Amtrak is underfunded! Put you opions here.

[Train-a-Mania]

One of the main problems for Amtrak is our freight railroads. Because roads such as Union Pacific and BNSF are payed only a small amount to allow Amtrak trains on their tracks, they always prioritize their freight trains. This delays Amtrak trains and gives it a bad reputation.

In the end, the government doesn't fund it enough. It waste's a lot of its money on things it shouldn't, like airlines, which constantly lose money.

[R682818]

I dont think any passenger RR makes money. Their money comes from subsidies, I think. For example, can a railroad survive like this? Every week on the Long Island Railroad, thats a railroad that serves all od Long Island, and a baseball stadium (Shea Stadium), a single passenger on the Oyster Bay Branch costs 300 Thousand Dollars. I really do not think a railroad cannot survive like that. I think that is also why Santa Fe stopped their passenger operations. Although the Amtrak California Zephyr is a nice ride, and the Acela. Hell, I even took a trip on the Lakeshore Limited and the Auto Train (the Auto Train was a while ago with my parents)

[JamieLei]

I dont think any passenger RR makes money.

Many Japanese railways do, most of which are privatised (which throws out stupid the "only nationalised railways can make money" argument). It's not unusual for many Japanese railways to earn up to 130% of their operating costs through fairbox revenue alone.

London underground earns about 82% of it's operating costs. I'd be interesting to see how much of a loss (of gain) they make once all that advertising is taken into account. The tube is advertising central - you're bombarded with it.

American railroads are in for a huge boost as petrol prices go up and people are shifting to public transport.

[Chrill]

To start with, USA isn't a public transporty country. People are depending on their cars much more than in Europe overall.

If Amtrak would have some high-speed tracks (even if only capable of 100mph going as straight as highways), they would earn by taking the train. It should also be overall cheaper to do so if the gas prices climb and the government subisidies train tickets or similar. It is solvable for sure

[michael blunck]

I dont think any passenger RR makes money.

Many Japanese railways do [...]

That´s right. Capacity utilisation in Japan is quite high in contrast to European railways. OTOH, even the German DB makes money with its railway operations:

EBIT 2007 (in million Euro)
long-distance service 139
regional service 451
city services 166
freight service (rail) 217
freight service (road) 453
network 478

American railroads are in for a huge boost as petrol prices go up and people are shifting to public transport.

OTOH, US railways are using diesel engines to a high degree and the price for diesel went up substantially during the last months. Recently, I read an interview with David Crane (CEO NRG) about the "revival of nuclear power", and he mentioned that some US-based freight railways would consider electrification of their networks in the light of rising diesel prices ("1 billion US-$ per year in 2005, and now 1 billion US-$ in two months").

regards
Michael

[DJC]

It's also 81.5% tax now for fuel, which makes it less and less appealing for me to drive..I was going to start taking up driving lessons with me new job..now that's gone down the pan.

I'm currently learning to drive (got my test of Thursday) but I have no intention of getting a car if I pass. As much as I'd love to have one, driving is too expensive at the moment. Plus I don't need a car now, and I won't need one to go to Uni as I've got a perfectly good bike. I'm just learning so I can hopefully get my licence for when I can afford a car...assuming I will be able to afford to drive in the future.

[R682818]

I dont think any passenger RR makes money.

Many Japanese railways do, most of which are privatised (which throws out stupid the "only nationalised railways can make money" argument). It's not unusual for many Japanese railways to earn up to 130% of their operating costs through fairbox revenue alone.

London underground earns about 82% of it's operating costs. I'd be interesting to see how much of a loss (of gain) they make once all that advertising is taken into account. The tube is advertising central - you're bombarded with it.

American railroads are in for a huge boost as petrol prices go up and people are shifting to public transport.

Only the Acela Express, Keystone, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and some other lines out of the NEC (Lakeshore Limited not included. it only runs on 3rd Rail in Penn Station) will get a boost. All the other P40/P42 Genesis, and F59PHI Locomotives (and any F40PHs left in service) Amtrak runs are diesel, as previously said. And it costs maybe $$5.00 a gallon for diesel fuel in parts around New York. Heh, maybe Amtrak might put up 3rd Rail on the Lakeshore's line so their P32DC Genesis locomotives can use electric power all the way to Chicago, but thats not the point here. While on fuel, the California Zephyr has 2 P42 Genesis at the front and gets refueled often, I dont think the P32/40/42 are very fuel efficent.
EDIT: I forgot the Lakeshore Limited change the P32 for a P42 at Albany/Rennselear Station

[Donoteat]

Long distance passenger travel by train simply isn't practical because of the sheer distances involved in the United States. No one wants to take a 2-day train trip cross country when a plane will get you there in two hours. High-speed rail won't solve the problem either for Amtrak unless the trains are going faster than the planes, and even then they won't get the funding for the lines for these hypothetical 400 mph übertrains. And Amtrak literally isn't allowed to terminate its unprofitable lines. The only ones making a profit ATM are the Acela services, the Auto Train form D.C. to Orlando (I think?), and a few Amtrak California services. Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will ever make money with long haul passenger train services.

It just don't work none.

[JamieLei]

Remember that trains don't require the immense, complicated and time-consuming procedure that airlines do (unless the US Federal Government stupidly decides that they should). In Britain, a four hour train journey actually competes on par with the plane, after you've taken into account time getting to the airport, check in, security, taxing, immigration, getting to the city centre at the other end, etc.

Also remember that time isn't the only factor that people take into account. There's also cost (a huge influence), comfort (trains have greater legroom than planes), fun, a sense of feeling 'green', and they're far more convenient as you're taken right into the heart of the city. In China for instance, travelling a 28 hour journey from Hong Kong to Shanghai is normal and expected, because the other factors far outweigh the speed.

[R682818]

Long distance passenger travel by train simply isn't practical because of the sheer distances involved in the United States. No one wants to take a 2-day train trip cross country when a plane will get you there in two hours. High-speed rail won't solve the problem either for Amtrak unless the trains are going faster than the planes, and even then they won't get the funding for the lines for these hypothetical 400 mph übertrains. And Amtrak literally isn't allowed to terminate its unprofitable lines. The only ones making a profit ATM are the Acela services, the Auto Train form D.C. to Orlando (I think?), and a few Amtrak California services. Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will ever make money with long haul passenger train services.

It just don't work none.

The Acela has most of the passengers on the NEC, the Auto Train makes the most money overall... the longer trains such as the Lakeshore Limited, California Zephyr, and Silver Meteor, oh and the Auto Train tend to sell out a bit faster then a Regional or Texas Eagle... BTW the Auto Train is from Virginia to Florida, not near Orlando. (platform length problems, one station needs 2 platforms to load the passengers only)

[Comm Cody]

Long distance passenger travel by train simply isn't practical because of the sheer distances involved in the United States. No one wants to take a 2-day train trip cross country when a plane will get you there in two hours. High-speed rail won't solve the problem either for Amtrak unless the trains are going faster than the planes, and even then they won't get the funding for the lines for these hypothetical 400 mph übertrains. And Amtrak literally isn't allowed to terminate its unprofitable lines. The only ones making a profit ATM are the Acela services, the Auto Train form D.C. to Orlando (I think?), and a few Amtrak California services. Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will ever make money with long haul passenger train services.

It just don't work none.

The Acela has most of the passengers on the NEC, the Auto Train makes the most money overall... the longer trains such as the Lakeshore Limited, California Zephyr, and Silver Meteor, oh and the Auto Train tend to sell out a bit faster then a Regional or Texas Eagle... BTW the Auto Train is from Virginia to Florida, not near Orlando. (platform length problems, one station needs 2 platforms to load the passengers only)

Then you need a specile platform forthe auto cars It stops at standford florida. and plus 3 stops would ruin it Unless it splits up.

[EXTspotter]

It goes from somewhere in Virginia to Sanford, which is very close to Orlando. The Auto-Train station is the 2nd most important piece of transport infrastructure, 1st is the airport, called Orlando/Sanford International Airport.

[R682818]

Long distance passenger travel by train simply isn't practical because of the sheer distances involved in the United States. No one wants to take a 2-day train trip cross country when a plane will get you there in two hours. High-speed rail won't solve the problem either for Amtrak unless the trains are going faster than the planes, and even then they won't get the funding for the lines for these hypothetical 400 mph übertrains. And Amtrak literally isn't allowed to terminate its unprofitable lines. The only ones making a profit ATM are the Acela services, the Auto Train form D.C. to Orlando (I think?), and a few Amtrak California services. Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will ever make money with long haul passenger train services.

It just don't work none.

The Acela has most of the passengers on the NEC, the Auto Train makes the most money overall... the longer trains such as the Lakeshore Limited, California Zephyr, and Silver Meteor, oh and the Auto Train tend to sell out a bit faster then a Regional or Texas Eagle... BTW the Auto Train is from Virginia to Florida, not near Orlando. (platform length problems, one station needs 2 platforms to load the passengers only)

Who
Then you need a specile platform forthe auto cars It stops at standford florida. and plus 3 stops would ruin it Unless it splits up.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, they load the cars at another place near the stations, they have some ramps into the cars to get onto... Don't assume thing just because... well.... uh... never mind...

[paullb]

Long distance passenger travel by train simply isn't practical because of the sheer distances involved in the United States. No one wants to take a 2-day train trip cross country when a plane will get you there in two hours. High-speed rail won't solve the problem either for Amtrak unless the trains are going faster than the planes, and even then they won't get the funding for the lines for these hypothetical 400 mph übertrains. And Amtrak literally isn't allowed to terminate its unprofitable lines. The only ones making a profit ATM are the Acela services, the Auto Train form D.C. to Orlando (I think?), and a few Amtrak California services. Quite frankly, I don't think Amtrak will ever make money with long haul passenger train services.

It just don't work none.

It really depends on your definition of "logn distance" travel.

Here in Japan, the high speed trains cover 1200km in 5 hours. That is competetive with the train on speed (though not price at the time being) and there are faster trains under development.

[Donoteat]

Remember that trains don't require the immense, complicated and time-consuming procedure that airlines do (unless the US Federal Government stupidly decides that they should).

Yeah, well, the railroads are gradually being messed up as well in this way. It still isn't as bad as the airlines, but the D.C. Union Station ticket line still takes ages

In Britain, a four hour train journey actually competes on par with the plane, after you've taken into account time getting to the airport, check in, security, taxing, immigration, getting to the city centre at the other end, etc.

The US ain't Britain. There are massive distances involved here. ~2000 miles for a cross-country trip takes a long time. A long, long time. Even the hypothetical 186mph straight line no-stops supertrain doesn't make it to the west coast in the same time that a plane would, assuming the plane is traveling at 500 mph and allowing 3 hours at each end for traveling to city centers and security and such. (10 hours on the plane and getting into the city vs. 11 hours just on the train, plus probably an hour in the station or so)

Also remember that time isn't the only factor that people take into account. There's also cost (a huge influence)

Low-cost airlines are cheap. Really, really cheap sometimes.
{quote]comfort (trains have greater legroom than planes),[/quote]
I'll give you that one, planes ain't comfortable

fun,

Your average business traveler isn't concerned about fun, they're concerned about getting there.

a sense of feeling 'green', and they're far more convenient as you're taken right into the heart of the city.

Yeah, that's another good point...

In China for instance, travelling a 28 hour journey from Hong Kong to Shanghai is normal and expected, because the other factors far outweigh the speed.

Ah, but the thing is, the American is a fickle creature. They tend to go for the fastest option possible, and generally, the plane is the fastest.

I could see high-speed rail working in the Boston-NY-Philly-DC corridor, Chicago-NY, maybe along the West Coast, and possibly Florida. NY-Los Angeles long-haul just won't work.

Also, the Auto-Train loads at Lorton VA, which is just south of DC, so I put it in there because no one has heard of Lorton.

[R682818]

I think in 2007 the Auto Train made the most money over how much it takes to run the damn things.

[Plastikman]

I regularly go from Chicago to Ann Arbor and back. I always take Amtrak. It is so much simpler, convent and much cheaper. it is about a 4 hour trip Via train.

The flight would be about 20 min. Once you take into affect traveling to the airport. check in, security, having to fly to Detroit, take the shuttle to Ann arbor. the time is almost the same.

The nice thing on the train, while i am sitting much longer, the seats are bigger, more plush, have foot rests many times, Power so i can use my laptop. I have never had to sit next to anyone in all of my trips. i always have a double seat. did i mention i can actually relax while with the plane, other then 20 min on the plane i am standing or in a line or getting an anal cavity search.

The Michigan Amtrak has been upgrading for several years. there are stretches where we are going about 100mph. they plan to go to 120mph soon.

here is the real kicker:
Amtrak: $26 pre-order total price
Flight:$130 after taxes + $22 shuttle fee.

that is a no brainer.

[R682818]

I think they're aiming for 110, the P42DC Genesis they run can't go to 125, and unless they electrify the line they cant run the AEM-7 there.

[dunbrine47]

an anal cavity search.

Tsa is so stupid what's next pole danceing as a securty screening.
aah.....The train is much more appealing.

[ashchetum]

I think they're aiming for 110, the P42DC Genesis they run can't go to 125, and unless they electrify the line they cant run the AEM-7 there.

they might bring back the LRC's
lol
that would be down right silly