 |
Re: FRA Invites Bids to Replace Amtrak on Three Routes
Author: Erik H.
Date: 08-03-2017 - 13:09
mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> look at Italy. Privately operated HSR (moderate HS, not full-blown TGV) sharing tracks
> with State-operated HSR and conventional passenger. Of course, as with elsewhere in
> Europe, freight is only a minor piece of the picture
Italy is also the geographical size of California, but with 50% more population than California.
Overnight trains are rare in Europe; most trains are basic transportation - coach only, no baggage cars, no lounge cars, no dining cars - except on the few intercity trains. Maybe if we dropped the whole Amtrak as it was in 1971 experiment, kill off the LDs, and run trains like Europe does, where the population density actually warrants fast, frequent rail service, we'd be a lot more successful.
Running an expensive overnight train to serve the unincorporated community of Chemult, Oregon, is **NOT** what Europe would do. Europe would not have a train between Eugene and Redding; would have a regional (coach only, no baggage/lounge/dining) car from Eugene to Portland and from Redding to Oakland, and maybe a regional train with a BordRestaurant from Portland-Seattle and Oakland-Los Angeles.
What's holding us back isn't "management" or "money", it's our incessant demand to hold onto a passenger railroad model that effectively doesn't exist in most places in the world, and a failure to understand the true benefits of rail transport. When we build trains for political convenience that is almost always an automatic fail. When we build trains to carry a lot of people, to transport people from point A to point B, at a schedule that serves the travelling public rather than the whim of someone who sits in an office back in Washington, DC 3,000+ miles away, that's a win. When a train that is designed to hold 300 passengers can barely muster 80 people to pay for a ticket, that's a loss - especially as a nearby train regularly sells out.
-------------------------------------------------------
> look at Italy. Privately operated HSR (moderate HS, not full-blown TGV) sharing tracks
> with State-operated HSR and conventional passenger. Of course, as with elsewhere in
> Europe, freight is only a minor piece of the picture
Italy is also the geographical size of California, but with 50% more population than California.
Overnight trains are rare in Europe; most trains are basic transportation - coach only, no baggage cars, no lounge cars, no dining cars - except on the few intercity trains. Maybe if we dropped the whole Amtrak as it was in 1971 experiment, kill off the LDs, and run trains like Europe does, where the population density actually warrants fast, frequent rail service, we'd be a lot more successful.
Running an expensive overnight train to serve the unincorporated community of Chemult, Oregon, is **NOT** what Europe would do. Europe would not have a train between Eugene and Redding; would have a regional (coach only, no baggage/lounge/dining) car from Eugene to Portland and from Redding to Oakland, and maybe a regional train with a BordRestaurant from Portland-Seattle and Oakland-Los Angeles.
What's holding us back isn't "management" or "money", it's our incessant demand to hold onto a passenger railroad model that effectively doesn't exist in most places in the world, and a failure to understand the true benefits of rail transport. When we build trains for political convenience that is almost always an automatic fail. When we build trains to carry a lot of people, to transport people from point A to point B, at a schedule that serves the travelling public rather than the whim of someone who sits in an office back in Washington, DC 3,000+ miles away, that's a win. When a train that is designed to hold 300 passengers can barely muster 80 people to pay for a ticket, that's a loss - especially as a nearby train regularly sells out.
