Home Open Account Help 251 users online

Passenger Trains > BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly


Date: 06/24/22 11:11
BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: mp51w

I almost wish there was a recession!  Too many freight trains on the transcon for #'s 3 & 4 to maintain 90mph anymore!
Amtrak should put out some sort of bulletin/email, sorry, we can't maintain current published schedules! 
Connections for buses and trains at  Newton, Kansas City, and Galesburg are not reliable!



Date: 06/24/22 11:24
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: OliveHeights

There are no current published schedules.



Date: 06/24/22 12:54
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: 2904

No published schedules?  Huh?



Date: 06/24/22 13:21
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: Enviro5609

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are no current published schedules.

There are published schedules, just not in the format you would prefer. 



Date: 06/24/22 16:19
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: IC_2024

Amtrak 1971: “We’re making the trains worth traveling again”
Amtrak 2022: “Service Disruption”



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/22 18:34 by IC_2024.



Date: 06/24/22 16:51
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: goneon66

does anybody KNOW if #3's delays this week were weather related?

66



Date: 06/24/22 16:53
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: ProAmtrak

Anyone ever pay attention to why the Transcon's in a mini meltdown? Ever since BNSF instituted their Hi Viz Policy things have gotten near the 10TH Level of Hell, in fact I doubt I'll see the 5704 since I heard from a freind it was 23RD out of Belen this morning and still a ways to go to Winslow on the LPKLAC6!



Date: 06/24/22 16:55
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: goneon66

the 5704 hasn't made winslow yet??

66



Date: 06/24/22 17:27
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: ProAmtrak

Not that I know of!



Date: 06/25/22 05:08
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: Passfanatic

Even with the amount of very busy freight traffic, Amtrak Trains 3 and 4 are still able to achieve 90 mph on the parts of the Transcon that allow for those speeds, as long as if BNSF doesn't get in the way.



Date: 06/25/22 05:29
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: mpe383

We took 3/4 between KC and Naperville over Memorial Day weekend.  I was pleasantly surprised that the only times we slowed the whole route, other than station stops, were to crossover from one main to another.  I was impressed by the dispatching as we didn't have any "freight interference" at all either direction.



Date: 06/25/22 10:13
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: Passfanatic

A friend and I took 3 from CHI-Winslow, AZ, spent a night in WLO at the famous La Posada, and then picked up 3 the next evening from WLO-LAX. Both legs of the trip, the train made a lot of good speed on the transcon. Between Gallup and Winslow, there is a lot of 90 mph running. There are no official Amtrak stations between Gallup and Winslow. I believe that there is a lot of time built into the schedule between Gallup and Winslow.



Date: 06/25/22 11:31
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: WAF

IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak 1971: “We’re making the trains worth
> traveling again”
> Amtrak 2022: “Service Disruption”
That slogan was 1981



Date: 06/25/22 21:38
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: RuleG

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IC_2024 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amtrak 1971: “We’re making the trains worth
> > traveling again”
> > Amtrak 2022: “Service Disruption”
> That slogan was 1981

It was 1971

https://www.amtrak.com/about-amtrak/50th-anniversary/advertising.html
 



Date: 06/26/22 09:23
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: jp1822

WOW - to really get your head spinning, go read through that 1971 advertisement and the five talking points contained therein. The words and narrative that Amtrak's marketing/PR department put in back then are quite striking and relevant for the present.

- You are going to travel in the BEST 1200 passenger cars in the country
- You talk --- we listen (e.g. passenger representatives riding trains to get ideas about rail service)
- Eat a little better (e.g. a real good dinner every time you enter our dining cars....and even a snack in can Amtrak coach is fresh and tasty)
- We want to save you time, money, and aggravation. 
- People who care are caring about you

Amtrak's advertisement and direct words - not mine! "We're making the trains worth traveling again." 

.....right now, I'd say Amtrak's heyday was in the rear view mirror..........Amtrak needs to take its own marketing line and begin to transform itself - "to make the trains worth travelling again."  

WOW - are we back in 1971???



Date: 06/26/22 14:54
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: ProAmtrak

Be nice if our government actually helped improve Amtrak from day 1 compared to always leaving it on life support! 



Date: 06/28/22 07:26
Re: BNSF transcon not passenger train friendly
Author: engineerinvirginia

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be nice if our government actually helped improve
> Amtrak from day 1 compared to always leaving it on
> life support! 

Given the way the US operates...one could argue Amatrak should never have existed...if the commercial world can't run a passenger service at even a minor profit, the perhaps it's uneeded. But there's another camp that argues it IS needed to the extent the government should pay for it...and at the time there were more of one camp than another and through one of the worst examples of compromise you get, yet another.....boondoggle....that was designed to fail....and soon go away.   And Amtrak still runs on that charter...it's DESIGNED to fail....and absent massive cash inputs it would fail...with said cash it barely survives. If Amtrak is to be a subsidised service that works it's charter needs to be overhauled. It WILL provide good service by itself if needed with State involvment where possible. And yes long distance service can be included and it can be sold as an experience and as transportation together...Would this cost plenty?...yes, but maybe just maybe if you aren't constantly moving deck chairs on the titanic you might get something for you money, so cost might actually go down compared to today's investments, large part of which go unaccounted for and possibly wasted! Furthermore the leadership has to be gutted....airline people should be forbidden from employment and as a quasi corporation it could go international for headhunting purposes...attracting people who actually work in other countries doing long distance and communter rail service....and equipment.....buy some....buy it where you can get it and forget about the usual government purchasing rules...the rules that add cost and time to any acquisition plan. This service would be a corporate body....a business...and must act as one. Heck....the gubmint could hold say....30% so as to make possible further subsidy where needed and the remaining 70% floated on the market. Then it could actually borrow commercial money to acquire and maintain track and equipment. The freight rails will have their passenger responsibility under common carriage rules restored...and they can use our new Amtrak to meet that responibility....and freight roads will help MARKET this service....and the freight roads can be among the large shareholders.....for when the freight roads take a stake in the success of the service...they will see to a plan to keep the trains on time. Now it's still a boondoggle...because one can argue that pax rail can't be profitable in any significant way and at best it may recover SOME of it's costs....well if that's true and it probably is....we the people decide how much of our tax money should subsidize it, and then subsidize it! Don't use it as a political football!



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0771 seconds