Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?

[jis]

Broadly I think of these problems in three categories, with different approaches for each.

On specific urgent issues like" if this funding is not restored this train disappears" work with local officials and local advocacy groups to create and foster train specific user groups. These have worked well for the Texas Eagle and Empire Builder, and is currently working well for the Southwest Chief. Also a movement for addressing station issues through Station Volunteer Groups is worth pursuing pending the fixing of the underlying accounting issues that is causing Amtrak to make stupid decisions.

For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.

As for fixing the problems built into its DNA from the getgo that reflect the national ambivalence/hostility towards passenger trains ... anyone’s guess is as good as mine. How do you change national institutional attitudes? Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.

 

[west point]

For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.

Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.

Bingo  JIS is right on. 

Fix the law in reference to food being accounted as making a profit.   Require that food be supplied for complete trip bookings including providing intermediate food stocking where there is not enough space for food.  Maybe supply some extra  food from baggage cars ?.  Have provisional locations in place where additional food will be added  for any train delayed for 4 or more hours or delayed thru a regular meal time ! Require all meal services to remain open until at least 30 minutes or less before final revised arrival time .

Remove the 750 mile local support artificial LD requirement as it is not practiced on many trains in the NEC .  

Require Amtrak to spend the allocations for  LD  to at least 90% of amount in congressional  appropriations and report why all of remaining not spent !.

Require Amtrak to provide more information about day to day operations.  Restore completely the practices and stats of the older monthly reports and add several metrics including RPM for each train's leg and list every segment that has more than a 90% load weekday and weekends ( holidays inc ) separately including coach, business, & sleeper !  Also list number of seats for those legs and plans and orders to mitigate that seat shortage,  That is increasing number of cars on those legs.  Add instructions to have cut off cars started on trains that have major variations of loads on route.  Example Crescent at Atlanta. CZ at Denver.

Remove 50 max discount fares on low ridership segments and report same.

Some kind of limit on maximum fare buckets 

Require some kind of advertising along route segments with low ridership.

 

[neroden]

Well, my only idea on fixing the institutional attitude is to get it through their heads that their accounting is no good and they need proper avoidable-cost accounting.  Which would show them that "the answer to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak", aka economies of scale.

This might wake up some of the people *inside* Amtrak -- who obviously are not inherently anti-train -- to the fact that they are engaging in "Milwaukee Road" accounting and they would have a lot more resources if they weren't looking at faked accounting.

RPA's recent report is the biggest deal in this arena in a very long time, and I hope to push it.  Not sure how best to push it.

 

[west point]

In addition to previous post

Some kind of tax break for freight RR passenger infrastructure improvements probably no property tax and some kind of income tax credit for those improvements .  Make them retroactive if RRs Willi mediately allow  more trains ,

 

[fredmcain]

West Point,

I think you have some good ideas there that I'd agree with wholeheartedly.  There is just one thing that I'd like to say.  I still think that Amtrak management - perhaps on a better day - should take another look and rethink head-end business like presorted mail and the like.  Graham had that dialed in pretty well.  I seem to remember that at one point the Southwest Chief was actually running at a thin profit overall.  While Ed Ellis might've tried to take the head end business too far, I still think it's a shame that it got chucked altogether.  Course, I realize that resurrecting the head-end business would require more equipment purchases but perhaps the right manager could work something out.  Maybe if some of the "Amfleet" equipment gets retired, those cars could be reconfigured to carry baggage and/or mail?  I don't know.  If not, surely a smart manager could work something out.

I made the suggestion to Anderson in my e-mail to him.  But what the heck?  If he won't listen to life-long railroaders in the know, why would he listen to me?

Regards,

FMC

 

[cpotisch]

Maybe if some of the "Amfleet" equipment gets retired, those cars could be reconfigured to carry baggage and/or mail?  I don't know.  If not, surely a smart manager could work something out.

I thought the whole idea of converting old coaches into baggage cars did not work out well for Amtrak last time...

 

[west point]

Even if Amtrak could get the MHC cars back were they limited on speeds ?  One MAS figure for loaded cars another for empty.  Remember reading Amtrak D/H MHC on extra trains LAX - CHI .  

 

[TiBike]

Broadly I think of these problems in three categories, with different approaches for each.

On specific urgent issues like" if this funding is not restored this train disappears" work with local officials and local advocacy groups to create and foster train specific user groups. These have worked well for the Texas Eagle and Empire Builder, and is currently working well for the Southwest Chief. Also a movement for addressing station issues through Station Volunteer Groups is worth pursuing pending the fixing of the underlying accounting issues that is causing Amtrak to make stupid decisions.

For fixing governance and accounting issues work with your representatives and other advocates to change the language in the next authorization . That is the clearest way to fix the relevant laws, and to remove requirements like Diners must make money etc.

As for fixing the problems built into its DNA from the getgo that reflect the national ambivalence/hostility towards passenger trains ... anyone’s guess is as good as mine. How do you change national institutional attitudes? Maybe it is already changing in the right direction. I intentionally use the phrase "institutional attitude" because poll after poll shows that the general public attitude is more pro-passenger rail than is reflected by the institutions that statutorily control decision making on transportation policy.

You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.

By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.

The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.

 

[cpotisch]

You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.

By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.

The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.

So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?

Cool. hboy:

 

[keelhauled]

So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?

Cool. hboy:

Thousands of remote towns across the countries don't rely on train travel, and do just fine anyway.  Anyone who does rely on long distance train travel is almost certainly getting screwed anyway with regards to reliability of service.

 

[ehbowen]

Thousands of remote towns across the countries don't rely on train travel, and do just fine anyway.  Anyone who does rely on long distance train travel is almost certainly getting screwed anyway with regards to reliability of service.

Thousands of remote towns across this nation are dying because they were bypassed by the Interstates and are more than two hours from the nearest airline service. You must not get out on the road much (former long-haul truck driver, here).

But, hey, this is supposed to be a free market economy, right? Just pick one mode (of transportation) and subsidize it to the hilt. Choices? We don't need no steenking choices!

Edit To Add: I'm doubling down. In those "remote towns" which ARE lucky enough to be on the Interstate or on a major highway, all too often the only business in town really doing well is the truck stop. Get away from the off- and on-ramp and drive through town, and you'll find that the former business district is a ghost town. The major exception is those towns which are close enough to the Big City to qualify as "bedroom communities." But while the new residents may live and vote there, their real community loyalties lie with where they work.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?

Cool. hboy:

I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do. 

 

[ehbowen]

I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do. 

Uh, no. Nobody has ever established a passenger service specifically for "Thurmond, WV" or "Rugby, ND". The passenger services in question were established to connect New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC with Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago and Chicago, Milwaukee,  and the Twin Cities with Seattle and Portland. Once those services were established Thurmond and Rugby were simply low-hanging fruit; the dynamics of rail travel make it possible to add an intermediate stop which serves a secondary or tertiary market and makes the overall matrix even more valuable with less than five minutes extension of the schedule, a platform, a shelter, and (if you're feeling generous) possibly a station agent. Are you saying that, once the decision has been made to serve the primary end points, we should bypass all the small towns (and their potential passenger bases) in between?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Uh, no. Nobody has ever established a passenger service specifically for "Thurmond, WV" or "Rugby, ND". The passenger services in question were established to connect New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC with Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago and Chicago, Milwaukee,  and the Twin Cities with Seattle and Portland. 

Oh come on, we've been through this before.

Chicago-Washington already has a train (a way faster one).

Chicago-New York already has a train (a way faster one).

If they cared about Chicago-Philadelphia, they would have never canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers (a way faster one). Baltimore used to have through service on the Broadway before they got rid of it to start the Capitol as well. If they cared about Chicago-Baltimore, they would have never changed that either.

If they cared about Cincinnati, train service there wouldn't be during the graveyard shift. Indianapolis isn't much better.

The only reason that train exists now isn't for the reason you say it does.

I can't dispute the Empire Builder has a unique national purpose between Chicago and Seattle (I may debate the importance of that purpose). But you're never going to convince me about that other train.

 

[jis]

You're not proposing to fix Amtrak, you're trying to preserve its failure. Amtrak's route system and service model was obsolete the day the company launched – that's why it was created in the first place. States and regional transportation agencies should be more involved, and if that happens I think you'll see them setting priorities based on the greatest need – corridors and conveniently timed, reliable service between key city pairs. At least in public, the Southwest Chief changes were presented as a zero sum game, which makes it a cheap and easy issue for representatives and senators to jump on. If trade offs were on the table – say, a modern service from Albuquerque to Phoenix to LA in exchange for accepting bus service (also conveniently timed and reliable) east of there – you'd see a different reaction.

By modern service, I mean what you can find in Europe and Asia: safe, fast, clean, on-time trains, good food prepared and served via sophisticated supply chains, and an efficient, pain-free customer experience from beginning to end. Maybe Acela already does that – I don't know, never been on it. The California trains are about halfway there, but will never get closer with Amtrak's legacy DNA. The long distance trains are not even in the game, because there's no business or policy justification for making it any better.

The essential transportation argument is nonsense. The vast majority of small towns in the U.S. do fine without Amtrak. Amtrak serves a relative handful of remote communities, that could be better served by more frequent buses with more flexible destinations. The best RPA can do is to complain about accounting and lobby to roll the calendar back even further. Advocating for a business model that failed 50 years ago, because of market, technological and demographic trends that have only accelerated in the years since, will prevent the kind of meaningful change that will truly fix Amtrak, and make it relevant in this century.

This is where the third type of issues that I mentioned comes in. I don't deny that there is a need to change the model, and indeed the "essential service" argument should be debated and resolved. Just because you think one way does not mean that is the majority or even a plurality opinion. I actually happen to agree that buses integrated with trains through seamless ticketing and timed transfers should have much larger role to play in the overall ground transport strategy for rural areas, but that does not mean that trains should be completely included a core set of links between large urban conglomerations. Are the current Amtrak LD routes the right inter-region links? I don;t know. But is getting rid of them today going to lead to development of anything other than simply building more highways? I don't know either. But clearly there are brighter brains than I - lie you. It is upto you to present your case and convince enough people and make it happen.

I absolutely think that the issue should be debated and resolved through the usual democratic processes. Maybe there will be no long distance or any distance trains beyond commuter type distances after that, and all we will have is Musk Pods. FRA can then get out of the business of dealing with passengers, and leave that purely as an FTA concern. But until that happens there is good reason to preserve and evolve rather than slash and burn. Afterall, the reason for the creation of the much maligned Section 209 funding was exactly to enable corridors to thrive separate from long distance trains, sponsored by corridor stakeholders. Actually seeds of it was in the original Amtrak 403b concept, but that did not work out so well because it was too ad hoc and unpredictable as to what Amtrak would do in terms of supporting such. Unlike Section 209, 403b was more general and was used to initially start the Lake Shore Limited, which was not part of the original network.

Anyway, Section 209 and the entry of the likes of Brightline may be moving things towards a qucker development of corridor services anyway, and leave the long distance arguments aside, to take place in a different forum, while corridors are developed to a point where their value becomes self evident. I think the panic in the LD supporter community partly arises from the realization of that possibility after they have oversold the LD vs. Corridor schism and made a coffin for themselves to lay in. Time will tell.

 

[cpotisch]

I'm not entirely LD vs. corridor but I feel Amtrak should serve the most number of people possible. I feel Amtrak sacrifices serving more people to serve fewer because the fewer "need it more" or don't have other transportation options. The airline industry and the bus industry chooses who gets service by demand. But in Amtrak, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no rail service but Thurmond, WV and Rugby, ND do. 

Here we go again about West Virginia. I posted this in June on page 3 of this same thread, and I think it applies pretty well in this case:

On 6/16/2018 at 1:33 PM, Philly Amtrak Fan said:

  On 6/16/2018 at 10:50 AM, Seaboard92 said:

Either way what has senator Casey or Senator Tooney done for Your pet train? Point of the matter in this new environment all trains matter be it private cars, be it charters, be it the cardinal, and to some extent the Acela. And if we as advocates can't fight for all aspects of the trains we love. Then we won't have any train to love. Hence New River fought hard to save the Charleston Station agent, and they are fighting hard on other national network issues. We're in this fight with you but are you in it with us?

I hardly believe the Charleston Station agent nor other station agents in most stations in places I've never heard of are "national network issues". I forget the actual statistic but most tickets are handled online these days and a lot of stops don't have agents already. Cutting agents is a cost cutting move just like the AAA discount. I don't like it but I get it. Spending money on a ticket agent takes money away which could be used elsewhere. Amtrak is only given a certain amount of money a year. I want it used to better benefit the country, not just West Virginia. Does it have to be Philadelphia? Not necessarily. But I think it should be proportionally based on population and right now it does seem to be IMO disproportionally given to benefit rural population more and Amtrak were to truly benefit that needs to change.

I'm not sure if Anderson's delivery is the best but he might get the idea of Amtrak being a taxpayer burden and is trying to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer.

Why is it that you feel that West Virginia does not deserve a station agent, or even a train at all?

You know how many departures each station in West Virginia gets in a week? Six. You know how many Amtrak departures Philadelphia gets each day? 108. But still you complain that your hometown doesn't have daily non-stop service to Chicago, and that the thrice-weekly train which does offer you non-stop service, should get the ax.

As Tricia said, West Virginia is part of the United States, so how can you say that you're not benefiting the nation by giving it a station agent? Under your logic that by Amtrak spending money on something that benefits locals, they are wasting funds and failing to benefit the country as a whole, then any money spent on any local service must be a waste, be it Charleston or New York City.

Tell me this: If you lived in WV, and had to put up with train service from one train that serves your town three days a week in each direction, what would be your opinion of someone whose town gets more than 750 Amtrak departures a week (not even including SEPTA or NJT), but wants you to lose train service altogether, just so that they can get a faster one seat ride to Chicago? I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[ehbowen]

Oh come on, we've been through this before.

Chicago-Washington already has a train (a way faster one).

Chicago-New York already has a train (a way faster one).

If they cared about Chicago-Philadelphia, they would have never canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers (a way faster one). Baltimore used to have through service on the Broadway before they got rid of it to start the Capitol as well. If they cared about Chicago-Baltimore, they would have never changed that either.

If they cared about Cincinnati, train service there wouldn't be during the graveyard shift. Indianapolis isn't much better.

The only reason that train exists now isn't for the reason you say it does.

I can't dispute the Empire Builder has a unique national purpose between Chicago and Seattle (I may debate the importance of that purpose). But you're never going to convince me about that other train.

No, you have been through this before. "You" is not "we". I for one support a comprehensive national network...including West Virginia. Yes, I would very much like to see the Broadway Limited restored as well. But not at the expense of chopping the service lifeline to other states and regions which also happen to pay the taxes which support Amtrak.

As far as the "graveyard shift"...one of the unfortunate concomitants of "one a day" service is that it's just not possible to schedule all stops in all major destinations at convenient hours. But middle of the night service is better than no service at all. Ask Salt Lake City. I personally have awakened at four in the morning to catch the Sunset Limited when that one train which serves my (larger than Philadelphia) hometown three days a week each way (sound familiar?) had a less-than-desirable scheduling. The obvious answer is to run more than one train a day. Southern Pacific found out the hard way in the mid-1950s that when you cut one of a pair of trains on a line, ridership on the remaining train goes down, not up...as long as alternatives exist, rail becomes that much less attractive...and consequently more attractive when/if service is restored. Take a look at linear algebra and matrix theory some time.

I enjoy your discussions and many of your insights. But, honestly, some times I think that if I put a button before you which would restore the Broadway Limited at the cost of destroying the remainder of the national network, you'd push it. Yes, I'm using hyperbole. But not a whole lot.

 

[cpotisch]

No, you have been through this before. "You" is not "we". I for one support a comprehensive national network...including West Virginia. Yes, I would very much like to see the Broadway Limited restored as well. But not at the expense of chopping the service lifeline to other states and regions which also happen to pay the taxes which support Amtrak.

As far as the "graveyard shift"...one of the unfortunate concomitants of "one a day" service is that it's just not possible to schedule all stops in all major destinations at convenient hours. But middle of the night service is better than no service at all. Ask Salt Lake City. I personally have awakened at four in the morning to catch the Sunset Limited when that one train which serves my (larger than Philadelphia) hometown three days a week each way (sound familiar?) had a less-than-desirable scheduling. The obvious answer is to run more than one train a day. Southern Pacific found out the hard way in the mid-1950s that when you cut one of a pair of trains on a line, ridership on the remaining train goes down, not up...as long as alternatives exist, rail becomes that much less attractive...and consequently more attractive when/if service is restored. Take a look at linear algebra and matrix theory some time.

I enjoy your discussions and many of your insights. But, honestly, some times I think that if I put a button before you which would restore the Broadway Limited at the cost of destroying the remainder of the national network, you'd push it. Yes, I'm using hyperbole. But not a whole lot.

 

[IndyLions]

It sounds what everyone is talking about here is a re-allocation of the meager funds allocated to the National network. Yes - by government standards those funds ARE meager.

Re-allocating those funds isn’t going to get a heck of a lot done in expanding corridor service anywhere. That’s going to cost a heck of a lot more than a billion or two a year. Those expansions in corridor service are significantly needed, but need to be funded separately on their own merit. As many young people are adopting a more urban and less automobile reliant lifestyle - and especially as they will soon outnumber the baby boomers - they should have enough votes to get that done if they want it. If they don’t, it won’t happen.

In my opinion, a billion or two spent on the current national network is money well spent keeping up rail support in general in rural states like WV or ND.

 

[jis]

That is a good point. However, unfortunately there is a group of rail advocates who have incorrectly (and foolishly in my opinion) made it an either-or proposition, which the LD side is bound to eventually lose. What we need is a coherent national policy that is multi-modal surface transport and addresses the concerns of the whole nation, rural, suburban and urban, instead of pitting one group against the other. But I guess culturally we are more prone to setup pointless battles and bloody each other instead of cooperating and collaborating towards solutions that address broader concerns.

 

[lordsigma]

It should be all of the above not either or. Having the National network as a base from which to build from makes it more feasible to develop corridors in areas where Amtrak is already running trains. The existing train gives you an idea about what challenges and improvements you may need to make to the railroad segments. Also you have some of the building blocks already in place - stations for example and soon PTC operable segments. And the corridors will do better with an interconnected network than without it.

 

[west point]

JIS  Again you hit the nails on the head.  This pitting of the urban vs rural has got to stop.  However the terrible rhetoric coming out of Washington needs to be toned down.  Even though we do not live on the Cardinal its service to / from CVS, White Sulphur springs, Charleston, Huntington, Cincinnati, INDY from the various end points cannot be easily duplicate especially since many persons are going to the no automobile in family,  It is time to try to save fly over country., i  ,   , 

 

[TiBike]

Maybe there will be no long distance or any distance trains beyond commuter type distances after that, and all we will have is Musk Pods. FRA can then get out of the business of dealing with passengers, and leave that purely as an FTA concern. But until that happens there is good reason to preserve and evolve rather than slash and burn.

This is the contradiction that long distance fans have to resolve. "Preserve" or "evolve", you can't do both. The Southwest Chief is a case study: there was – is – a 100% focus on preserving a contiguous rail trip and 0% on how the available resources could evolve to be a better service for everyone along the route. If every incremental change is met with blind opposition and a last ditch defence, then the rational response is to fight one big, decisive battle – slash and burn – rather than continually engage in a series of rear guard actions. If people who reckon themselves rail passenger advocates don't turn and face the future, they will wake up one morning and discover there is no place in it for them.

 

[jis]

This is the contradiction that long distance fans have to resolve. "Preserve" or "evolve", you can't do both. The Southwest Chief is a case study: there was – is – a 100% focus on preserving a contiguous rail trip and 0% on how the available resources could evolve to be a better service for everyone along the route. If every incremental change is met with blind opposition and a last ditch defence, then the rational response is to fight one big, decisive battle – slash and burn – rather than continually engage in a series of rear guard actions. If people who reckon themselves rail passenger advocates don't turn and face the future, they will wake up one morning and discover there is no place in it for them.

Yup. But one should recognize that all rail passenger advocates are not of the same mindset and there is a huge schism developing among them as a result of the shenanigans of the California gang on the one hand and a few from the midwest. Only time will tell if the overall rail advocacy community will commit Harakiri over idiotic extreme positions or not. They very well might since many appear to be driven by emotion more than brains and are often fast and loose with facts as is becoming more and more fashionable in general these days.

 

[Tarm]

So basically you're saying that they should completely dismantle the entire national network, replace it with corridor services, and completely screw over anyone who lives in a remote town and relies on train travel?

Cool. hboy:

Yes!

The quicker we get started on replacing the national network with corridor services the better chance we have of preserving passenger rail for the future. If we passenger rail advocates maintain the position of a national network or bust we might just get the bust.