visit back home with us and every time, his train has had significant delays due to freight trains having priority on the tracks.

And as a railroad manager I can assure you that the railroad was fined for it.

Perhaps on your railroad that's the case, but where I am out west, it's just like XabanakFanatik described. Freight has priority; the Starlate and Cascades have to pull over for all freight traffic, which makes them consistently behind schedule.

Yep, everywhere in the Midwest this is the case. Amtrak trains are always late coming from Grand Rapids to Chicago, because of the deference to freight trains. Take a look at this article. The train was 12 hours late because of freight delays, and a crew change. That's is effing ridiculous.

I take that train about 3 times a year, and I've never been on one where freight hasn't been given priority.

So, as a railroad manager, you should know that you're full of sh*t for thinking that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. They only have priority when the rail company doesn't own the track.

 

[sjwaste]

I took Amtrak DC to Philly today. It was a little expensive, $97 on the Acela, but it was a nice ride. I do this frequently, beats the hell out of driving for 3 hrs (1.5 hrs by train) and I can just sit back and relax. Trains are clean on the northeast corridor.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83
I like Amtrak, but they make mistakes. For instance, building the Acela 4 inches too wide.

It doesn't help that the tracks in the NE corridor need new beds, rails, and straightening of the route overall. Unfortunately, there is no money or will to do these changes.

Rail service would be awesome for inter-city travel where they are pretty close, like Chicago to St. Louis, NE corridor, LA to Las Vegas, along the California coast....

Edit:
Or the frequent stops of the Acela in the NE. Stop having the train stop at every other f*cking station in NJ. Make it stop far less. If people in smaller cities want to take Amtrak's Acela, they should take a local commuter train to the appropriate stop and then transfer to the Acela or instead just take the Amtrak train (non-Acela) that makes stops everywhere along the way.

 

[techs]

Why isn't rail travel more cost competitive?

Lets see who lobbies against it:
Airlines
Oil companies
Car and truck manufacturers.
Trucking companies
Road and bridge construction companies.
Airplane manufactures and companies that make parts for airplanes.
Railroad freight companies.
Bus companies.

And who lobbies for passenger rail?
Patriotic Americans who want to lessen our countries dependence on foreign oil.
Environmentally conscious people who want to cut down on pollution.

 

[ScottMac]

Maybe because the rail unions are some of the oldest and strongest in the country?

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
And as a railroad manager I can assure you that the railroad was fined for it.

Perhaps on your railroad that's the case, but where I am out west, it's just like XabanakFanatik described. Freight has priority; the Starlate and Cascades have to pull over for all freight traffic, which makes them consistently behind schedule.

Yep, everywhere in the Midwest this is the case. Amtrak trains are always late coming from Grand Rapids to Chicago, because of the deference to freight trains. Take a look at this article. The train was 12 hours late because of freight delays, and a crew change. That's is effing ridiculous.

I take that train about 3 times a year, and I've never been on one where freight hasn't been given priority.

So, as a railroad manager, you should know that you're full of sh*t for thinking that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. They only have priority when the rail company doesn't own the track.

I'm saying they get fined for delaying Amtrak and you're telling me I'm wrong because you get delayed? I don't follow your logic.

Yes railroads get fined for delaying passenger trains because passenger services are supposed to get priority. Sometimes the fines are very heavy depending on the location (like morning commute routes in California mentioned above).

I never once said that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. However the one thing that does stand is that Amtrak trains are supposed to get priority and if they do not then the railroad that delays them gets fined. Please stop trying to put words in my posts.

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
And as a railroad manager I can assure you that the railroad was fined for it.

Perhaps on your railroad that's the case, but where I am out west, it's just like XabanakFanatik described. Freight has priority; the Starlate and Cascades have to pull over for all freight traffic, which makes them consistently behind schedule.

Yep, everywhere in the Midwest this is the case. Amtrak trains are always late coming from Grand Rapids to Chicago, because of the deference to freight trains. Take a look at this article. The train was 12 hours late because of freight delays, and a crew change. That's is effing ridiculous.

I take that train about 3 times a year, and I've never been on one where freight hasn't been given priority.

So, as a railroad manager, you should know that you're full of sh*t for thinking that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. They only have priority when the rail company doesn't own the track.

I'm saying they get fined for delaying Amtrak and you're telling me I'm wrong because you get delayed? I don't follow your logic.

Yes railroads get fined for delaying passenger trains because passenger services are supposed to get priority. Sometimes the fines are very heavy depending on the location (like morning commute routes in California mentioned above).

I never once said that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. However the one thing that does stand is that Amtrak trains are supposed to get priority and if they do not then the railroad that delays them gets fined. Please stop trying to put words in my posts.

If what you say is true, then the fines are obviously just a slap on the wrist compared to the profits the railroads reap from the freight traffic. So, in a roundabout way, the lack of deterrence of the fines makes the freight have de facto priority.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Itchrelief

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82


I'm saying they get fined for delaying Amtrak and you're telling me I'm wrong because you get delayed? I don't follow your logic.

Yes railroads get fined for delaying passenger trains because passenger services are supposed to get priority. Sometimes the fines are very heavy depending on the location (like morning commute routes in California mentioned above).

I never once said that all places in the US are the same for rail priority. However the one thing that does stand is that Amtrak trains are supposed to get priority and if they do not then the railroad that delays them gets fined. Please stop trying to put words in my posts.

If what you say is true, then the fines are obviously just a slap on the wrist compared to the profits the railroads reap from the freight traffic. So, in a roundabout way, the lack of deterrence of the fines makes the freight have de facto priority.

Depends on the type of train........... All freight is not equal, passenger fits in the mix somewhere as well. Some trains are worth the penalty and others are not near it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Maybe because the rail unions are some of the oldest and strongest in the country?

Yeah, that must be it.... :roll:

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Maybe because the rail unions are some of the oldest and strongest in the country?

Yeah, that must be it.... :roll:

What do railroad labor unions have to do with passenger train competitiveness? I'm with Brain. Please explain......