One way to solve the problem is to just let Amtrak die. Maybe somebody else will pick up the pieces or maybe not. At least we can all stop talking about the mess that is Amtrak every few months.
You will never get people to use trains for long distance travel. Sorry but that is the truth.
There will never be coast to coast trains anymore, if any they will be local and ran by local governments or entity's.
Dave
In the August, 2019 issue of "Trains", columnist and author Fred W. Frailey in the article "Another Train Derails", discusses California High Speed Rail, Texas Central, a high-speed line between Dallas and Houston, and Virgin Trains, a not-so-high-speed line between Miami and Orlando. He also mentions a light rail line 17 miles long between Durham, North Carolina and Chapel Hill, N.C. projected to cost 3 billion. Also, in the same issue, columnist Bob Johnson pens an article entitled "Local Opposition Threatens Expansion", projects challenged in Florida, Texas, California and the Midwest. Excellent articles.
Every time I have taken the silver meteor from NY to Florida it has been sold out.
Re: Passenger Operations Profit: except for very specific (and relatively short) periods in very specific places, essentially, passenger service never was profitable. RRs ran passenger trains because it made sense to do so for a variety of reasons (including luring freight dollars), but freight operations almost always paid the bills. Moreover, much of the passenger revenue was the result of mail contracts. The big question became not so much Profit vs. Loss but How Much Loss, especially when the mail contracts were cancelled (a LOT of lobbying went into that decision). Gov't regs also figured into the equation.
Yep,environmental concerns could be another factor, electric proplusion seems to be making critical mass, I amazed at how rapidly it seems to be evolving. One channel I follow on you tube pointed out that even in west virginia, where something like 99% of their power comes from coal, that an electric car charged there produces something like 30% of the co2 a gas engine car does on a per mile basis. In California it is even greater, where close to 50% of their electricity is from renewables...so that could be a big factor compared to planes or cars/buses.
As someone else pointed out long distance train travel might make no sense other than as a tourist trip,but if you look at long distance train travel as a series of hops,might make sense in some contexts, if people are doing 'hops' rather than the whole way. As an analogy, look up airline flights a d think about the hub and spoke context. If you were flying from NY to LA,you can fly direct, but you also could fly hub to hub, NY to Atlanta,atl to dallas,dallas to san diego,sd to la....not very useful,but the interhop trips would be. W long distance rail the real value would be stop to stop(s) potentially, but some would still go end to end (in other words,long distance rail would be a string of waypoints strung together). High speed rail could make longer distances viable, at 300 mph (not undoable) Chicago to NY city to city center would compete w airline travel (a big if,I know)
As far as letting Amtrak die someone wants it to run,despite a lot of political flack over it,the freight lines wanting it to disappear, those who jones for the auto and airline industries and think trains are somehow evil or un-american,somehow even w government controlled by those assumed to be skeptical about trains,they end up surviving. That being the case,makes more sense to rationalize service rather than keeping it on life support, neither outright horrible nor particularly notable, 50 years of limbo is kind of silly.
One thing that I note with opposition to high speed rail,for some reason people who go nimby w rail are often okay w building new highways and expanding older ones,then complain about the noise and pollution they bring...
We've traveled by rail long distance nearly exclusively for the last 20 years and just about every train we have been on was very crowded or completely sold out. We've been cross country as far as Seattle, as far North as Chicago and as far South as New Orleans. If you don't book months out its difficult to get a seat or sleeper. Amtrak long distance trains generate high revenue. The losses that you read about are only caused by Amtrak's faulty accounting system that amortizes all expenses on the system per train including the cost of stations and track maintenance on the NE Corridor, even though the train is nowhere near it. The Long distance trains under a good accounting system would actually show a profit. The long distance trains also account for much of the economic wealth of the small towns along the routes that they serve, bringing in tourist dollars and serving the communities that have little or no other public transportation. The Amtrak employee payroll is also a false indicator. Being government owned the IRS takes back 20-25% of their salaries in incomes taxes.
A couple of years ago, I went to Washington, DC (actually Rockville MD)
for the 50th O Scale show. I left Omaha, NE (Go Big Red) at 5:00 A.M. and arrived in Chicago about 1:30. The ride was uneventful. I divided the trip this way, outbound a sleeper car, return coach. We left Chicago at 5 and headed on to Rockville, Maryland. There was some talk about the new "boxed dinner" that had been announced a few weeks earlier. We had a surprise when spareribs were announced, quite good along with a drink from the bar. We arrived only a 1/2 hour late.
Now the return trip on coach was actually pretty interesting. We left Rockville, MD. at 5 pm. Dinner came from the snack car with a sandwich, chips, and a beer was around $12.00. I spent more time in the observation car watching people and reading. My gosh, did the guy behind me snore. A few hours in Chicago and then Omaha at midnight. I checked into a motel as I was not looking forward to a 2 hour drive back to Sioux City.
The trip was good but I probably won't take coach again.
Dick
Isn't there somewhat of a chicken and egg thing here? If long distance rail travel was NICE, wouldn't more people want to do it? I'm struggling with the idea that passenger travel is dead like the type writer. Why? Because, as someone stated earlier, technology is changing and those changes make rail travel desirable if we embrace technology and vote for trains. My wife refuses to fly and she is not alone. Since 9/11 there are people that don't like the friendly skies. Combine that with the small, tight seats, no overhead compartments, growing cities that make it difficult to get to the airport, and having to get there 2 hours early to pass security, and airlines are not as great as they used to be. Isn't it possible that high speed rail has the potential to get you from Chicago to Detroit in a far more comfortable way in the same amount to time that it takes to get to the airport early and subject yourself to the hassles of flying? Wouldn't it be nice to stretch out and go online and get some work done in the process on a train? And perhaps you can have a cup of coffee with someone new in the process? Why can't we expand this idea to longer distance travel? I have traveled by Amtrak in sleeping cars and they have the same potential to make the vacation journey as fun as they always have. All they need is upgrades, speed and then word of mouth that they are now better than ever. Railways in the U.S. historically have had to pay their own way. Perhaps because of the lucrative beginnings, railroads were always subject to anti-trust and public views that they were greedy capitalists. When airlines and highways came into play, the government subsidized them. Railroads were not. Railroads paid for their entire infrastructure without government help. So passenger service died. Amtrak was a weak government program that was always looked at like it was a welfare program -- differently than airlines and highways -- our politicians got it right that it was worth keeping it alive. But strict, tight budgets and constant cost cutting objectives make it a recipe for failure. Amtrak is late because they rent rails from the freight companies and do not have priority. That's a half-assed way to run a passenger rail service or any business. If you are okay with government spending money on airports and highways, then why not be okay with spending money on trains? Let the states experiment with fast trains using federal funds. Then take what we learn from the states and build a high-speed federal train system that works. Inter city rail is an essential part of modern life. The politicians love the northeast because they use it all the time to get to and from Washington. Removing some of the players from the highways and airlines and putting them on efficient trains might make all of our lives less stressful. And, in the process, OGRR readers will have an ever expanding choice of model trains to play with and read and write about!
China does not borrow money. They control their money.
The forming of the Fed. High treason. This country ..since 1913 borrows money. Why we are in debt. And have a failing rail service.
You think the CEO of Amtrak really cares. Sure he worked for railroads. But he is an airline schill.
Alan. Dealing with this post. One has to state the facts..
"Railroads paid for their entire infrastructure without government help."
That's not true ... but it's a whole other history lesson.
We also like taking the Amtrak to New York City & Washington DC via the Amtrak Bus to Toledo, Ohio. Amtrak has several overnight vehicle storage lots for their riders.
On football weekends Amtrak has the football trains going in and out Ann Arbor, Michigan. To the “Big House” at the University of Michigan.
Gary 🚂
Passenger rail is not dying. To the contrary if you look at the growth over the last 10 years it has been phenomenal. Today 300 million Americans fly and 31.7 million Americans travel using Amtrak. The service takes in $3.4 billion in revenue, while employing more than 20,000 people. Amtrak also covers about 95% of its costs from ticket revenue. Its does receive a small government subsidy that some complain about (3% of the national transportation budget) but other forms of transportation receive far more. Buses and cars run on government owned highways while airlines use government owned airports. Our travel is 99% by train and we don't see it changing.
"That's not true ...but it's a whole other history lesson"
Please educate us. Outside of the original transcontinental railroad's land grants, government has done little if anything to help the railroads. U.S. railroads have always been private enterprises until Amtrak took over passenger service. Government involvement has been focused on REGULATING everything about the rails and over regulation destroys business.
IRON HORSE posted:"That's not true ...but it's a whole other history lesson"
Please educate us. Outside of the original transcontinental railroad's land grants, government has done little if anything to help the railroads.
The statement above isn't entirely accurate. In the early years, many railroads received free land and payments from cities, states and the Federal government because every city and state needed a railroad for its economy to grow and thrive. The only competing transportation systems were canals and horse drawn wagons. Neither of these were real competition to the early railroads.
The land grants that the western railroads received were and are especially lucrative then and now. Much of the land had vast timber, oil, coal, mineral and other riches. Some railroads became primarily land management companies instead of transportation companies. Railroad owners, investors and many politicians got very rich. The Southern Pacific Railroad was called the Octopus because it completely controlled the CA government. The PRR received low or no interest loans during the depression to install its initial electrification.
Early railroads were so profitable that they were vastly overbuilt. Wall Street threw money at railroads just as it is throwing money at high tech firms today. Government condemned vast sections of cities to enable railroads to build stations such as Penn Station in NYC.
Unfortunately, private business often puts profit before safety, people and the common good. This is the reason for regulation. Railroads had to be forced to install air brakes, steel passenger cars, knuckle couplers, signals and now positive train control. Regulators are now forcing Facebook and Equifax to protect privacy. I remember the days when auto makers had to be made to install outside review mirrors, seatbelts and airbags. Regulation can be overdone but most of them come about because private industry fails to protect their workers, their customers, the environment, and the public. Look at the Boeing 737 Max. This was a failure of both Boeing and the FAA that resulted in the deaths of 350 plus people.
NH Joe
If you are a taxpayer, you subsidized Amtrak to the tune of $13.00 this year. That's about $2 billion total, while the interest on the national debt is $1.07 billion per day.
"every city and state needed a railroad for its economy to grow and thrive" -- NH Joe
Again, outside the mid to late 1800's, what has government done to help the railroads in the modern era? The initial land grants did exactly what Lincoln desired: build America from sea to shining sea. That the railroad men became rich was the result of their businesses spreading railroads across the continent. It was good for America and a great opportunity for those who took risks to capitalize on it. Blasting though mountains and building bridges across dangerous territory was not a simple task --and there was no guarantee it would work. Since then, regulating railroads has been the primary focus of government since. George Pullman was getting too rich so the government broke up his company. After years of over regulation and the government subsidizing his competition -- airlines and highways -- his company died. A low cost loan during the depression is hardly a subsidy or a bailout. Government was doing everything it could to put people to work and buying a lot of jobs during that era. We are still paying the price for some of those programs.
Railroad freight in America is thriving. It was all done through private enterprise. It is both efficient and effective. And anyone who thinks that there are business people getting rich at Union Pacific or BNSF -- and somehow thinks this is wrong -- ought to buy stock in those companies and they, too can share the riches.
I agree that sensible regulation to protect consumers is one of the few things outside of our military, police and firefighting that the government exists to do good. Unfortunately, over regulation is the result of government expanding to keep its power. I, for one, did not like the government telling me I would be a criminal if I didn't fasten my seat belt and that I would be fined for not doing so. Am I used to it now? Yes, but letting government chip away at our freedoms and telling us what to do is disturbing.
OK, I have done downtown Houston to downtown Austin and San Antonio, and beat the time flying between those downtowns. On megabus!
I really think you do not need HSR between most points. Mayber Higher Speed Rail in a sealed corridor most of the way. Getting up to and staying at 125mph is much easier the 200+. Turns can be sharper. Plus one needs a lot more power/energy to get 200+. I do not think HSR is as green as it supporters say it is.
Remember when they said plastic bags were good for the environment because it prevented the cutting down of trees.
Dominic Mazoch posted:OK, I have done downtown Houston to downtown Austin and San Antonio, and beat the time flying between those downtowns. On megabus!
I really think you do not need HSR between most points. Mayber Higher Speed Rail in a sealed corridor most of the way. Getting up to and staying at 125mph is much easier the 200+. Turns can be sharper. Plus one needs a lot more power/energy to get 200+. I do not think HSR is as green as it supporters say it is.
Remember when they said plastic bags were good for the environment because it prevented the cutting down of trees.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. You consume the most energy accelerating, whether it is in your car or on a train. Once up to speed it doesn't take as much to maintain it, unless you are going up hill. In an electric system with an overhead wire, when you decelerate, your traction motors can be used as generators and put power back into the system to be used by other units. On a diesel, this energy is simply turned into heat and lost to the air.
trainroomgary posted:Amtrak Services in the Great State of Michigan
We also like taking the Amtrak to New York City & Washington DC via the Amtrak Bus to Toledo, Ohio. Amtrak has several overnight vehicle storage lots for their riders.
On football weekends Amtrak has the football trains going in and out Ann Arbor, Michigan. To the “Big House” at the University of Michigan.
Gary 🚂
That map is a perfect example of the regional rail service which I was talking about earlier in this topic. I see all roads still lead to Chicago.
Up to 125, diesel electric can be used. Above that, pure electric. From what I have learned about electric current, thete are going to be line losses due to resistance and other issues.....
And the pure electric puts out no polution. Err, maybe. Where are all the electrons coming from? If not renewable or atomic, the power plant is the tail pipe. Then add line losses...
Now is diesel better? Maybe not.
Bugs Bunny has an answer. He was on a train, but at the end of the short, he kicked himself off the train. The cartoon was mafe during WWII. People requested not to travel unless is was needed.
People need to get to work. Go to the storr and get milk. Even go to a place of worship. But how much travel is really not needed. And this concept is not mine. My parents lived during the Great Depression and WWII, and taught me this frugal tip.
It should be pointed out that the land grants had the net effect of making the land still owned by the US gov't vastly more valuable. As a rule, the RRs were given alternate sections, with the remaining land still held by the nation. Much of the land was worthless until development, and development was impossible until the RRs provided access and transportation, not just of the people who then bought the land but also of the goods they needed to build it up and of the goods they then produced.
The RRs are the seminal reason this country is not still dwelling in the 18th century. The popular viewpoint that corporations are inherently bad and some mythical, disinterested social grouping is inherently good ignores the objective conditions of history. There is a real irony in the current ideological perspective on the way our country grew.
The net gain to our country of the grants far outweighed the "cost" of giving up the land to productive citizens. And that bargain was the intent to begin with. it is monumentally short-sighted and fundamentally mistaken to talk about corporate greed and cost to the people (both of which did exist) without understanding and acknowledging the accompanying benefits, which were far larger.
To the earlier comment that beyond land grants, government has done little to nothing to help railroads; this was more or less true up until about 15 - 20 years ago but; not since.
Pennsylvania contributed a lot of money to Conrail’s clearance project that enabled the railroad to handle doublestacks between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg back in the mid-90’s.
More recently; Virginia and the Federal government contributed to NS’ Heartland Corridor clearance project that raised clearances on the former N&W for the same reason.
The state of Georgia has contributed to CSX’s intermodal terminal near Chatsworth, GA.
And each year the Federal government awards TIGER grants - principally to short line and regional railroads that enable them to upgrade their properties.
There are more examples such as the CREATE project in the Chicago area but; I believe you get the point.
Curt
aussteve posted:There was a reason that the " for profit" train companies stopped passenger service. Call it culture, obsolescence, competiton for transportation $, or common sense. They wanted to stay in business.
Unlike the post office, FCC, FDA, FBI, Armed Forces, etc., it is a subsidy that is not desired or needed by anywhere near the majority of Americans (except OGR).
If it was, it could survive on it's profits. We dont build toll roads to nowhere in Western Texas cause it's not profitable.
I don't want to subsidize a phone land line for AT&T in every house just because it used to be that way. I also have no desire to live in Europe, China, Canada or South America.
As terrible as things are in the USA, everybody wants to come here and no one seems to be leaving . Even the Hollywood blow hards that promised to move after the last election are still here.
America must be doing something right with the resources, culture and the location it has. In spite of the media's opinion, we just don't have enough money to buy everything for everybody.
One point I think we are missing is the postal contracts the railroads had all dried up in the 1960’s. Carrying mail was what subsidized passenger service for a long time.
I have been to China and the first thing people buy as they climb the economic ladder is a car. No one in China wants to use mass transit, it is their only option.
Interesting drift here.
I can fly free on American Airlines for the rest of my life. I am going Amtrak, auto, or light aircraft whenever possible. I hate airline travel - I love flying airliners.
California's version of high speed rail does not appeal to me - I wish they had considered double-tracking the coast route and getting the average speed of the Coast Starlight doubled to around 80 mph. Easy, and not nearly as expensive as that train from Merced to Chowchilla.
I do think that speed costs more in energy. If you can cut friction to zero, maybe faster is just as economical. But I have heard that rail is the most economical, right behind that barge going southbound on the Mississippi.
IRON HORSE posted:"every city and state needed a railroad for its economy to grow and thrive" -- NH Joe
Again, outside the mid to late 1800's, what has government done to help the railroads in the modern era? The initial land grants did exactly what Lincoln desired: build America from sea to shining sea. That the railroad men became rich was the result of their businesses spreading railroads across the continent. It was good for America and a great opportunity for those who took risks to capitalize on it. Blasting though mountains and building bridges across dangerous territory was not a simple task --and there was no guarantee it would work. Since then, regulating railroads has been the primary focus of government since. George Pullman was getting too rich so the government broke up his company. After years of over regulation and the government subsidizing his competition -- airlines and highways -- his company died. A low cost loan during the depression is hardly a subsidy or a bailout. Government was doing everything it could to put people to work and buying a lot of jobs during that era. We are still paying the price for some of those programs.
Railroad freight in America is thriving. It was all done through private enterprise. It is both efficient and effective. And anyone who thinks that there are business people getting rich at Union Pacific or BNSF -- and somehow thinks this is wrong -- ought to buy stock in those companies and they, too can share the riches.
I agree that sensible regulation to protect consumers is one of the few things outside of our military, police and firefighting that the government exists to do good. Unfortunately, over regulation is the result of government expanding to keep its power. I, for one, did not like the government telling me I would be a criminal if I didn't fasten my seat belt and that I would be fined for not doing so. Am I used to it now? Yes, but letting government chip away at our freedoms and telling us what to do is disturbing.
Railroad regulation is a kind of interesting topic, one of the problems of claims of 'excess regulation' is that a lot of the excess regulations people cry about came about because of the actions of the railroads back in the good old days of 19th century capitalism. The ICC came about in large part because the railroads were engaging in all kinds of predatory practices, the ICC set rates to stop the railroads from giving cushy rates to Standard Oil, for example, while charging overtly high rates to farmers and cattlemen to make their profit. Basic safety improvements like the air brake and knuckle coupler and requiring advanced signalling systems came from the government, and it took a government rule to stop passenger trains from dumping sewage on the tracks, as some examples. The ICC regulations did end up hurting the trains when the government refused to get rid of the price floors railroads could charge (and it was deliberate, it is a classic case of using regulations to favor one industry over another, trucking industry happens to have key support in politically powerful places). One of the reasons we have so much regulation is that businesses time and again often want to cut corners or worse, create monopolies, and rather than running to make a reasonable profit get greedy, the irony being in the end as with the railroads, it ended up hurting them through their own stupidity.
Guitarmike posted:aussteve posted:There was a reason that the " for profit" train companies stopped passenger service. Call it culture, obsolescence, competiton for transportation $, or common sense. They wanted to stay in business.
Unlike the post office, FCC, FDA, FBI, Armed Forces, etc., it is a subsidy that is not desired or needed by anywhere near the majority of Americans (except OGR).
If it was, it could survive on it's profits. We dont build toll roads to nowhere in Western Texas cause it's not profitable.
I don't want to subsidize a phone land line for AT&T in every house just because it used to be that way. I also have no desire to live in Europe, China, Canada or South America.
As terrible as things are in the USA, everybody wants to come here and no one seems to be leaving . Even the Hollywood blow hards that promised to move after the last election are still here.
America must be doing something right with the resources, culture and the location it has. In spite of the media's opinion, we just don't have enough money to buy everything for everybody.
One point I think we are missing is the postal contracts the railroads had all dried up in the 1960’s. Carrying mail was what subsidized passenger service for a long time.
I have been to China and the first thing people buy as they climb the economic ladder is a car. No one in China wants to use mass transit, it is their only option.
That isn't entirely true, while having a car, as was true in the US, is seen as a 'step up the ladder', that doesn't mean that people don't like trains and mass transit either. Obviously, the Chinese government can do what they want, but people in China already see what the car is doing in some places, they are seeing the same problems with congestion and sprawl that have happened a lot here in the US. It is a bit different to have a car for pleasure travel or for example to be able to go shopping or whatnot, it is another where the car is the primary vehicle to getting to work or for example, to drive home for the New Year. If China achieves penetration with cars like the US, just imagine, they have a population 4 times ours, it would be a nightmare if everyone drove.
just ask anyone who lives in places like Atlanta or Phoenix about the 'freedom' of the car, or where I live where people spend an hour in the car to drive 15 miles.
Getting back to the original topic, the answer again is that rail service makes sense if it serves a purpose, I am not talking nostalgia. It doesn't make sense to have mass transit in western Texas, where towns are a long ways apart and population is small, but it would make sense in Dallas and Houston, or Phoenix. It may not make sense to have long distance train travel, for example a Chicago to LA train that doesn't stop anywhere, but if a Chicago to LA train where people use the intermediate stops heavily, might make sense. Does that mean it should be private operation and if it can't make a profit, forget it? I keep hearing that, but it leaves out the fundamental nature of government services, that they are done, not on a for profit basis, but to allow others to make a profit. The roads the federal government pays for don't make a profit, and if we had private operators running the roads as a fully privatized business, the cost of using them would be so high that they would stifle economic activity (even true of toll roads, the toll roads in Texas are interstate highways, while toll money is used to maintain the roads, federal regulation allows federal money to pay for the initial building, and also allows federal money to expand interstate toll roads, toll revenue is used to maintain the roads, this is true of the NJ Turnpike and other toll roads that are interstate highways. The government runs airports, runs the flight traffic control system and what airlines pay for those services is a fraction of what they actually cost; we subsidize those, because if the airlines had to pay the full cost of running airports, had to pay for the FAA control system,etc, airline travel would be a lot more expensive and it would crimp businesses relying on airline travel.
In the 1960's, mail went from rail to truck and air. I think. And the money thereof.
But Charles Linburg should have been listenen to in this case: airplanes and support facilities should be supported by the airlines. Not the government.
bob2 posted:Interesting drift here.
I can fly free on American Airlines for the rest of my life. I am going Amtrak, auto, or light aircraft whenever possible. I hate airline travel - I love flying airliners.
California's version of high speed rail does not appeal to me - I wish they had considered double-tracking the coast route and getting the average speed of the Coast Starlight doubled to around 80 mph. Easy, and not nearly as expensive as that train from Merced to Chowchilla.
I do think that speed costs more in energy. If you can cut friction to zero, maybe faster is just as economical. But I have heard that rail is the most economical, right behind that barge going southbound on the Mississippi.
As someone pointed out, the extra energy required to maintain a fast train (at 200 mph let's say instead of 80) is not as much as you think, much of the energy required is to overcome the friction from wind resistance and to a certain amount friction losses from the rails, that increase with speed. Acceleration requires a lot more energy usage, there is no doubt, and yes, it takes more energy to get to 200 mph from 0 then 100, but with a high speed train, based on what I have read about places like Europe and China, most of the time is spent cruising.
And yep, electric powered trains require electricity to be produced, and of course that can drive pollution "downstream". However, you also have to compare apples to apples when looking that this, that is the trick. First one, obviously, is that electric power generation can be done from a variety of sources, wind power, solar, hydro, geothermal (not used much in the US), nuclear (if they ever figure out how to convince people they can be run safely, not easy), and of course oil, coal and natural gas. In California, they are close to a 50% generation from renewable resources, for example, and the rest is mostly natural gas. If you compare the emissions in California to drive that electric train, versus diesel locomotives, it is no contest, that electrified train traced back upstream generates a small portion of the pollution the diesel engines will. Total efficiency is much better as well on a fuel basis for electric trains, the losses from long distance transmission and loses in generating power or converting electric to mechanical (electric motors on the trains) are a lot less than burning diesel to generate electric power to drive a train from what I know, and on top of that, electric powered trains are a lot quieter, too.
Outward bound on the Capitol Limited next week with return on the Lake Shore Limited. Bought the last available roomette on each train. Whatever Amtrak’s challenges are, lack of ridership is not one of them.
Clarence Siman posted:If the Government is going to subsidize Amtrak, then consider the feasibility of using abandoned or embargoed rail lines in the rural areas. Have a totally dedicated Amtrak line, or perhaps start a Trails to Rails campaign. Yes I know that the lines will have to be totally rebuilt, but at least Amtrak won't have to share the lines with freight.
The real key is dedicated (or passenger-prioritized) trackage like the Northeast Corridor. Some routes were abandoned in favor of more efficient routes between locations. The less efficient routes, if they could support the speed, could be resurrected for passenger-only service. Adding another track (or two) to an established mainline would eliminate some traffic conflicts, even keeping freight a priority. But it takes money, which is the real problem. The fare box doesn't cover the costs, which is the same problem with mass transit in general.
The local commuter trains here are full, and while I doubt the fares cover the costs, I don't think they're having the losses that long-distance routes experience.
I ride a commuter train four days a week (Metrolink) which shares a multi-track route with BNSF Railway. On my trip from Irvine, CA to Los Angeles, we literally zig zag around freight trains and Metrolink keeps a good schedule. Sharing the route with the Orange County line is Amtrak's Surfliner, which also keeps a pretty good schedule between San Diego and Los Angeles. The entire run from San Diego to Los Angeles is on BNSF trackage. Most BNSF freight traffic out of Los Angeles runs toward Riverside/San Bernardino railroad east of Fullerton, but still on multi-track mains. Amtrak's Southwest Chief and Metrolink's 91/Perris line share this route and stays pretty close to schedule.
Now there's the other areas. North of Los Angeles (railroad west) is UP territory (old SP) and is single track along the coast. There the Surfliner slows down as freight (pays the bills) has priority. The Coast Starlight also runs this route and runs late. Another line is the Riverside line on the old UP trackage through Pomona South -- was notoriously late. The San Bernardino line (old SP/old ATSF Pasadena Sub) is on mostly single track (the freight traffic is minimal on that line and runs off-hours) and has high ridership and is pretty much on schedule.
When you are out on a summer drive and see road construction, know this: Your taxes are at work. When you see a railroad crew fixing the rails, who pays them?
Who pays for the TSA?
"Bought the last roomette on each train. Whatever Amtrak challenges are, lack of ridership isn't one of them."
That has been my experience, too. Amtrak seems to have pretty good ridership both locally and for long distance.
Controlled access highways should have been toll to begin with. However, with one provision: tolls are usef for bond pay off, state or good repair, or ROW improvement. Not for anything else. In plain terms, a lock box.
Guitarmike posted:I have been to China and the first thing people buy as they climb the economic ladder is a car.
Buicks are a best seller.
IRON HORSE posted:When you are out on a summer drive and see road construction, know this: Your taxes are at work. When you see a railroad crew fixing the rails, who pays them?
Who pays for the TSA?
"Bought the last roomette on each train. Whatever Amtrak challenges are, lack of ridership isn't one of them."
That has been my experience, too. Amtrak seems to have pretty good ridership both locally and for long distance.
TSA is paid for by taxes of varying sorts, among other things the post 9/11 security feed that is on all tickets, some of it also comes from Homeland security funds, some of it through fees the airlines pay..but TSA workers are federal employees, not of the airport or airlines.
As far as that rail crew goes working on the rail, while the company pays their salary (or they pay a contractor who pays the salary), the government helps defray that cost since the employees salary is a deductible expense on taxes, plus if they are putting in some kind of capital improvement versus plain maintenance, they can deduct labor cost towards capital improvement, too.
IRON HORSE posted:When you are out on a summer drive and see road construction, know this: Your taxes are at work. When you see a railroad crew fixing the rails, who pays them?
Who pays for the TSA?
"Bought the last roomette on each train. Whatever Amtrak challenges are, lack of ridership isn't one of them."
That has been my experience, too. Amtrak seems to have pretty good ridership both locally and for long distance.
TSA is paid for by taxes of varying sorts, among other things the post 9/11 security feed that is on all tickets, some of it also comes from Homeland security funds, some of it through fees the airlines pay..but TSA workers are federal employees, not of the airport or airlines.
As far as that rail crew goes working on the rail, while the company pays their salary (or they pay a contractor who pays the salary), the government helps defray that cost since the employees salary is a deductible expense on taxes, plus if they are putting in some kind of capital improvement versus plain maintenance, they can deduct labor cost towards capital improvement, too.
In the end it comes down to defining what Amtrak's value is, what the nature of that value is, and then working from there. The idea that Amtrak has value only if a private business could run it at a profit, for example, is problematic, and the airlines give a pretty good example of that. Before they deregulated the airlines in the 1970's, when airfares were price controlled, one of the deals with the devil with that was that in return for flying unprofitable routes to small airports, rural areas, etc, the government in effect guaranteed them a profit and also de facto stopped competition, since you couldn't really compete on price, by fair trading fares. In many ways it was great for the airlines, low population areas still retained access to airline travel (which generally operated at a loss, since if they charged the true cost of serving low volume areas few people could afford it), they made nice profit without having to worry about someone undercutting them, the only people who really lost on the deal were consumers, airfares were very expensive back then. When deregulation happened, to keep airlines flying to low volume areas airlines were granted access to lucrative markets in return for continuing to run those routes, from what I have been told dropping low volume routes is a big deal for an airline.
Deregulation/ 'letting the markets decide' had negative impact as well, in that flying these days is not a pleasant experience, airplanes are designed to crowd as many people as possible into each plane, leg room has disappeared, they routinely overbook flights, the efficient hub and spoke system is prone to delays, and of course they nickel and dime people flying for every last cent, charging things like the emergency row as 'premium', baggage charges, you name it...few people outside those who routinely fly first class are enamored of flying.
Could a private operator make money with Amtrak? Possibly, but there is a parallel to that, the problems with it. Conrail comes to mind, when the railroads that Conrail took over went splat, other train companies weren't exactly battering down the door to take these lines over and not surprisingly, it would have taken a lot of capital to put Conrail in shape after the mess the prior railroads left, and they weren't necessarily in great shape themselves. The government through Conrail spent a lot of money upgrading the railroad, they utilized and developed brand new technology to make shipping more efficient, they replaced track and signal systems, spent a lot of money on it, and by the time it was sold off Conrail was pretty attractive, to the point that two railroads spent a pretty penny buying the sections they wanted. The problem here is that a private operator likely wouldn't want to take on Amtrak for the same reason freight railroads didn't want what became Conrail, and unlike Conrail the government hasn't exactly spent money on Amtrak, not to the level I am talking about, to make it where a private operator would want it.
And like the airline industry, what would be the incentive for Amtrak to keep non profitable routes if a private owner took it over? Let's just assume the NE corridor and some other lines would be profitable (again, hypothetically), why would they keep small town, USA with service? What would be the incentive? And what would the cost of dropping that service be to the areas this happened?
I don't have any ultimate answers, but unless someone can balance out the inherent conflicts with making a profit versus the cost of dropping service, the only option is going to be it stays run by the government purely, or the government subsidizes a private operator to run the network, either through direct price subsidy or through inducements of some sort like they did with the airlines (which also goes to show you people claiming the airlines are 'free market' don't understand how they operate). Again, the fact that Amtrak has survived all the assaults on it, the death by a million pricks, rants by politicians, and even worse, the benign neglect even supposedly pro rail politicians have accorded it often, says a lot about the value of it, perceived or real.
You guys are trying to come with ideas to save long distance rail lines. If it was profitable somebody would be doing it. Amtrak has never been profitable never will be profitable.
Not one person I know has ever rode a train except maybe for a vacation including myself and I am 72.
Nobody wants to talk about it but let Amtrak die, it's on life support now, why let it drain more money. When companies can't make any money, guess what they go out of business---time for Amtrak to die.
Dave
A recent issue of Trains Magazine has and interesting article on the Virgin/Brightline train in Florida. Brightline was recently purchased by Richard Branson's Virgin Group and has been re-branded Virgin trains. Virgin is operating relatively higher speed trains (around 100 mph) in Florida on its own tracks and Florida East Coast's freight tracks. As best as I can recall, the trains run between Palm Beach and Miami. The group intends to expand to the service to Orlando. This will be an interesting experiment because:
1. It is operated and funded by a private company. Can it make a profit?
2. It is higher speed instead of high speed. Maybe you don't need to go 200 mph to be competitive. The trains are powered using Siemens new ultra low emission diesels. The engines were built at the Siemens plant in Sacramento, CA.
3. Virgin operates partially on freight company tracks.
4. Will people prefer the train on the Miami / Orlando corridor? I understand that the primary competition is I-95. The few times I have been on I-95 in Florida it has been parking lot.
5. There is a lot of community resistance to the service. Several people have already been killed by Virgin trains. Some of these were suicide by train.
Someone in Florida can provide more information. It would be interesting to know the experience of any forum member who has ridden this train.
NH Joe
An interesting take surfaced on railroad.net (<-- direct link to comment in question) that brought up a point I hadn't considered regarding the creation of Amtrak--the regulatory burdens that made it necessary for a federal takeover of passenger rail in the first place (not to mention most of the Northeast freight rail infrastructure).
In short, if you were a freight railroad, you had to run the passenger trains the government said to run. You could not discontinue services that were bleeding cash without permission (which was seldom granted) . You could only charge the fares the government allowed you to charge (which didn't cover expenses), and the state set the property taxes upon the land your tracks and facilities occupied at whatever the state felt like charging.
Sounds like to me, if the Staggers Act (along with regulatory relief pertaining to passenger services) had happened in the (early) 1960's, freight railroads might have remained healthy enough to shoulder the losses inherent in passenger rail, at least until the beancounters found their new religion in the "Church of the Holy Operating Ratio". I base this on Conrail, which was something of a raging dumpster fire until freight rail deregulation.
Now whether we'd have a passenger rail network any more extensive than Amtrak's current one is anyone's guess. The NEC at least would probably still need to be a federal operation, owing to the expense of maintaining electrification (like it is anywhere else in the world).
---PCJ (who uses the service at least three times a year)
I live in Brevard Co., Florida, near Cocoa. Not to be confused with Cocoa Beach which is across the intercoastal. It is at this juncture that Virgin Railways, formerly Brightline, turns westward toward the Orlando airport. This part of the railway is currently under construction, approximately 35 to 38 miles. Disneyworld is only 5-8 more miles away to the west. One may wonder why an extension isn't being built, but Disney runs its own show. Currently the FEC is single track, utilizing passing sidings, the second track being removed in the 1980's. Plans are to replace the second track. Virgin, owned by Richard Branson, the English entrepreneur, owns a piece (40% I believe of the venture.) The project is controlled by Fortress LLc, a New York private equity group controlled by Softbank. (Masayoshi Son). They have deep pockets. Fortress sold FEC a few years ago to Grupa Mexico.
There is considerable opposition to the venture. Safety and traffic disruptions lead the complaints. There must be 500 to 600 grade crossings (my estimate) between Miami and Cocoa. Every day there are a number of near misses with the container trains traveling 45-50 mph. Local cities have tried unsuccessfully to slow them down. The extension will follow Route 528, now called the "Beach Line", formerly called the "B-Line", a toll road, part of the Florida Turnpike system, so grade crossings should be minimal and in sparsely populated areas.
The project is supposedly privately financed, but that is open to debate. Our train group has had lively discussions on its viability. The number of cruise ship visitors, both to Miami and Port Canaveral is staggering. These potential customer make up a large part of their ridership projections.
Being a train buff, I have my doubts about its profitability. Since I follow this thread on the forum, I will try to answer any questions you may have.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
