Upgrades to one, down grades to the rest?

[Larry H.]

Ok Allen,

You got me to thinking here.. It seems that there are two camps and maybe a bunch in between. Those of us who want rail service at a reasonable rate and with amenities that that type of service might include subsidized as a government system. There seems to be yet another group, unfortunately a lot here, who seem to feel as long as it runs on tracks and no matter where or how little it may run, its great just to have something, and we should all be grateful for that.. Never mind the price or the lack of services therewith. What ever the government deems as a token to rail service is fine and will make excuses till the cows come home for it.. (that may be a bit strong, but its the way it seems at times).

Here is how I see it.. As you say, the price we pay is not a huge amount for what we are presently getting.. Well should we be satisfied with that slice and ever dwindling quality. I would see it more or less as we experience the highway sytem, or maybe even defense or other government run or supervised programs.

We are all chipping in a portion of the cost to operate those things. Most likely the money we personally pay wouldn't pay for a few miles of highway grass cutting individually. But in return we get to use at no extra expense roads that cost Billions a mile in some places and are maintained constantly to there original condition for the most part. So we have a government system, tax payer paid, and no one is bilking your pockets for more and more in order for you to use it. We all know as you agreed that the system of trying to make Amtrak pay for it self though addition user fees is just not going to work.. So there fore instead of defending a worsening situation of less services and higher fees, we should be lobbying for a real passenger rail system.. If but a reasonable amount of the highway funds or a tax base were used we could have a system to be proud of.. One that runs to many places instead of a selected few, providing frequent reliable service to many. That is what a all counties but us try to do.. Why should the richest country in the world have the worst rail system? If others can do it, we can do it. It takes a new day in washington, that is for sure. But why not try? I think the NARP is probably doing some of that forward thinking. Now we need to get it done and quit settling for why things have to be cut, trimmed and made less lucrative as an alternative to flying and driving which neither of those the public is going to be able to afford in the future as they did in the past. Rail is the answer, lets get it going again...

 

[Guest_TALKrr_*]

Larry . I could not agree with you more. It has always been my position that Amtrak should NOT have a "premier" train.

On another forum I once suggest the notion that the Pacific Parlor Cars be shared over the entire long distance system , where Super-liner height cars are permitted. I was quickly informed that these cars were purchased with "private" money from the states of California , Oregon and Washington and thus could not be used elsewhere. Of course, I presume general AMTRAK funds are used to refurbish them !! I was also told that these cars could only be maintained at special facilities out west. I really wonder how much of this is true.

Then there is the "traditional" food service on the Empire Builder. "Sorry folks , if you can't ride that train you are out of luck !" I think this is ridiculous. I suspect that train has a route manager who is very popular with Amtrak HQ in DC.

Many suggest the logic that the best service and the best equipment should go to those routes/trains that are the most popular or highly traveled. Well, perhaps other trains in the system would become more popular if equipment and service on them was upgraded.

I understand the Pacific Parlor Cars are very expensive to maintain---much more so than other passenger cars. If that is truly the case then perhaps they need to be eliminated entirely. Where does the funding come to maintain these cars anyway----from state funds or general Amtrak funds ? Contrast the expense of maintaining these cars compared to the fact that they are used on only ONE train in the system.

Lastly, I think Amtrak management needs to make a decision related to maintain "standard" food service on LD trains as opposed to repairing and refurbishing equipment----mainly sleepers , coaches, and lounge cars. From what I understand, food service (from standard full-service dining cars) is extremely costly and drains millions from Amtrak's budget. Perhaps millions that Amtrak can simply no longer afford. If it came to refurbishing or buying new equipment or up-grading LD food service , which would really serve Amtrak and riders better ? It has always been my position that if Amtrak can not do full-service dining RIGHT , then don't do it at all-----and I mean over the entire system. Surely there are alternatives.

Delicious cold boxed meals are provided presently to east-bound passengers on the Empire Builder departing Portland----since there is no dining-car until Spokane. I have been offered these a number of times and they were simply delicious. I see nothing wrong with serving these in a "dining-car" . Those box meals were honestly BETTER than a number of hot meals I have been served on LD trains. Think of all the delicious cold sandwiches and salads that can be prepared fresh, on-board a train. I don't think it would kill a long-distance passenger to eat these types of meals for the trip, IF they are of good quality. Regular dining-cars could still be used for the food service with the very same number of staff. Just a different approach to the types of food served. I think this might save a great deal of money. Money saved might then be diverted to buying new rolling stock or refurbishing older stock.

I may have to endure cold food service from the diner , but how nice it would be to have a beautiful new lounge car to enjoy or a new sleeper ---or perhaps a private lounge car just for first class passengers , on every LD train.

To be honest, I think equipment and on-board service staff attract more customers than food service. If dollars are limited, I think Amtrak's focus must be placed upon the former---with the understanding that ALL LD trains are equal and deserve equal "billing" and attention.

 

[Walt]

Veering slightly-off the track here, in regards to the eternal Federal subsidization brouhaha, I've always felt that Amtrak (in accord with Congress) should offer to US taxpayers on a yearly basis the choice of: a) one free voucher for a single-zone coach ticket, or the equivalent of that person's "contribution" as a tax credit.

I agree.

Plus we should get a free airline tickets due to Federal airport subsidizes, and free gas due to Federal highway subsidizes, too.

 

[jis]

To be honest, I think equipment and on-board service staff attract more customers than food service. If dollars are limited, I think Amtrak's focus must be placed upon the former---with the understanding that ALL LD trains are equal and deserve equal "billing" and attention.

It should be noted though that money budgeted for opex, from whence food service is paid for cannot be used for capex, which is needed to buy new equipment. So just cutting off food service won't creat a pot of money that could be used for buying equipment.

Of course opex money can be used for on-board services. So what sort of duties did you have in mind for the additional on board services staff if there were to be no food service. How would passengers on LD trains get food while they are happily chugging along the middle of nowhere in Montana or Utah if there is no food service on the train? Were you thinking perhaps of reinstituting the much dispised Automat Car?

 

[Larry H.]

While I appreciate your input which I think is more widespread in support than some might think, I don't think that the diners should take the hit with things such as only cold food. Having just rode Amtrak for 7 days I can say that even the very limited hot menus become tiring after a while. Faced with only cold food for that time I think I would pass completely. My thought on it still is that the diner is part of running a passenger train where people are charged fairly high fares and are captive for days on end. It needs to be a basic part of the financing and then concentrate on building the business within as well as though running longer and more frequent trains so that the demand for food would help to offset some of the charge but not be concerned with if its making money. Sort of like the highway systems, no doubt the bridges cost more to maintain and build, but no one is saying then lets get rid of them.. Its part of a system. We have come to constantly trying to justify why Amtrak is removing cars, people, food, service, ect., instead of encouraging the maintenance of basic services.

And of course I agree that similar amenities should be offered to all long distance passengers not just a selected few.. Since when is the government in to discriminating by which route you take? If it operates for what would be considered far enough to operate sleepers then it should have the accompanying diner and lounges on all routes. My money cost me just as much as someone riding a more selected route.

 

[Larry H.]

Veering slightly-off the track here, in regards to the eternal Federal subsidization brouhaha, I've always felt that Amtrak (in accord with Congress) should offer to US taxpayers on a yearly basis the choice of: a) one free voucher for a single-zone coach ticket, or the equivalent of that person's "contribution" as a tax credit.

I agree.

Plus we should get a free airline tickets due to Federal airport subsidizes, and free gas due to Federal highway subsidizes, too.

No one is charging you to drive on the highway beyond what you do pay in taxes, so in essence it is a "free" service. To make a really fair comparison it would have to be that since not many people may want to drive through kansas (just an out of the hat choice), then the government should only lay one lane of concrete in each direction instead of 8, and all the towns off the beaten track should just have the roads removed to them, and some of those expensive to maintain bridges should just be shut down, there too costly to maintain. That is the way the passenger system is being treated.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I don't know where you live, but many highways have something called "tolls" which are collected in "booths" which is a "charge" for "driving" a "car" on the "road".

 

[RTOlson]

I was thinking of tolls as well, but it is something that most of the driving population outside of New England and upper Midwest don't necessarily experience.

Sure there are some toll highways out West, but they were pretty infrequent aside from bridge tolls. That's changing now slightly, but the vast majority of western and southern highways are toll-free.

 

[Tony]

No one is charging you to drive on the highway beyond what you do pay in taxes, so in essence it is a "free" service.

Except for taxes. A lot of government stuff is totally "free" if we first exclude all funding that comes from taxes.

Your logic, is that we should only question Amtrak subsidies, except for those subsides which come from taxes.

I think the original point, that the government subsidies (yes, by using various taxes), the infrastructure for trucking (and cars too), the infrastructure for air travel, and the infrastructure for ports (ships/boats). So, one needs to be contrast all those with the government subsidies for Amtrak (passenger rail service). IMHO, if you do that, the subsidies for railroad travel are far less than the other three.

 

[Larry H.]

I am not saying we should "question " the subsidies, rather we should embrace them and get on with providing a well run and expanded rail system. What I am saying is lets stop constantly trying to make it something it will never be. Self supporting.. Which in turn is currently causing may of the issues with food and lounge service that we are experiencing.