With the upgrade to diesel power, the Milwaukee was able to both maintain that speed and add several more cars to the trainset (the photo on page 120 of “The Hiawatha Story” shows a grade crossing with a sign stating “STOP – LOOK – TRAINS PASS 100MPH”), which, by 1964, had been reduced to 90mph. And while the land-speed record for a reciprocating steam locomotive is held by LNE’s “Sir Nigel Gresley,” an A4 Pacific (126mph, 1938, light trainset + dynamometer car, on relatively flat track), the Milwaukee’s passenger trains exceeded 100mph on a DAILY basis for many years (“The Milwaukee Road Hiawathas,” Gruber & Solomon).

I rode the “Hiawatha” from Milwaukee to downtown Chicago about 15 years ago. The train was cleared for 79mph, but by the conductor’s own admission, we were well in excess of that. As we crossed the junction between I90 and I94 at 7:40am, it was six lanes of parking lot.

If rail passenger service is THAT unprofitable, why do Chicago’s Metra plans include eventually extending all the way to Rockford, IL, and why, wherever they put in a station stop along the line, does both the value of property go up and/or lots of condos spring up? Clearly, there IS a demand for alternative transportation that is fast, efficient, convenient, and on-time. If the Class I’s (BNSF, NS, CSX, UP, and CN) would give Amtrak the #1 status THEY AGREED TO GIVE IT, Amtrak would be able to compete on a more level playing field.

Instead, we have the pResident’s campaign donors making sure Amtrak doesn’t cut into their chow time at the government’s trough, and doesn’t get compensated when they break the promise they made to allow passenger rail travel on their lines, UNENCUMBERED.

However the project didn’t get very far. In the mid 50′s Trains magazine published an article entitled “Who Shot the Passenger Train.” Interest in passeger trains and the capital available to devlop them rapidly vanished as the Interstate highway system and cheap air travel
rapidly developed in the 50′s and 60′s. By 1971 when Amtrak was set up with the thought of running a very small network for just a few more years, the game was almost over.

There is no reason to think that running short range 100 to 300 mile trains is incompatible with also having longer distance trains. Over a distance of a thousand miles or so people get on and off at many places, usually quite a turnover of travellers takes place. So part of a long route is actually a short route and vice versa.

As for profitability it is the long distance Amtrak trains which are the least money losing. The Northeast Corridor only seem profitable if you ignore the enormous expenses of rails stations etc. It’s actually a black hole for money losses compared to the Western trains like the Empire builder.

An interesting discussion and one likely to go on for some time I’d guess.

Svensker

Your amazing observations will, no doubt, immensely contribute towards an equitable solution to the on-going issue of who does and who does not get a free pass at US taxpayer subsidization.

I am in awe of your staggering brilliance.

I personally don’t mind tax money going to Amtrak, although it would probably be better in the long run if there were competition in the rail system. Of course, for the rail system to compete on a level playing field with other forms of transportation not only would either government subsidies for roads and rail be eliminated, but rail funding should probably be increased massively over the short term to make up for about 60 years of underfunding.

Some of the problems with Amtrak are due to well-intentioned government regulation that produces a heavy burden on Amtrak’s operations.

Also you compared fares for your trip, but did you actually take the trip. The conditions on long bus trips are frequently terrible. If you were to ride the bus a cross country trip, I think you might be less likely to compare the three methods.

Basically, the best way to get between Wash D.C. and Boston (or at least New York) is by train – city center to city center, it’s faster than flying.

Compare rail, buses, and flying in Japan and Europe – that’s comparing the method of travel versus the level of subsidy.

For shorter trips, travel by train is preferable to bus, car, or plane in my opinion. And as many others have already pointed out here, all these forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, so I don’t see the point of picking on Amtrak. I only wish there were high-speed bullet trains crisscrossing the country here as in Europe – I would probably never fly again if the prices were comparable.

I’d agree that it’d be nice to let private enterprise solve the problem — the problem is that’s not what your suggesting. Cars, buses, and presumably planes are very heavily subsidized. The government pays for the road system. In Boston, the government sells parking spaces for $20/year (the lease for that much land would be a few thousand dollars per year).

When you cut subsidies to cars, you can cut subsidies to trains. Until then, asking unsubsidized trains to compete with heavily subsidized cars is hypocritical.

Even with the monthly pass, the CC is still more expensive than driving, for me, but not by much. It costs me $7-10/day in gas on average. With the monthly pass, it’s ~$14 a day. I’d say $4 is worth not having to commute 100 miles/day on poor-condition heavily-congested freeway, which BTW, is subsidized far more than CC. I can sleep on the train down to work, and read or play computer games on the way back. Completely worth it. Yes, it takes longer. I don’t care. I like it. It’s enjoyable. It’s safe; I can leave my laptop bag at my seat when I go to get some food from the diner, and I know it will be there when I get back. I can’t even say that for a plane. There’s more legroom than first class, and a quiet car with a minimum of auditory ineterruptions. It has utility for me that traditional commuting does not, and it’s subsidized less. What’s not to like?

Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on the long-distance bus hauls, but I do know Amtrak is MUCH faster than driving, and much more comfortable than flying. I imagine it’s significantly better than bus service as well. All at a tiny fraction of the subsidy cost.

Go after the dragon first, then worry about the mosquito.

I used quotes on the word accidents above because most of the “accidents” are not really accidents. Perhaps a tree falls on a car or two, each year, or a boulder. Those are accidents. Most of the deaths are caused by unsafe roads, unsafe drivers, or unsafe cars. If we were to pay the money to prevent those deaths, the cost of driving would be way too high.

Man, this is getting to the point where there needs to be a Godwin’s Law-esqe statement regarding Amtrak. It’s a pretty standard template: someone questions whether Amtrak should be receiving government funds. Responses then focus on a) the fact that the airlines take government money too, b) the rest of the world has high speed trains, so we should too, c) I use Amtrak to get to small town “____”, and without Amtrak I would have to, horror of horrors, DRIVE there, and d) trains are just darn cool, so the American taxpayer needs to keep them around, because we all pay for all the other modes of transportation.

In fact we should never begin or attempt to fix wasteful spending until we can fix everything precisely simultaneously.

Thanks for all the excellent and incisive commentary.