Why is there still No Sunset Limited connection to Fl?

[SunsetLimited01]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

 

[Chris J.]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Mobile?

 

[George Harris]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Mobile?

Yes, but, given that Beaumont is a bare platform, and in a worse part of town than the Mobile station location, that should not matter.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Over the past 50 years, hundreds if not thousands of train stations have been torn down for one reason or another.

However, generally train stations are owned by the town in which they are in. So it is generally not a case of not wanting the building for tax purposes anymore. If they have some plans for placing something where the train station is, or the train station burns or becomes a hazard, sure they'll tear it down.

But they don't just decide one day, hey guys, we're not gonna run trains anymore. Lets demolish this possibly otherwise useful building. A train station is a structure. If not for use as a train station, it can serve other functions. Private housing, police substation, small school, warehouse, whatever. Homeless shelter, even.

People don't generally tear down a structurally sound building just because it will not be used for its originally intended function at present. Buildings cost good money. So does tearing them down.

So you don't tear it down in absence of a reason for its presence. You tear it down in the presence of a reason for its absence.

 

[George Harris]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Over the past 50 years, hundreds if not thousands of train stations have been torn down for one reason or another.

However, generally train stations are owned by the town in which they are in. So it is generally not a case of not wanting the building for tax purposes anymore. If they have some plans for placing something where the train station is, or the train station burns or becomes a hazard, sure they'll tear it down.

But they don't just decide one day, hey guys, we're not gonna run trains anymore. Lets demolish this possibly otherwise useful building. A train station is a structure. If not for use as a train station, it can serve other functions. Private housing, police substation, small school, warehouse, whatever. Homeless shelter, even.

People don't generally tear down a structurally sound building just because it will not be used for its originally intended function at present. Buildings cost good money. So does tearing them down.

So you don't tear it down in absence of a reason for its presence. You tear it down in the presence of a reason for its absence.

Frequently that reason has been property taxes. Train stations owned by the towns is a development since Amtrak. Before, all the stations were either owned by the railroads, a terminal company, or if whatever few were publically owned, leased at a rate that included what would have been the property tax burden on the structure. Demolition could normally be done for far less than the cost of one year of the normal property tax burden no the sturcture.

 

[delvyrails]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Over the past 50 years, hundreds if not thousands of train stations have been torn down for one reason or another.

However, generally train stations are owned by the town in which they are in. So it is generally not a case of not wanting the building for tax purposes anymore. If they have some plans for placing something where the train station is, or the train station burns or becomes a hazard, sure they'll tear it down.

But they don't just decide one day, hey guys, we're not gonna run trains anymore. Lets demolish this possibly otherwise useful building. A train station is a structure. If not for use as a train station, it can serve other functions. Private housing, police substation, small school, warehouse, whatever. Homeless shelter, even.

People don't generally tear down a structurally sound building just because it will not be used for its originally intended function at present. Buildings cost good money. So does tearing them down.

So you don't tear it down in absence of a reason for its presence. You tear it down in the presence of a reason for its absence.

Frequently that reason has been property taxes. Train stations owned by the towns is a development since Amtrak. Before, all the stations were either owned by the railroads, a terminal company, or if whatever few were publically owned, leased at a rate that included what would have been the property tax burden on the structure. Demolition could normally be done for far less than the cost of one year of the normal property tax burden no the sturcture.

Demolishing the passenger station after the service ends may not be the spiteful thing that some believe. In many places, operating railroad property enjoys a property tax reduction; and when passenger operations cease, the tax rate goes up. So the building comes down.

 

[SunsetLimited01]

Why would they tear down the stations? That'd cost money.

Question wasn't a station torn down? I forgot which one it was.

Mobile?

Yeah that's the one.

 

[henryj]

[*]Lone Star: What the world really needed was two trains losing lots of money running rarely more than 150 miles apart carrying few passengers. Clearly.
all of these cuts made sense.

GML, I know that living in NJ where you have plenty of passenger trains you tend to discount those of us that don't. The Lone Star, former Texas Chief, was a very popular train down here. It gave Houston a direct service to Fort Worth, OKC, KC and Chicago. Something we have not had since. The other train was the InterAmerican, now the Eagle. It was not nearly as popular or well patronized. We still don't know why the Lone Star was targeted except that it was in Texas and Carter hated Texas and to this day Texas does not really support Amtrak. The Heartland Flyer now runs on part of the former Lone Star route.

jf

 

[jis]

GML, I know that living in NJ where you have plenty of passenger trains you tend to discount those of us that don't. The Lone Star, former Texas Chief, was a very popular train down here. It gave Houston a direct service to Fort Worth, OKC, KC and Chicago. Something we have not had since. The other train was the InterAmerican, now the Eagle. It was not nearly as popular or well patronized. We still don't know why the Lone Star was targeted except that it was in Texas and Carter hated Texas and to this day Texas does not really support Amtrak. The Heartland Flyer now runs on part of the former Lone Star route.jf

I tend to agree that between the Inter-American and the Lone Star. the wrong train was picked to kill back then. They could have rearranged service south of Fort Worth a bit to cover the Inter-American route by a sending a section of the Lone Star down that way. The real serious ridership problem on the Inter-American as I understand it back then was between St. Louis and Dallas. It was surprising personally to me back then, that in spite of that it is the Lone Star that was canceled.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

[*]Lone Star: What the world really needed was two trains losing lots of money running rarely more than 150 miles apart carrying few passengers. Clearly.
all of these cuts made sense.

GML, I know that living in NJ where you have plenty of passenger trains you tend to discount those of us that don't. The Lone Star, former Texas Chief, was a very popular train down here. It gave Houston a direct service to Fort Worth, OKC, KC and Chicago. Something we have not had since. The other train was the InterAmerican, now the Eagle. It was not nearly as popular or well patronized. We still don't know why the Lone Star was targeted except that it was in Texas and Carter hated Texas and to this day Texas does not really support Amtrak. The Heartland Flyer now runs on part of the former Lone Star route.

jf

Alright, the wrong train was picked. But pointedly, the two trains together were redundant, inefficient, and silly.

 

[delvyrails]

I think you are both right. The Lone Star was the faster route between Chicago and Fort Worth-Dallas. That route should have been kept, and it should have been extended to Austin and San Antonio.

However, the railroad map shows a different, ideal purpose for the Texas Eagle: as a Chicago-St. Louis-Houston train. Divert it from its present route at Texarkana via Kansas City Southern and through Shreveport, the largest city in the area, and probably via Lufkin to Houston. Nobody ever thinks about that ex-SP route because passenger service was long gone before Amtrak.

There are two major travel markets between Chicago and Texas, one to Dallas and one to Houston. Give each market its separate train.