 |
Re: Restored Amtrak Service To Vegas? Don't Hold Your Breath!
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 06-28-2010 - 11:58
Comments by Bobby Johnson in italics; Responses by Holly Gibson in regular font
People seem to hear the word railroad and see dollar signs without realizing the amount of money it costs to run one. This service could not start next week. Amtrak does not have the available equipment ...
They have PLENTY of it gathering rust at Beech Grove. Too bad they haven't had a serious intention to get it running again. David Gunn tried to get some of it repaired and out on the road again ... that was probably one of the contributing factors to his firing.
budget, stations, insurance, and labor for any of the services you mentioned above.
Maybe I exaggerated just a tad. If an effort was put forth to solve these issues, they would no longer be issues. But Amtrak isn't even making an effort. The station infrastructure on the LA-Vegas route is still pretty much there. The insurance is there inasmuch as its the same insurance that covers all the other trains. Crews could be transferred and trained in a matter of weeks.
Sorry to say it but Amtrak is a money looser and always will be.
Is that anything like being a money loser? And here we go again with that double-standard, where Amtrak is expected to turn a profit while all other modes of transport lose (or is that "loose"?) oodles and oodles of money and no one bats an eye. Strange.
Amtrak is barley going to have enough money for the mandated PTC udgrades.
Maybe they can use some of that barley at a micro-brewery? As far as PTC upgrades, Amtrak will probably only have to foot the bill for it on track that it owns outright, like the Northeast Corridor. Track that is owned by the freight railroads (like LA-to-Vegas) will probably have the freight carriers footing the bill, since their freight trains will primarily be the beneficiary of the system.
UP has stated in the past that significant upgrades need to be performed on that line before passenger service is restored.
That strategy is a time-honored tactic by the freight railroads known as "killing it with capital." I don't buy it. On the LA-to-Vegas run, all you need is a competent dispatcher and a freight railroad management that has a desire to cooperate with the Amtrak operation rather than throwing up obstacles at every turn. If you have someone like Ben Biagginni (SP) at the helm, the trains will be dirty and will run late. If you have someone like Paul Reistrup (B&O-C&O) running things, the trains will be clean and on time. There has to be a desire to cooperate. BNSF seems to understand this and, consequently, earns the Amtrak bonus incentive payments while UP doesn't. I guess UP just likes to throw away money.
That isn't going to change regardless of how low traffic levels are.
Let's say UP decides to run one freight train per day, each way, over the LA&SL route. Are you saying that "significant upgrades" would still be necessary? Traffic volume most certainly is part of the equation. Competent dispatching probably plays a bigger role.
Amtrak doesn't own that line, UP does. Amtrak doesn't have the money to pay for new UP sidings and buy new equipment.
The Desert Wind ran just fine, thank-you-very-much over that line, but that was because, back then, there was a UP management that cooperated to a certain extent to make sure that was the case. The Desert Wind managed to arrive in Vegas on time on many occasions and double tracking up Cima Hill and allowances for protecting the migration of the endangered desert tortoise were not part of the mix. Those are merely excuses (and flimsy ones at that) for not wanting to run the train.
If service was ever restored on that line it would most likely be from state contributions.
So why do we even bother to have a NATIONAL system (i.e., Amtrak) if the states are required to prop up everything? What if the train runs through two states and one state is willing to subsidize the service and the other isn't? What rocket scientist dreamt up this goofy arrangement? This is a phenomena that's cropped up in the last twenty years or so. It's not something that plagued Amtrak back in 1971.
Vegas doesn't need Amtrak service, it has a large airport and a major freeway running from Salt Lake to Los Angeles.
If having a "large airport and a major freeway" can miraculously solve all of our transportation problems, as you say, then I guess we can discontinue all medium distance corridor services west of Chicago.
It would be faster and cheaper to drive there by car.
At 03:00 AM, when there's little traffic on the Interstates, that statement holds true on the following corridors as well (this list is not all-inclusive): LA-San Diego, Oakland-Sacramento, Oakland-Bakersfield, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver BC, Chicago-St. Louis, St. Louis-Kansas City. Are you saying we should discontinue the trains in all those corridors, merely because, in the wee hours of the morning, you can drive the distance faster and cheaper?
Passenger rail to Vegas would not be feasable without a service that competed with the airlines both cost and time wise.
So you're saying that we need to discontinue EVERY Amtrak train? Even the Acela probably loses money. Never mind that the air shuttles LOOSE lots of money too. That double-standard comes into play again. Remember, too, that we really can't get a realistic grasp of the TRUE cost of air travel because all of the subsidies, both direct and hidden, are too firmly entrenched.
The New Orleans - Jacksonville service never had good ridership, was costly, and put a lot of strain on equipment availablity.
Yeah, so much easier (and cheaper) to just direct Amtrak passengers to the Greyhound station or tell them to drive. It makes one wonder how the L&N and SAL ran the service for so many years.
Who wants to ride a train from Chicago to Florida other than a foamer? That trip would probably take about two days.
Yeah, well let's just extrapolate on that viewpoint and apply it to ALL Amtrak trains. Bottom line -- everyone just needs to fly or drive. End of story. If you want to ride a train, go to Europe.
People seem to hear the word railroad and see dollar signs without realizing the amount of money it costs to run one. This service could not start next week. Amtrak does not have the available equipment ...
They have PLENTY of it gathering rust at Beech Grove. Too bad they haven't had a serious intention to get it running again. David Gunn tried to get some of it repaired and out on the road again ... that was probably one of the contributing factors to his firing.
budget, stations, insurance, and labor for any of the services you mentioned above.
Maybe I exaggerated just a tad. If an effort was put forth to solve these issues, they would no longer be issues. But Amtrak isn't even making an effort. The station infrastructure on the LA-Vegas route is still pretty much there. The insurance is there inasmuch as its the same insurance that covers all the other trains. Crews could be transferred and trained in a matter of weeks.
Sorry to say it but Amtrak is a money looser and always will be.
Is that anything like being a money loser? And here we go again with that double-standard, where Amtrak is expected to turn a profit while all other modes of transport lose (or is that "loose"?) oodles and oodles of money and no one bats an eye. Strange.
Amtrak is barley going to have enough money for the mandated PTC udgrades.
Maybe they can use some of that barley at a micro-brewery? As far as PTC upgrades, Amtrak will probably only have to foot the bill for it on track that it owns outright, like the Northeast Corridor. Track that is owned by the freight railroads (like LA-to-Vegas) will probably have the freight carriers footing the bill, since their freight trains will primarily be the beneficiary of the system.
UP has stated in the past that significant upgrades need to be performed on that line before passenger service is restored.
That strategy is a time-honored tactic by the freight railroads known as "killing it with capital." I don't buy it. On the LA-to-Vegas run, all you need is a competent dispatcher and a freight railroad management that has a desire to cooperate with the Amtrak operation rather than throwing up obstacles at every turn. If you have someone like Ben Biagginni (SP) at the helm, the trains will be dirty and will run late. If you have someone like Paul Reistrup (B&O-C&O) running things, the trains will be clean and on time. There has to be a desire to cooperate. BNSF seems to understand this and, consequently, earns the Amtrak bonus incentive payments while UP doesn't. I guess UP just likes to throw away money.
That isn't going to change regardless of how low traffic levels are.
Let's say UP decides to run one freight train per day, each way, over the LA&SL route. Are you saying that "significant upgrades" would still be necessary? Traffic volume most certainly is part of the equation. Competent dispatching probably plays a bigger role.
Amtrak doesn't own that line, UP does. Amtrak doesn't have the money to pay for new UP sidings and buy new equipment.
The Desert Wind ran just fine, thank-you-very-much over that line, but that was because, back then, there was a UP management that cooperated to a certain extent to make sure that was the case. The Desert Wind managed to arrive in Vegas on time on many occasions and double tracking up Cima Hill and allowances for protecting the migration of the endangered desert tortoise were not part of the mix. Those are merely excuses (and flimsy ones at that) for not wanting to run the train.
If service was ever restored on that line it would most likely be from state contributions.
So why do we even bother to have a NATIONAL system (i.e., Amtrak) if the states are required to prop up everything? What if the train runs through two states and one state is willing to subsidize the service and the other isn't? What rocket scientist dreamt up this goofy arrangement? This is a phenomena that's cropped up in the last twenty years or so. It's not something that plagued Amtrak back in 1971.
Vegas doesn't need Amtrak service, it has a large airport and a major freeway running from Salt Lake to Los Angeles.
If having a "large airport and a major freeway" can miraculously solve all of our transportation problems, as you say, then I guess we can discontinue all medium distance corridor services west of Chicago.
It would be faster and cheaper to drive there by car.
At 03:00 AM, when there's little traffic on the Interstates, that statement holds true on the following corridors as well (this list is not all-inclusive): LA-San Diego, Oakland-Sacramento, Oakland-Bakersfield, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver BC, Chicago-St. Louis, St. Louis-Kansas City. Are you saying we should discontinue the trains in all those corridors, merely because, in the wee hours of the morning, you can drive the distance faster and cheaper?
Passenger rail to Vegas would not be feasable without a service that competed with the airlines both cost and time wise.
So you're saying that we need to discontinue EVERY Amtrak train? Even the Acela probably loses money. Never mind that the air shuttles LOOSE lots of money too. That double-standard comes into play again. Remember, too, that we really can't get a realistic grasp of the TRUE cost of air travel because all of the subsidies, both direct and hidden, are too firmly entrenched.
The New Orleans - Jacksonville service never had good ridership, was costly, and put a lot of strain on equipment availablity.
Yeah, so much easier (and cheaper) to just direct Amtrak passengers to the Greyhound station or tell them to drive. It makes one wonder how the L&N and SAL ran the service for so many years.
Who wants to ride a train from Chicago to Florida other than a foamer? That trip would probably take about two days.
Yeah, well let's just extrapolate on that viewpoint and apply it to ALL Amtrak trains. Bottom line -- everyone just needs to fly or drive. End of story. If you want to ride a train, go to Europe.
