Amtrack Trip Report
 

I recently travelled from Eugene, Or down to Sacramento to visit daughter over Thanksgiving. Schedule looked great and although I did notice when I booked ticket that I could "expect delays" I really didnt think much about it.

Trip down wasnt bad - left Eugene a little after 5PM - had a nice dinner on the train and got into Sacramento about an hour late the next am.

However on the way back I was supposed to leave at midnight- and we didnt leave til 3AM. I guess the freight trains rule the rails and so the passenger train has to pull over whenever a freight train is on the rail.

Once I was on board I discovered from other passengers that the trip north which starts in LA is consistantly late 4-8 hours.
We were 4 1/2 hrs late getting into Eugene.

One man on board was so frustrated with the whole thing- he was getting off in Eugene and renting a car and driving the rest of the way to Seattle.

So if any of you have a notion of how fun a train trip could be on this particular portion of the track- you might reconsider-
Its gets you where you are going but not anywhere close to the scheduled time.

The portion of the ride between Klamath Falls and Eugene was spectacular though -
had just snowed and was really beautiful.

Thanks for the report. Interesting! We have taken Amtrak a lot between Portland and Seattle, and the general rule of thumb is that the trains that originate in either place are usually on time. If they are coming up from California, they can be quite late. It is very frustrating that the passenger trains always have to yield for freight.

All that said, if you can time it right, the train is a great way to get between Seattle and Portland.

The biggest alternative, I-5, is suffering from overload, and delays can be frustrating on the road, too. On Sunday after Thanksgiving, I-5 between Portland and Seattle was closed northbound for 2 hours due to a major smash up. I heard the delays were up to 6 hours! Alas, not that uncommon. I won't even talk about I-90 and the rock slide and trying to get across Washington east to west. I think we are letting our transportation infrastructure decay a wee bit too much....

I posted a reply, and got kicked off Fodor's! Hmmm....

I said I agree with everything Sunbum said, took that train to Seattle. It's good to visit family, when you don't have to worry about reservations, and making it on time. Otherwise...

I wonder how the "orient express" works, is it always behind the schedule too?

And I think something's missing here... a meeting... with somebody local... perhaps a Fodorite... :)

Faina- It would be fun to meet one of these days- I expect I am going to be down there pretty frequently now that my daughter is there.

We met Kal and Mrs Kal a couple of weeks before - the week she moved.
I felt so bad about having her down there over Thanksgiving by herself which was prompted me to take the train
down.

I'll be around and I think we are going to need LOTS of information about the area.

See you soon - but I think I will fly this time

Put April 23 on your calendar for a meeting in Petaluma!

And what is happening in Petaluma on Apr 23rd ??

Annual Butter and Egg day parade, with my husband we went several times, and not tired yet!

Here is my post for get-together:

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34698878

I agree with Orcas about trying to be on a train that originates at or near the station you board the train at ... the further away it is, the more likely delays are.

I've seen the American Orient Express parked at Union Station DC, but have never seen it moving. I thought that it was merely towed by Amtrak on their scheduled trains.

If you for the most part enjoyed Amtrak, you might wish to write to your congressmen & ask for support. Amtrak top level is being filled with people who WANT to see it fail, rather than prosper. United States is a third world nation when it comes to rail service, an international embarassment.

I found out the same thing (the hard way on a recent trip between Seattle and Albany Oregon). This applies only to the Coast Starlight BTW. Going down was only 1 hour late, because I'm on at the beginning of the run. Heading home from Oregen the train was still in California at the time I was to catch it! At Amtrak's suggestion I took the Cascade line instead which runs on time but doesn't have ammenities like restaurant or sleeping cars.

I have taken Amtrak from ( Martinez near Oakland) to Seattle 3 times (never in summer) Each time it left the station with in 1/2 hour of schedule.However, this line does have a reputation of "not" being on time.
I love train travel, even more so in the East,and was really upset when Pres. Bush entirely excluded Amtrak from the budget..Some of our representatives have restored some of the funds..You would think with our diminishing oil reserves maintaining train travel would be a logical goal...
I will continue to "ride the rails" as long as I am able..

Sumbum, when you said that the freight trains rule the rails, you were very close to the target. The frieght railroad companies own the tracks outright. In other words, the tracks aren't "public" in the same sense that the airways are or the highways. In the case of the train route discussed here, the landlord of most of the line is the Union Pacific railroad. Trips aboard Amtrak give travelers a glimps into an industry about which the general public is largely misinformed or otherwise oblivious: railroading. Amtrak is highly subject to the conditions of the freight RR's tracks, and the frieght RR's do all of their own traffic control. Frieght RR managers have made it abundantly clear throughout the US RR industry that if people want Amtrak to be punctual over their rails, then Amtrak of the gov't should pay up and make it worth the companies while (translation: pay more for access to the railroad, buy additional rails, pay more in terms of "rent," etc) . Some railroads like the Burlington Northern are very tolerable to Amtrak's presence over their rails, while other RR companies like the union pacific are quite the opposite. Over the Coast Starlight's route, the Union Pacific is swamped with traffic.

Wither or not one has fun aboard the train depends upon one's expectations. I've taken trips where I've run into other passengers, and some are having the time of their lives, while others aboard the same train are having fits. I have also learned that one train trip on one route shouldn't be used to extrapolate generalizations regarding the entire system - Amtrak (and its landlords the freight RRs) can have widely varying levels of service. It would get better, but Our Elected Representatives must be encouraged to fund passenger rail in a much more stable, long term fashion.

well I must admit that I did meet some very nice people on the train - travelling alone made it easy to just strike up conversations and I was seated with 3 people I likely wouldnt have met when I had dinner in the dining car. I thought the food was pretty good too- had lamb shanks.

It is a shame that passenger rail is not funded better because I think most people enjoy travelling by train.
I would do that route again but with different expectations and only if I couldnt get a decent airfare.

It must be difficult and frustrating to take trains when one is is a hurry.

What happens when a vital connection is missed? Should a person plan to spend a day in the connecting town?

I've always enjoyed train travel...My mother who never learned to drive took my siblings and I all over the country on trains and buses in the fifties.

For me, it's a good excuse to slow down, read a good book, and and just stare out the window at the beautiful and interesting scenery.

When you need to be somewhere at a particular time, do not take AMTRAK's long distance trains, period. Fly, drive, bus, whatever.

But if you have lots of time and don't care when you'll get on or when you'll get there, then do AMTRAK and thank your fellow US taxpayers for your excursion. Thank your congressmen too for keeping the funding for the last 30+ years. Spread the love, not blame.

rkkwan, And if you decide to take to the highways, also thank the taxpayers for paying for their construction, maintenence and policing. And remember to thank the government for the expense it incurs insuring you have gas to put in your tank. And, if you fly, thank the taxpayers for the FAA, the TSA, and all the funds that support airports and air traffic control, as well as the fuel in those big engines.

Reread yours and realize you were calling for us to express appreciation and I do agree with you.

I think people often attack public transit for its cost, forgetting that our tax dollars subsidize "private" transit as well.

Orcas - You're absolutely right that the federal government has already spent lots of money on roads and airports. But that doesn't answer the question of why do we have to foot the bill for long distance passenger rail as well? It's been long documented that AMTRAK will be better off paying each Sunset Limited passenger to fly to their destination than to put them on their train.

Yeah, what strategic purpose does long-distance passenger train serve? The locomotives still burn plenty of fuel! Maybe not as inefficient as passenger cars per passenger, but definitely no better than Greyhound. And for emergency? How many people get out of New Orleans on AMTRAK during Katrina? I think it's ZERO. Or out of Houston during Rita? Maybe a few hundred. And what role does one expect AMTRAK to serve during such disasters?

People should realize the fact that the nature of US geography means long distance trains do not make sense! [I am not talking about corridor trains!] Funding the Sunset Limited, California Zephyr, etc is nothing but pork, subsidizing retirees (or people who have time), or people who love trains on their vacation.

The Sunset Limited is probably the most cited example of the "cheaper to buy them airline tickets" argument.

The argument is flawed because it's based on the assumption that those passengers are traveleing coast to coast. It doesn't allow for the large number of people who are only going to the next state, and other shorter, regional hauls. Greyhound, Trailways, and other bus companies have deserted many of those stops. What happens to the transportation needs of those people when our "leaders" pull the plug on Amtrak?

You really think that there are lot of people who actually rely on the Sunset Limited to go to places they need to go?

Well, it hasn't operated east of Baton Rouge since Katrina, and I don't see thousands of people stranded there waiting to get to Florida on it.

And can you really tell me which city between on the Sunset Limited route where people rely on the 3-times a week train to get them somewhere? A train that may be arriving in the middle of the night?

Give me a break.

BTW, there were lots of towns and cities that used to have AMTRAK service and don't know. I visited one of them not long ago - Boise, ID. Its economy is doing nicely, with lots of new hotels and development; and a nice airport terminal. I don't see banners there saying "Bring AMTRAK Back".

But I'll give you that there are lots of small towns throughout the west that collapsed or disappeared when airplane replaced long-distance trains, starting in the 50's. But that's the nature of a dynamic country with a dynamic economy. Sometimes you just have to move.

rkkwan,
I am wondering where you live. I notice you say you are okay with corrider travel. I can tell you it is very important between Seattle and Portland and we could use better service to Vancouver BC.

We have one interstate highway up the entire northwest coast, I-5, and almost all the population of Washington, OR and BC live on the coast.
I-5 is one sorry roadway. It is like a washboard in places, as the taxpayers haven't supported needed road improvements. The road was not designed for the amount of traffic it is required to carry. During rush hour, it is a stop and start nightmare for miles and miles. If anyone needs to actually go between Portland and Seattle, they have to plan to travel some time other than rush hour and still its risky, with frequent accidents holding up traffic for hours.

Of course, one can fly, but one still has to get to the airport on I-5 and sit around for 1 1/2 hours before the flight. Then you can sit in a jammed in little seat on a smaller plane that is sometimes like a roller coaster ride. By the time you go door to door, you could have gotten there in far greater comfort on Amtrak.

Some of us are passionate about Amtrak, and I suspect it is those of us living in places where traffic is horrible, alternatives are limited, and Amtrak provides comfortable and frequent service. We need options.

Orcas - I love trains too, and I have absolutely no problem with corridor trains. Not just the NE Corridor, but service like the Cascades should be supported by both local government and federal funds.

And there are like 5 trains daily between Portland and Seattle now (including the Coast Starlight), right? That shows it make economical sense.

Or like the San Joaquins, 6 trains a day, and it doesn't even get to L.A.

I am totally for them. Let's put the limited resources to the routes that make sense, not the long distance loss-leaders.

Rkkwan, perhaps you should take a look at some of these numbers taken off of Amtrak's web site, and also www.unitedrail.org .

"1. "Follow the money" is the mantra of many who are trying to get to the bottom of why some people and/or companies behave in a certain way. Amtrak is no exception to this rule. Below is a brief chart of Amtrak statistics from Fiscal Year 2004, the last complete year of information posted on the Amtrak web site (It's too early for figures from FY 2005, which just ended at the end of September, 2005). Take a look at the figures, and follow below for analysis.
State Ridership Expenditures Employment Payroll Notes
Alabama 48,466 $11,477,849 24 $1,224,391
Arizona 76,424 $952,736 36 $1,561,816
Arkansas 23,814 $199,260 32 $1,802,173
California 9,332,501 $29,649,815 3,589 $154,921,344 [1]
Colorado 200,693 $18,998,202 94 $5,558,480
Connecticut 1,392,393 $9,963,185 636 $34,428,828
Delaware 753,055 $5,109,985 1,173 $53,053,041 [2]
Florida 913,553 $13,689,114 990 $43,924,411
Georgia 142,965 $8,402,900 83 $3,943,655
Idaho 4,932 $51,537 3 $162,802
Illinois 3,065,680 $56,759,840 2,016 $83,493,489
Indiana 102,754 $19,762,401 1,036 $41,356,652 [3]
Iowa 54,365 $180,321 13 $572,091
Kansas 31,549 $15,639,008 26 $1,213,867
Kentucky 6,740 $6,428,567 6 $296,870
Louisiana 180,475 $4,256,976 363 $14,212,305
Maine 161,469 $972,711 24 $1,186,968
Maryland 1,779,141 $22,142,799 2,609 $126,689,216
Massachusetts 1,962,324 $13,837,498 1,477 $41,904,152
Michigan 604,721 $2,858,461 133 $6,434,967 [4]
Minnesota 172,177 $4,325,291 72 $3,768,858
Mississippi 83,526 $868,272 102 $4,592,629
Missouri 422,063 $9,160,987 98 $4,555,647
Montana 129,044 $57,495 57 $3,293,052
Nebraska 40,305 $322,463 22 $1,348,301
Nevada 86,846 $4,910,032 47 $2,525,133
New Hampshire 103,936 $48,136 67 $1,930,316
New Jersey 3,855,311 $37,983,222 1,687 $89,069,111
New Mexico 103,042 Not Available 72 $4,090,778
New York 10,385,357 $49,277,453 2,051 $96,624,973
North Carolina 485,459 $5,440,589 176 $8,321,782
North Dakota 89,319 $28,354 16 $691,462
Ohio 137,729 $9,567,180 88 $4,609,915
Oklahoma 58,095 $686,799 4 $226,320
Oregon 691,487 $1,166,188 112 $5,157,122
Pennsylvania 4,849,022 $122,962,838 3,061 $149,652,070 [5]
Rhode Island 616,122 $1,541,683 345 $16,801,298
South Carolina 176,300 $15,067,197 77 $3,641,213
Tennessee 50,295 $8,940,978 21 $906,524
Texas 267,568 $9,332,108 210 $11,251,208
Utah 34,914 $120,739 51 $3,106,249
Vermont 59,860 $155,762 Not Available
Virginia 803,695 $50,212,471 970 $51,446,428 [6]
Washington 1,067,768 $7,500,299 504 $23,190,224
Washington, District of Columbia 3,744,710 $18,322,022 413 $18,137,793 [7]
West Virginia 50,699 $3,720,585 54 $2,693,082
Wisconsin 547,590 $7,788,648 104 $5,129,011
Note: The Northeast Corridor is comprised of Washington, D.C.; Maryland; Delaware; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; New York; Connecticut; Rhode Island; and Massachusetts.

California hosts one of Amtrak's two telephone reservations centers
Delaware hosts Amtrak's national operations center
Indiana hosts Amtrak's Beech Grove heavy maintenance facility
Amtrak owns and maintains 97 miles of mainline track in Michigan
Erie, Pennsylvania received $29,464,199 from Amtrak because GE Transportation is located in Erie, which provides locomotives to Amtrak; Philadelphia is home to one of Amtrak's two telephone reservation centers
One of Amtrak's advertising agencies is located in Virginia; over $30,000,000 was technically spent in Virginia on advertising which appeared elsewhere
Washington, D.C. is Amtrak's corporate headquarters
Who fights the hardest for "business as usual" for Amtrak? The members of Congress from the NEC states. Any attempt to improve Amtrak, its financial performance, or even financial transparency are met by yells and screams of anguish by this coalition of protectors of the Amtrak faith. Why?

More newspapers along the NEC write editorials in praise of the NEC and against the Amtrak national system than any other part of the country. Their attitude is, "we've got ours, who cares if you get yours?".

Much of this is due to Amtrak itself, which for years has erroneously plugged the NEC as the savior of passenger rail in the United States. If only the NEC could survive and prosper, the company has said over and over and over again, then Amtrak will be saved, the Republic will stand, and there will be peace and harmony throughout the land.

The really sad thing is how many otherwise rational people have believed this hogwash.

Look at the numbers for the NEC and you'll understand that to the NEC members of Congress, Amtrak is just another giant federal jobs and pork barrel project. They desperately don't want any of these costs shifted away from Amtrak, even to another federal entity which they must fear they can't control as much as Amtrak. The worst nightmare of NEC politicians is that one day, these huge costs may be put where they ultimately belong - as a burden of the states, and not the federal government. The NEC politicians want the flow of money (in the disguise of Amtrak) to keep coming as long as possible, even to the ultimate detriment of every other state in the union. Their attitude? Who cares about the rest of the country when the flow of money to the NEC is at stake?

Collective NEC state Amtrak expenditures (for all trains that serve these states, including regional and long distance trains) - $281,140,685

Collective NEC state Amtrak employees (for all trains and services that serve these states, including regional and long distance trains, and the company headquarters in Washington, D.C.) - 13,452

Collective NEC state Amtrak employee payroll (for all trains and services that serve these states, including regional and long distance trains, and the company headquarters in Washington, D.C.) - $626,356,482

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured raw cash of $907,497,167 into these eight states and the District of Columbia for Fiscal Year 2004.

California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia were the next largest recipients of Amtrak largess. California has the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capital Corridor routes; Florida has the Hialeah maintenance facility and crew base for the Florida trains and many stations; Illinois has the Chicago hub and Midwest corridor trains; Indiana has the Beech Grove heavy maintenance facility, and Virginia has many of the corporate headquarters workers living in the northern part of the state.

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak expenditures - $170,073,641

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak employees - 8,601

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak employee payroll - $220,376,245

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured raw cash of $390,449,886 into these five states for Fiscal Year 2004. This is equal to 43% of the cash poured into the NEC states.

The five bottom states, where Amtrak has operations but spends the least amount of money are Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. No significant facilities other than stations are in these states.

Expenditures are high due to supply purchases Amtrak made from national vendors located in these states; not necessarily due directly to train operations in these states.

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak expenditures - $16,288,202

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak employees - 47

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak employee payroll - $2,164,607

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured raw cash of $18,452,809 into these five states for Fiscal Year 2004. This is equal to 4.7% of the cash poured into the top five states after the NEC states, and .02% of the cash poured into the NEC states.

Here are some observations:

FY 2004 ridership was 25,053,564 passengers. 5,557,588,000 revenue passenger miles were generated, from 37,227,000 train miles and 11,655,692,000 seat miles. Ticket yield was 22.61 cents per revenue passenger mile. It cost $74.01 per train mile to generate $42.32 in income per train mile. One obvious conclusion from these numbers is that either fares were too low, or costs were too high. A second conclusion would be a combination of those two factors.
Amtrak ticket revenue for FY 2004 was $1,256,424,267 (with an average ticket price of $50.15, a very low figure). Of the revenue, 53% was generated in the NEC. Yet, Amtrak spent $907,497,167 in the NEC states, or 72% of its ticket revenue, a very negative return on investment. Note that for FY 2004, Amtrak somehow with a straight corporate face claimed that Wondertrain Acelas made a profit of $61,100,000 on revenues of only $287,300,000, and that Metroliners made a profit of $7,400,000 on revenues of only $47,400,000, while Northeast Regional and Clocker services had a loss of $61,900,000 on revenues of $356,100,000. (The alleged profit of Wondertrain Acelas and Metroliners remains suspect because these two services shared the identical track, dispatching, stations, crew bases and other support services of the Regional and Clocker services. It's highly suspect that Amtrak assigned a high amount of losses to the Regional and Clocker services inorder to make the Wondertrain Acela and Metroliners look profitable on paper, in the best fashion of Enron and WorldCom.)
The systemwide average load factor for FY 2004 was 47.7%. Load factors of 65% are considered breakeven by most common carriers. National system long distance trains averaged load factors of 51% to 63%, while NEC trains averaged load factors of 36% to 49%. Most long distance trains operated over routes where there is only one train a day in each direction (there are 16 long distance routes; the Cardinal and Sunset Limited offer only tri-weekly service), while the NEC hosted an average of 55 trains per day in each direction (weekday service). The sparsely populated long distance system routes, with absolute minimal travel choices (and many of those only in the middle of the night) created a higher load factor for the company than the over-populated NEC, which offers too many travel choices and wastes valuable and scarce assets.
In FY 2004, Amtrak had approximately 24,841 employees when the individual state counts are totaled. Of those employees, 13,452 lived in NEC states, or 54% of the company's workforce lived in just eight states and the District. When you add the employee count in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia of 8,601 to the NEC total, you reach 22,053 employees, or 89% of the total Amtrak workforce. Amtrak likes to talk about the number of employees that changes the workforce totals from year to year. In FY 1998, Amtrak had a net gain of 787 employees, a gain of 765 in FY 1999, 528 in FY 2000, a loss of 642 in FY 2001, a loss of 1,179 in FY 2002, a loss of 492 in FY 2003, and a net gain of 27 in FY 2004.
Amtrak's corporate headquarters is in Washington, D.C. This location was determined by Congress when the company was founded. Any attempts to move the company away from this highly expensive employee environment is fiercely fought by the one non-voting member of Congress who represents the District, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Non-voting Representative Norton apparently considers Amtrak more of a federal jobs program than a company which needs to show fiscal responsibility. Also, as a result of this unfortunate location, Amtrak's headquarters is peopled by professional bureaucrats who shift from one bureaucracy to another as opportunity arises versus experienced private sector workers that understand basic business principles.
Both of Amtrak's highly populated telephone reservations centers are located in high payroll and high payroll taxes states, California and Pennsylvania. While Amtrak is exempt by Congress from paying most federal, state, and local taxes, it is not exempt from any type of payroll taxes or associated costs on any level. While most common carriers and other res center-high employee count companies such as hotel chains locate their telephone reservation centers in the lowest cost locations possible, Amtrak does just the opposite.
What does all of this mean? Amtrak, which was chartered with a mission statement to be a national passenger railroad, instead concentrates the majority of its resources and efforts in the Northeast and just five other states, of which California and Illinois have a heavy concentration of commuter operations instead of Amtrak's original - and still - purpose of operating long distance trains.
While much of Amtrak's circumstances have been as a result of what it inherited at various points in the past, very little effort has been made to make changes which would have a dramatic effect on the financial bottom line. Beech Grove in Indiana is an example of this. Beech Grove migrated to Amtrak from its original freight railroad owner. Even at the time three decades ago, Beech Grove was old and antiquated, and would cost a lot of money to modernize. While the Beech Grove workforce has done exemplary work on projects such as the head end power project for the Heritage fleet inherited from the private passenger operators, it has been doing this with one hand tied behind its collective back because of the constraints of an outdated facility. Little effort has been made to either get out of the car rebuilding business and outsource this work to private firms, or to put together a new, modern and efficient facility.

Passenger rail economics have continually been ignored by past Amtrak staff managers and previous boards of directors.
As Andrew Selden has said for many years, "Amtrak gets terrible financial results (getting steadily worse, too) because of, not despite, its investment strategy and business model (both largely unchanged from the 1960s). Amtrak continues to invest the greater share of its free federal capital into short corridor markets, including the NEC, where it earns negative rates of return on investment, while it neglects its long distance markets where it earns returns in revenue and transportation output, per dollar invested, that are five to seven times greater than the corridors.

"It would be instructive for anyone to do what congress never has done: divide Amtrak's revenues in the Northeast Corridor from corridor services alone by the total federal subsidy, whether labeled 'capital' or anything else, incurred to produce that revenue, to ascertain a federal cost per dollar of revenue. Then do the same with the long distance markets as a group. Then do the same long division, but this time divide revenue passenger miles in the NEC by their total cost of production, and RPMs from long distance trains by their total cost of production. The results are illuminating, and explain completely why Amtrak is such a perennial loser in both financial results and transportation relevance."

This all adds up to several factors working against Amtrak becoming a financially healthy company that provides more than incidental transportation in the total scheme of America's domestic transportation network.
Amtrak concentrates far too much of its resources in one area of the country, which provides a regional focus, not a national focus. While many cite the philosophy of federalism and how national resources can help individual problems, this concept does not explain how Amtrak can so heavily favor one part of the country over the rest of the country, which provides heavy annual doses of free federal monies running into the billions.
Politics play too large of a role in Amtrak's decision making process. Often, decisions are made to placate politicians, versus making sound business decisions.
Until now, Amtrak has had a deeply flawed business plan that guarantees failure. Hopefully, the current board of directors, which seems to be moving quickly away from continuing this flawed plan, will move the company back to its original mission, of providing a relevant national passenger railroad, not a set of disjointed, non-profit corridors.
Where does following the money lead? Apparently, not very far away from Washington, D.C., especially if you're in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, or Tennessee. If you're snuggled up against Washington, D.C. like an NEC state, you're OK. If you're part of the rest of America, in Amtrak's book you must not be very important."

In other words, the LD trains are more productive per Revenue Passenger Mile than the corridor trains ever could be. Several of the LD trains have 400-mile corridors as a part of their route, and could easily serve to connect the corridors together. Also note that the average long distance train rider doesn't go from end-point to end-point, but rather from one intermediate point to another intermediate point. How would "corridors" address these passengers?
My point is that they wouldn't, and the resulting loss would be carried by We The Taxpayers. Instead of desiging a series of corridors, rail travel should be designed as a network.

I totally disagree with your points. Nobody is saying any train will make money, NEC, California Corridor or LD. But at least the NEC and CA trains serve a purpose in moving people across those areas. Congress put money in roads, in airports, etc. So, if NEC loses money, so be it. It's the same deal - it takes money to move people around.

But the LD trains serve little to no purpose. That's my point all along.

"LD trains serve little to no purpose." The lond diustance trains actually serve several purposes, one of them being to connect many of these corridors to gether. Due to the overlapping nature of several transport corridors in our nation, it may be more effective to connect them into one longer route, rather than disconnected corridors. "There has been much discussion lately about the comparative virtues of short corridors versus longer distance inter-regional services. The conventional view, that short corridors have higher potential profitability, is widely shared but has little basis in fact. Let us consider some of the conventional myths.

MYTH: The longer distance services are "lightly used."

REALITY: The load factors on these trains are double the load factors of the short corridors, in California and the Northeast alike. The aggregate ridership, for example, of the few long distance trains that serve Chicago exceeds the ridership of all of the short corridor trains that serve Chicago. Much more importantly, the output of those long distance trains, measured by revenue passenger miles, exceeds the output of the Chicago-hub corridor trains by a factor of about 700%. In California, the output and revenue of the one long distance train operated by Amtrak West, the Coast Starlight, substantially exceeds the output and revenues of ALL of the Pacific Surfliners between San Diego and San Luis Obispo.

So, one can hardly characterize the long hauls as "lightly used." In fact, the greatest single shortcoming of the inter-regional trains today is that their capacity has declined steadily over the last decade due to management neglect (bordering on overt hostility) such that their ability to accommodate latent demand has declined as well.

MYTH: Rail's appeal is in the 300 mile corridors, and this is where new development should be concentrated.

REALITY: The average trip length on the western long hauls already exceeds 800 miles. And rail's aggregate market share for intercity passenger trips is the absolute lowest in the 200 to 300 mile markets but highest in the 800 to 1000 mile distances. What rational investor would undertake to invest billions of dollars in new capital into an enterprise's weakest segment?

MYTH: Short corridors offer the biggest return on our infrastructure funds.

REALITY: In addition to mere dollars, we must take opportunity costs into account. One thing we certainly have learned by now is that high speed or low speed corridor development projects such as what we see in the Northeast Corridor (NEC) with semi-high speed, or in California with more modest speeds, require vast amounts of scarce, finite, public capital."

If the corridors are eliminated, what may happen next is the elimination of the infrastructure unique to passenger railraoding, in addition to the capacity to expand and carry both higher speed pasenger trains and more moderate speed freight trains.
I'm sorry for being so argumentative, but corridors will not spring up by the elinination of the long distance trains.

WICT_106, Lots of interesting information! How do you know so much about Amtrak?

Let's put disagreement aside, and let me then ask what's your solution, or what do you see AMTRAK, or other form of American Long Distance trains to be like? How much will it cost? Who controls the rail? How many people will ride it? What kind of service/frequencies would you like to see? What routes? How will it help with transportation in general in this country?

And more importantly, what is different in your plan that AMTRAK hasn't tried to do during the last 30+ years?

Have it all figure out, and then get AMTRAK to hire you as a lobbyist, if you're not one already. Should make yourself some good money - out of taxpayers' wallets too!

Rkkwan, I will also say that we have to agree to disagree, and then let it go. I apologise for jumping down the throat of posters on this thread, and I'm sorry if it seems as though I did that to you.
My point is that long distance trains serve a different part of the transport marketplace, and that several markets are sometimes served by one route. Corridor or commuter trains have their place as well, but they are more expensive and their ridership is limited because they frequently don't connect to a larger system. Our population is growing, and our nation has to have more choices to get around as the highways will become more and more croweded, along with our airports. What will fill the niche? You're going to have to have commuter trains, some with longer routes than others. I agree, let's just put disagreement aside, and let it go.

Sunbum, I took a similar ride (Eugene to SF and back) about 10 years ago and it looks like things haven't changed much--particularly the lateness of the train on the way back and overall fabulousness of the scenery in the Cascades when it's snowing.
My ride down from Eugene was pure torture, however, because the guy sitting behind me was feeding his girlfriend (who'd never been to the Northwest) a five course meal of rubbish about the PNW. For example, he spent nearly half an hour "explaining" in a very loud voice the geography of Oregon, with such gems that Salem was 4000 feet above sea level, that Odell Lake was actually a saltwater lake, that more than a dozen people were KILLED in Oregon every year by mountain lions, and so on. If I hadn't had my portable CD player to listen to, I think my head would have exploded.

Oh, and pleased forgive my smudged computer screen and middle-aged eyesight, but is your name
sunb u m
or sunbu r n ?

BTilke - you and I suffer simmilar afflictions - both the screen and they eyesight. I often just copy the text into the clipboard, then paste into notepad, or even in this reply area, ( sunbum1944 ) so that using a differnt font helps ... I thought the name was sun b u r n but I see I am wrong.

WICT_106 - I admire the passion you appear to have about railroading.

BTilke- I am sun b u m - and I sure could use some sun right now- too many days of rain in Oregon for me.

The problem with traveling a long way on Amtrak is that they don't actually own the tracks they are traveling on. All other trains have the right of way, so if there is only one set of tracks, they have to wait a while in a place where they can until the other train passes them. We were about 4-5 hours late in a trip from LA to Seattle, and that is the information we were given. Another good train trip, is from Seattle to Vancouver, and I don't think there any issues with being late on that one. Here's some information on that one:
http://www.writingup.com/melee3/traveling_by_train