Passenger Trains > What would happen if.........?

What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns, and crashes (mostly minor on the ground without mass deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak? The mass outrage might be enough to stimulate our dysfunctional Congress to actually do something! Maybe throwing a lot of money at the problems if lobbyists could apply enough pressure and various contractors could smell huge profits in the swill filling the troughs of Congress. If not the result would surely be total chaos in airports and gridlock with business and commerce taking huge losses.

Are you seriously trying to say that airlines run smoothly?  I live in Chicago and in the past couple of weeks airlines have cancelled hundreds of flights due to weather and yet people still flock to them. 

korotaj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns, and
> crashes (mostly minor on the ground without mass
> deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak? The mass
> outrage might be enough to stimulate our
> dysfunctional Congress to actually do something!
> Maybe throwing a lot of money at the problems if
> lobbyists could apply enough pressure and various
> contractors could smell huge profits in the swill
> filling the troughs of Congress. If not the result
> would surely be total chaos in airports and
> gridlock with business and commerce taking huge
> losses.

I doubt the subsidies would happen as you suggest. For one, there is competition in the airline industry. Other airlines would backfill the capacity. Furthermore, there is precedent for a situation like this with ValueJet being shut down by the FAA. 

As much as people here don't want to hear it, the airlines are far, far more important to the economy than Amtrak is. If Amtrak shut down, there would be some inconvenience, but nothing like would happen if the airlines shut down. 

Check the site Fightradar24.com if you want to understand the importance of airlines...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

Airlines are essential, while Amtrak is nice to have.

altoonafn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt the subsidies would happen as you suggest.
> For one, there is competition in the airline
> industry. Other airlines would backfill the
> capacity. Furthermore, there is precedent for a
> situation like this with ValueJet being shut down
> by the FAA. 
>
> As much as people here don't want to hear it, the
> airlines are far, far more important to the
> economy than Amtrak is. If Amtrak shut down, there
> would be some inconvenience, but nothing like
> would happen if the airlines shut down. 

Airlines (those who were too big to fail) have received government bailouts, and so have the automotive industry. So the airlines competing against each other isn't too relevant in that context.

Let's not sugarcoat it here. Passenger rail, especially Amtrak is more a political tool than transportation to those who make decisions in this country. By design or not, allowing the passenger rail manufacturers to die symbolizes how we (in general) don't really care about trains. All the subsidy and economic arguments don't really matter once people realize that.

I agree, too, that the airlines are important, and I try not to make comparison to passenger rail, because it's pointless. The highway and real estate interests have basically ruined the potential of high speed rail network in the U.S. comparable to the ones other developed countries have or are working on, so with slower trains, passenger rail advocates should be whining about automotive travel, not air travel.

As for Amtrak, while many employees have the dedication and passion to make it succeed, I don't see it at the senior management level, or from folks who control or have the $big bucks$. There's no more Graham Claytor to be found in the sea of self-serving managers and executives. As far as I'm concerned, passenger rail mediocrity is here to stay.

korotaj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns, and
> crashes (mostly minor on the ground without mass
> deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak?

The Chatsworth accident (not Amtrak) caused a needless overreaction called the PTC mandate. It remains to be seen what will happen long term with the Philadelphia accident. Similar rail accidents in other countries resulted in more rational solutions, and overall, it seems the airlines also react rationally for their accidents, too. I don't recall Congress mandating a complete overhaul of the air traffic control system just because a pilot overflew an airport because he was distracted?

As I said above, once we realize that passenger rail and Amtrak are mere political tools, then irrational overreactions make more sense. :-)

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> altoonafn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I doubt the subsidies would happen as you
> suggest.
> > For one, there is competition in the airline
> > industry. Other airlines would backfill the
> > capacity. Furthermore, there is precedent for a
> > situation like this with ValueJet being shut
> down
> > by the FAA. 
> >
> > As much as people here don't want to hear it,
> the
> > airlines are far, far more important to the
> > economy than Amtrak is. If Amtrak shut down,
> there
> > would be some inconvenience, but nothing like
> > would happen if the airlines shut down. 
>
> Airlines (those who were too big to fail) have
> received government bailouts, and so have the
> automotive industry. So the airlines competing
> against each other isn't too relevant in that
> context.

I didn't realize there had been bailouts for airlines. Could you please give an example?

>
> Let's not sugarcoat it here. Passenger rail,
> especially Amtrak is more a political tool than
> transportation to those who make decisions in this
> country. By design or not, allowing the passenger
> rail manufacturers to die symbolizes how we (in
> general) don't really care about trains. All the
> subsidy and economic arguments don't really matter
> once people realize that.
>
> I agree, too, that the airlines are important, and
> I try not to make comparison to passenger rail,
> because it's pointless. The highway and real
> estate interests have basically ruined the
> potential of high speed rail network in the U.S.
> comparable to the ones other developed countries
> have or are working on, so with slower trains,
> passenger rail advocates should be whining about
> automotive travel, not air travel.
>
> As for Amtrak, while many employees have the
> dedication and passion to make it succeed, I don't
> see it at the senior management level, or from
> folks who control or have the $big bucks$.
> There's no more Graham Claytor to be found in the
> sea of self-serving managers and executives. As
> far as I'm concerned, passenger rail mediocrity is
> here to stay.

This is probably true. A game changer could be ever declining access to cheap fuel which could render flying unaffordable regardless of how efficent aircraft may become.

I think in terms of airline subsidies both direct and indirect, I read somewhere that it approaches around $1.00 per passenger carried. I think the Amtrak subsidy per passenger carried is around $22.00. Wonder if anyone else knows if this is correct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/15 08:16 by ATSF3751.

And doesn't weather also affect railroads?   So what would you suggest airlines do about the weather? I think what is suggested by the author here is the bottleneck problems nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you seriously trying to say that airlines run
> smoothly?  I live in Chicago and in the past
> couple of weeks airlines have cancelled hundreds
> of flights due to weather and yet people still
> flock to them. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/15 07:25 by BAB.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> korotaj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns,
> and
> > crashes (mostly minor on the ground without
> mass
> > deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak?
>
> The Chatsworth accident (not Amtrak) caused a
> needless overreaction called the PTC mandate. It
> remains to be seen what will happen long term with
> the Philadelphia accident. Similar rail accidents
> in other countries resulted in more rational
> solutions, and overall, it seems the airlines also
> react rationally for their accidents, too. I don't
> recall Congress mandating a complete overhaul of
> the air traffic control system just because a
> pilot overflew an airport because he was
> distracted?
>
> As I said above, once we realize that passenger
> rail and Amtrak are mere political tools, then
> irrational overreactions make more sense. :-)


The Smithsonian show Air Disasters shows the advancement in air safety. Nearly every show covers a landmark airline crash or incident that ultimately resulted in nationwide or worldwide industry changes that make the same accident less likely to happen again. Some require expensive solutions such as doppler radar both onboard planes and at airports while others are less costly, more plane or porcedure specific.

I agree PTC was an expensive over reaction to the Chatsworth crash, but the PTC had been batted about for years before and Chatsworth was the catalyst to make it happen. Less money could have been spent on other technologies that addressed different issues that would ultimately save more lives.

Jay

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> I agree, too, that the airlines are important, and
> I try not to make comparison to passenger rail,
> because it's pointless. The highway and real
> estate interests have basically ruined the
> potential of high speed rail network in the U.S.
> comparable to the ones other developed countries
> have or are working on, so with slower trains,
> passenger rail advocates should be whining about
> automotive travel, not air travel.
...

I agree with what you said but would add the geographic limitations, i.e. the shear size of the USA, make high speed rail a less attractive option here than in the much smaller, more densely populated countries where HSR succeeds.

Jay

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> korotaj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns,
> and
> > crashes (mostly minor on the ground without
> mass
> > deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak?
>
> The Chatsworth accident (not Amtrak) caused a
> needless overreaction called the PTC mandate. It
> remains to be seen what will happen long term with
> the Philadelphia accident. Similar rail accidents
> in other countries resulted in more rational
> solutions, and overall, it seems the airlines also
> react rationally for their accidents, too. I don't
> recall Congress mandating a complete overhaul of
> the air traffic control system just because a
> pilot overflew an airport because he was
> distracted?
>
> As I said above, once we realize that passenger
> rail and Amtrak are mere political tools, then
> irrational overreactions make more sense. :-)

I believe a tragic accident on the CB&Q in 1947(?) caused the government to "overreact" and require ATS or other train control apparatus on passenger trains exceeding 79 MPH. 

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > korotaj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns,
> > and
> > > crashes (mostly minor on the ground without
> > mass
> > > deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak?
> >
> > The Chatsworth accident (not Amtrak) caused a
> > needless overreaction called the PTC mandate.
> It
> > remains to be seen what will happen long term
> with
> > the Philadelphia accident. Similar rail
> accidents
> > in other countries resulted in more rational
> > solutions, and overall, it seems the airlines
> also
> > react rationally for their accidents, too. I
> don't
> > recall Congress mandating a complete overhaul
> of
> > the air traffic control system just because a
> > pilot overflew an airport because he was
> > distracted?
> >
> > As I said above, once we realize that passenger
> > rail and Amtrak are mere political tools, then
> > irrational overreactions make more sense. :-)
>
> I believe a tragic accident on the CB&Q in
> 1947(?) caused the government to "overreact" and
> require ATS or other train control apparatus on
> passenger trains exceeding 79 MPH. 

And for an aviation example, read up on the Congress "overreaction" to a spate of mid-air collisons that led to the 1993 Congressional mandate for TCAS on all commercial aircraft flying in US air space.

There are a few other such examples, and in addition there are examples where airlines have gotten together and pushed FAA to provide additional services enhancing safety or contracted with third parties like ARINC to provide services that help operations.

korotaj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if the airlines had delays, breakdowns, and
> crashes (mostly minor on the ground without mass
> deaths) at the same frequency as Amtrak? The mass
> outrage might be enough to stimulate our
> dysfunctional Congress to actually do something!
> Maybe throwing a lot of money at the problems if
> lobbyists could apply enough pressure and various
> contractors could smell huge profits in the swill
> filling the troughs of Congress. If not the result
> would surely be total chaos in airports and
> gridlock with business and commerce taking huge
> losses.

Yes, the airlines have delays, breakdowns and minor crashes on ground without mass deaths quite frequently actually.

Everyone knows that the FAA is way behind their own plans for upgrading the ATC system to use FANS allowing direct GPS based routings that will save airlines, their passengers and others gobs of money in terms of delays that are avoided. But things carry on unless there are some huge spectacular events causing mayhem.The last time such happened was when TCAS was mandated by Congress in 1993. The current problems are all such that you can bungle along around them without causing anything worse than delays and ground holds and such. And yes there is total chaos at many airports on many days, specially in poor weather conditions. but everyone is used to it and they suck it up. Meanwhile, business and commerce actually do take significant hits, but they are absorbed and not called out separately. This also presents an opportunity for advancing passenger railroads specially to replace puddle jumpers which are the primary cause of some of the biggest cognestions of air space. But unfortunately even rail enthusiasts are so hell bent on addressing only the concerns of long distance streamliners and high speed trains that the oppotunity is not picked up on to create a more rational mix of transportation service among air, road and rail.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe a tragic accident on the CB&Q in
> 1947(?) caused the government to "overreact" and
> require ATS or other train control apparatus on
> passenger trains exceeding 79 MPH. 

Yeah. Another thread on TO a year or two ago made me do a little research on that accident.

It seems like a fair comparison, but I suspect passenger rail was much more relevant in this country in 1947 than in 2008, where migration to the suburbs via the automobile and the accessibility of air travel to the masses were just beginning to take shape. I also think political leadership was superior overall half a century ago than what we have today, hence my "overreaction" comment. I don't think there was a big drama about ATS like what we had with Chatsworth back in 1947, but I wasn't alive back then, so my claim is speculation, of course. Anyway, the fact that Congress had to backtrack on the artificial deadline of the PTC implementation proves to me that it WAS an overreaction.

By the way, I'm not against enhancement of safety features on our transportation network, including the railroads. If I seem like a luddite based on my posts elsewhere, I'm just against recklessness in the tech industry for the sake of quick bucks. Let's hope the PTC mandate wasn't a result of that, but a mere political overreaction by the ignorant leaders, eh?

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Airlines are essential, while Amtrak is nice to
> have.

Once, it was the other way around. 

Maybe someone with more background in aviation can confirm or deny this thought:  One of the factors in making jet transport aircraft feasible was that a lot of the engineering for the Boeing 707 had already been done during the development of the B-47 bomber.