Amtrak Downeaster: Successful train faces uncertain future

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 25 Dec 2007.

  1. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    Original story


    espite this being an article about trains, it really gets to the heart of why the roads suck and the bridges are falling down. Given the choice, too many Americans would rather put up with crumbling infrastructure than pay taxes to fix it. Despite the evidence around us every day, roads, public services, public utilities, etc, the prevaling attitude is "the government doesn't do anything for ME, so why should I pay for it?".
     
  2. Computer Gremlin

    Computer Gremlin What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    191
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why did Amtrak fail? It was never on time. This is from a local who grew up taking the train to go skiing a long time ago. The train was constantly late and never went over forty miles per hour while sharing the lines with freight trains. They failed due to poor management and no amount of time, effort and grant money will fix that. The customers got fed up waiting for hours for a late train and started to drive.

    The Maine State Department of transportation (MDOT) has all its money pooled into the general fund instead of being directly used to fix the roads and bridges. All the millions of toll money collected are spent away on ridiculous state projects while MDOT depends on government handouts to keep critical infrastructure safe. That is the closest you can get to the truth of the matter and the blame belongs directly at the foot of the State House in Augusta.
     
    Last edited: 25 Dec 2007
  3. samkiller42

    samkiller42 For i AM Cheesecake!!

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    199
    I think the US government need to invest in a new rail network, like France did back in the 80's with its LGV/TGV Network, which is now a huge success. TGV trains travelling at close to 200mph, and being more conveniant than flying allows french commuters to leave paris in the morning, and arrive on the beaches of the med for lunch. A similar network would work in the USA, and as we all know, Rail is greener than air travel so it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Alternativley the US has the cash, and could invest in a Maglev system with speeds close to 300mph, would cut travel times between New York and Washington DC by well over half. Maglev would also work on the Pacific side of the USA, even with earthquakes an ever present danger, the design of the rail and Maglev train are less likley to have an accident than a conventional train.

    Sam
     
  4. tacticus

    tacticus What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    People don't understand that expenditure on urban public utilities are not once of payments they are continual things.
    Once you finish that 10 year upgrade to your subway system you need to Start the next upgrade or start funding it.

    Amtraks biggest problem at the moment is that it is operating on a shitty rail network owned by the freight companies.
    They have to give way to freight trains and the freight company has no intention of financing upgrades to the rail network that it would not use (making the corners handle pax trains higher speed requirements and etc.

    rail is not only greener than air it is cheaper in most cases.
    and i think you underestimate the speed of a maglev system.
     
  5. samkiller42

    samkiller42 For i AM Cheesecake!!

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    199
    I know how quick maglev is, and yes its quicker than TGV:jawdrop: 600kph easy, its just insanely expensive to build in the first place.
    Maglev would defo scare Boeing and United Airlines:hehe:

    Sam
     
  6. Sparrowhawk

    Sparrowhawk Wetsander

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    584
    Likes Received:
    1
    Honestly, railroads are the one transportation medium in the United States that hasn't had hardly any public funding in over 100 years. If there was some public funding given to the freight railroads in exchange for giving passenger trains the priority on the mainline, You better believe the trains would be on time. Why? Because Amtrak doesn't own the lines it runs on, save for the Northeast Corridor around NYC.

    But yes, airlines land at taxpayer-funded airports, buses and trucks drive on taxpayer Interstate...
    Why not build some taxpayer funded Rail and give Amtrak priority, but allow freight to use in exchange for some small maintenance fee?
     
  7. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    There used to be a forum named Serious Discussion. In this sub-forum, a small number of us boffins on bit-tech, who liked to discuss less talked about issues and what many of considered more important issues got together and discussed things in a serious and adult manner (well, we tried). This forum was destroyed in The Great Merging, which is possibly before your time. However, there still exist those of us who want to discuss those sorts of topics, we are now forced to reside in the general stench of "General" - this does not mean we've lost interest in discussing obscure and to most people boring topics. They're still interesting to us.

    To summarise: If you don't want to read things like this, don't open the thread. If you do open the thread, don't **** on our serious discussion :)
     
  8. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Now on to the topic at hand, in a different post because I don't enjoy the tone of my last one.

    I love trains. I do wish that they were viable though, and think they could be, but only given absolutely massive investment in the required infrastructure. So what has to happen? Tax. I think what realisticly needs to happen is that a government sets up a proper system of very high speed rail, runs it untill the cost is recovered, and then sells it to a private company which can be taxed at a level needed for the government to maintain the network to it's own standards.

    Rail is definitely by far the best option for many journeys in the UK, the only reason people aren't using it is because it's overpriced (profit?) and because it's ridiculously slow. For example, for me, it takes 8 hours to get to london. Using modern trains (Forget maglev, that's too expensive - just using modern european type networks) it would take 2. We're talking about a system that could decimate the domestic flying industry, by nearly entirely stealing their custom. There is no way I'd be prepared to turn up at an airport 2 hours before a 90 minute flight(including airport > london on the other end, you're looking at a 5-6 hour journer), and go through all the security crap that exists - If I could instead hop on a train in the centre of town at a minutes notice and be in the centre of London 2 hours later.

    No-one would. And with the chunnel, this could apply not just UK wide but Europe wide. I see no reason a similar system could perform just as well within most of the US. I know the distances involved can be a lot greater, but given that there's a static time on either side of a flight required for general crap (getting to the airport, checking luggage, security) - up to a point a train that goes even slightly slower during the journey is still going to be a preferable experience.

    So, we need tax, we need a very large modern backbone built, we need the trains to run on this system, and we need them to be well run. It would cost to get it going, but overall you're talking about a more cost effective, more efficient, more environmentall friendly, and a more enjoyable experience.
     
  9. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit Modder

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    219
    To summarise, please bring back the Serious Discussion sub forum :)
     
  10. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I'm forced to agree. Up untill now I never really cared about the conglomeration of the forums, but an example like this does seem to show that there does need to be some seperation.
     
  11. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    43
    Don't rag on cthippo because you don't like the topic. For many of us he provides the most important job in the forums (news reader). If it weren't for him I'd never know these little tidbits of information.
    And bring back SD.

    EDIT: It'd be so much better to have a good rail system. I've been saying for ages we either need to fully nationalise them or hike up the taxes. A lot of people dislike the chunnel but it has allowed me and my family to visit the UK when living overseas easy as pie, an invaluable service.
     
  12. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    I don't think that's true, the UK had private rail companies until nationalisation in 1948. In France the rail system was goverment-sponsored and lagged way behind the US and UK.
    The French had to ultimately allow private enterprise in, and that, as in the UK, was the "heavy development" period;
    Germany started with a mix of state-owned and private enterprise railways, now in the odd (but apparently successful) situation of being a single PLC with all shares held by the government.

    "Yet the popular train still loses money..."; maybe a contradiction there - or maybe it's popular with a small group because it's not crowded, not popular with the masses to the extent that it is crowded (and makes money).

    Subsidising the less economically-viable routes to provide a regular service for the ones who do need it to get to work, school, whatever, I agree with. Though a nationalised service can (in theory) do it cheaper from profits made on the truly "popular" runs. I rather object to my taxes going to shareholders.
     

Share This Page