Recently the Union Pacific railroad has claimed that running Amtrak is costing the railroad millions of dollars per year. The big Railroads and their allies in the Republican party have tried for years to kill Amtrak and the passenger train.
Of course no one ever mentions that Amtrak was begun as a bailout (ie welfare) for the railroads who had tried everything to drive off the traveling public in the late 1960’s.
So what do you think? Should the railroads be given back their passenger trains and forced to provide a service they got government to take over? Should Amtrak simply be run off the rails in the name of “free markets”. Or do we continue as we have since 1971 weith a quasi governmental rail system which lives hand to mouth depending on the kindness of who controls the government at the time.?
As part of a generation that never knew anything other than Amtrak it’s hard for me to say. I would guess that if the railroads were forced (emphsis on forced) to bring back passenger service they would deliberatly do poor at it. It’s like a kid that’s being forced to do something he don’t want to do he’ll whine and put up a fuss.
Now, I’m no financial or business wizard, but I think the short answer to the problem is to find a way for Amtrak to be self sufficient, not relying solely on gov’t funding. I was telling someone not too long ago that I read that Amtrak was not supposed to last more than two or three years and they guy I told this to looked surprised and had always thought Amtrak was to be a permanent replacement. He said other countries fund their railroads 100%. I said we’re not other countries. Amtrak needs to think, act, and operate like a private business. The only problem is Amtrak has no one to compete with. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to Chicago your choices are simple: Amtrak or Amtrak. Gov’t is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of passengers is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of competition is going to kill the passenger train. It’s rediculous that Amtrak, Greyhound, and all the airlines are pitted against each other. It should be train vs train, bus line vs bus line, and airline vs airline. My brother took a Greyhound bus recently and the driver was a raving lunitic. Well guess what? If he ever want’s to take a bus again his only choice is to patronize Greyhound again.
Well, I hope I made my point clear. It’s not a perfect solution. Heck, it’s not even a solution, but it’ll be ripped apart and criticized like all the other suggestions people have made on Amtrak.
Once I made a satirical point by suggesting we merge all the RR companies and call it Amfrieght. Man, that made some people upset and I was only joking.
Being a rail fan i want to keep passenger trains out of my own pure love for them.I think 99 percent of us feel that way.That being said,the transportation quagmire that resulted after the terror attacks of September 11 2001 demonstated that we simply can not afford to be without a rail passenger network.I dont claim to have any knowlage of how the money can be provided for this service,it is only my humble opinion that it has to be found.
No forcing is needed. Just kill amtrack and let free trade decide. With all the old equipment they could buy on the cheap every railroad could decide on there own wether to provide.
I like several writers before me, do not claim to have the answers to the interstate rail passenger travel problem. I firmly believe we need such a system and I would much rather see my tax dollars go to Amtrak rather than rebuilding the interstate highway system just so some trucker can blow me off of same.
Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.
I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.
I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP AMTRACK AROUND NEVER RODE IT BUT ,WOULD LIKE TO.ME PERSONNALY LAST TIME I RODE ON A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS WHEN THEY HAD SEABOARD COAST LINE ENJOYED IT.MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE GOLDEN YEARS WHEN PASSENGER SERVICE WAS KING.I WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AMTRACK WILL SURVIVE
Well, whatever you do, don’t follow the example of the rail ‘privatisation’ here in the U.K. The solution here was to nationalise all the track, which is then maintained by one private company (currently ‘Network Rail’), and then let other private companies (the Operating Companies) apply to the government for the right to run rail services (passenger or freight) over those rails. These operating companies must pay Network Rail for the maintenance work according to the contracts they have negotiated with it. Periodically the government decides that one of the operating companies has been doing a bad job and replaces them with another. Virtually all the equipment the operating companies use is leased from leasing companies. (There are some recent exceptions, for example Virgin Rail has bought some of its own new equipment).
In practice, what happens is that the maintenance company subcontracts out all the work to a myriad of smaller companies and bills the operating companies in accordance with its contracts. It also receives a fixed allocation of money from the government, on the principle that it is maintaining a national right of way, like the highways. If the sum of the receivables from the operating companies plus the fixed government allocation is insufficient to cover expenses, the maintenance company first defers ‘non-essential’ maintenance and simultaneously squeezes its subcontractors to perform the ‘essential’ work ever-more-cheaply, and, if that fails to stem the red ink, it goes bankrupt. This has happened once already. The shareholders then lose all their value and the company is re-constituted and re-floated on the stock exchange.
The severing of the link between maintenance and operations has proved to be a disaster from both a safety and an efficiency standpoint – e.g. vital signal and track work going out the lowest bidder, maintenance work being scheduled at peak rush hours, etc.
Here’s the thing: You can’t legally “force” the railroads to take back a service they originally paid a one-time (albeit ridiculously low) fee to get out of. Even more to the point, you don’t want to force them; the “service” they’d wind up providing would be so bad it’d make their previous efforts – back in the days when roads like the SP were doing everything short of waving guns at passengers to scare them out of rail travel – look like the golden age of rail travel by comparison.
Amtrak did two things wrong right from the start: First off, it allowed the railroads over which its trains run to reverse the priority of traffic (freight movements now superior to passenger, which is guaranteed to slow things down), and then its first generation of employees was almost entirely made up of the same railroad personnel – and the same anti-passenger mindset – that had made rail travel such a mess to begin with.
As additional icing, Amtrak continues (mistakenly) to emphasize long-haul traffic as opposed to more localized marketing: Even in this post-911 era, very few people are going to willingly choose the train to get from Chicago to LA, as an example, over the plane. Amtrak can’t compete in that arena, but it can and should compete for the traffic in between the long-distance terminals. There’s where it’s future lies, if it’s to have a future.
Amtrak can compete – and does so, very effectively, in many instances – with Greyhound. I can think of at least several existing routes where Amtrak’s combination of train and bus (Amcoach) service is both cheaper and faster (and a whole lot more comfortable) than Greyhound. Amtrak nees to expand on this service and identify new markets for it. Additionally, Amtrak could likely increase its on-time arrival rate (dismally low now) by offering performance incentives to the railroads on which it’s a tenant. The rail industry as a whole isn’t waxing that fat these days that another source of revenue such as
I tend to agree with much of what Paul has to say, in his last posting. I do think that the government, the Fed’s that is, should be consistant in their support for the entire transporation industry. In order to maintain that consistancy, they need to increase the subsidy to AMTRAK.
Look at the other modes of transporation. Air: the airports are supported by the FAA for operations and the local communities for maintenance (terminals), Bus: That’s obvious, who pays for the Interstate and Federal highway systems, tax dollars. Water: the inland waterway system of rivers is operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even our seaports are maintained by the Corps, again tax dollars. To expect AMTRAK or any passenger service (UP, BNSF, N&S, etc.) to survive without an equivalent subsidy is sticking your head in the sand. There was a proposal some years ago for the railbeds to be taken over by and operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers, much like is done on the river system now.
I also agree with what Paul said about AMTRAK should be looking for what part or niche of the Passenger Traffic system it is best suited to fill. I believe they are doing that in the Northeast corridor. There should be other places where that works well. There has been progress on the Chicago-Detroit high-speed line, and also the Chicago-St. Louis. But progress has been so slow, one wonders just what the level of committment there is to finding these niche’s.
One also wonders if the progress has been so slow on these opportunities because the competing modes see the threat and are lobbying, apparently very effectively, against AMTRAK.
The future of the passenger train is like every other funded service in this country. We have highways, airports, river systems, sports facilities, etc. because our society puts a priority value on such projects. If our society ever gets to that point with passenger trains then we will have the finest system in the world - if not, plan on buying videos as the passenger train will be history.
Here’s my two cents’ worth. Amtrak isn’t the greatest railroad to ever come down the pike, to be sure–I remember the delights of riding the Silver Meteor, the Crescent, and the Southern Belle, among others, when a railroad like the Seaboard could still advertise itself as “the Route of Courteous Service” without fear of contradiction or satire. Nevertheless, Amtrak has, I believe, done the best it could on the starvation funding meted out by Uncle Sam these thirty-two years.
Why no Congress or President in this period has had the political will to make passenger trains an integral part of our national transportation system–I mean out here beyond the Northeast Corridor–is something I just can’t understand. Trains are much more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than airplanes; they can serve smaller communities more effectively than airlines in many cases; they offer an alternative means of travel in case of disaster (remember 9/11?); increased train travel would relieve clogged airports and highways; a revived train industry would create jobs; and for short- and medium-length journeys, trains are simply the most comfortable way to go if you don’t or can’t drive yourself.
I suppose govenment hesitates to fully fund Amtrak because the politicos assume it would mean “new taxes,” although the truth is, every airline ticket and every bus ticket in this country is already subsidized by plenty of tax dollars. (Who pays for air traffic control? Airport terminals? Highways and bridges and traffic signals? Not the plane and bus companies, not nearly–Your Tax Dollars At Work.) I don’t see a logical objection to subsidizing, directly or indirectly, another major form of transportation that would provide so many benefits to the environment, the economy, and the traveling public. But for whatever reasons–and who knows what they might be?–Uncle Sam never has had the will to revive train travel and give this country a first-class passenger rail system.
I believe Amtrak should be given 1/2 cent of the Federal excise tax on gasoline, or should have some other dependable funding mechanism. As things stand now, they cannot even set up a budget for the next fiscal year with any degree of confidence. As others have pointed out, all other modes of transport are subsidized by our tax dollars. I would ride Amtrak more often if trains went where I need to go with a reasonable schedule frequency.
I do not personally feel that forcing the railroads to take back passenger would result in better service. I agree with the one respondent would said that they would simply “put up a fuss.” I also do not think that it should be left to the free market either. Free market control of railways was what brought us here in the first place.
I believe the answer lies in a change of ideology. Here in Canada where I live, and also in many European nations, passenger railroads are run and funded by the government. Canada has VIA Rail which is a federally owned crown-corporation (an entity that runs like a business but is answerable to the government directly). This arrangement seems to be working quite well as VIA has recently purchased a new fleet of Genesis locomotives, some British-built “Renaissance” passenger cars and has even introduced a new tourist train route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Sydney on Cape Breton Island. In France, the TGV is run at an incredible loss but the government feels that the economic benefits of having that service - benefits that are not easily quantifiable - far outweigh the financial cost of the service.
This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.
Government service trains: the worst of everything. I know you mean well, but the thing is I wouldn’t want the government to control anything, much less trains. Amtrak is already completely funded by the government. How many billions of dollars was Amtrak asking from Congress this time?
I don’t know what the magic solution is to keeping US passenger trains running, profitable, and enjoyable, but I do know that government intervention is not the answer. Amtrak was a government entity in 1971 to bail out the railroads that didn’t want to run passenger train anymore.
Governments in other countries of the world fund some or most projects 100%. Bully for them, but that’s not how the USA works. We’re not other countries. What is needed is some financial business wizard to be on the Amtrak team to figure out how to make it profitable again and how to make the trains run on time. I’ve suggested in another forum that Amtrak should look for sponsors to slap their logos on the outside (and inside) of trains just like NASCAR does. That sport wouldn’t survive without corporate sponsorship.
Maybe what we need is a wake up call. When the USA looses all of it’s long distance trains someday maybe that will make people realize how much we need them. Just how badly do we need passenger trains? That’s a rhetorical question for everyone to think about. I’m not in favor of killing off passenger trains, but it’s time to think outside the box because the government is NOT t
Here’s my opinion on Amtrak frivilous waste of money: They can’t get themselves in the red but they can repaint an amfleet car in four differen tschemes within a period of ten years. If they could just stop worrying so much about their image and focus on service, mabye they’d actually turn a profit.
I know I’m putting a fantasy idea out here, and it would be the most expensive idea for Amtrak, but would give some relief. Amtrak’s on time departures and arrivals would greatly increase if it had its own tracks for long distance runs. Yes, laying their own tracks. Amtrak’s long distance runs are one of its main weakest points. The freight roads delay passenger trains, and sometimes Amtrak shot themselves in the foot by not providing enough power for its own train. Years ago, train #4, LA - CHI Southwest Chief, would stall on Raton Pass because it was underpowered. As the saying goes, “the late gets later.” The freight roads would scream if forced to retake passenger service. If fantasy could come true, Amtrak should lay their own tracks.
I believe that the end of amtrak would bring the end to all long distance rail service in the u.s. The passenger train has been a losing proposition since the airline/automobile boom after ww2. All that would remain is the short quick routes such as the n.e. corridor. Amtrak has done some wonderful things, but until the average person is physically removed from his/her automobile it will be a losing proposition.
and for those who call amtrak ‘‘RAILROAD WELFARE’’ remember back in those troubled days, the ICC would NOT let the railroads run their own business and did not allow them to cut the UNPROFITABLE routes. Yet on may 1st 1971 amtrak cut all those same runs and kept the money makers. amtrak needs a unique quality not found anywhere else…such as game cars, perhaps in the lounge cars, where people can play arcade games, and so on. those are long boring trips for most and PEOPLE LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED plus it would generate more revenue.
faster schedules with quicker stops are a must because time is the biggest issue. its just more hours than most want to spend traveling. i think adding auto carriers to long east west routes is essential as well, such as the auto train. vacationers need a car upon arrivals at vacation destinations. heck, they are already hauling freight so why not. people drive to destinations to have mobility, give it to them.
Should we FORCE cadillac to make buggies for horses because they did it at one time and a small amish population that actually uses them in this day and age still wants them?
For us to be funding long haul passenger travel today is a joke, it is a form of travel that has outlived it’s mass need and usefulness by 40-50 years. It is as costly or more costly thatn air travel, goes to far fewr locations and by circutous routes, times are widely variable, service is substandard and the time needed to get from point a to point b is not acceptable in todays reality.
The only people that take it on a wide scale are train buffs, people with time to get where they are going and want to make the train trip part of the vacation, those afraid to fly and those with the time and curiousity to try it vs flying.
People do not have the time to waste traveling by train vs going air point to point. To go from Denver to Kansas City, one needs to go to Omaha and then bus to KC, I can get to KC by air in an hour and a half…5 hrs including my time to and from airports, and security time. To go to less “major” cities, I cannot even get close by rail or have to travel so far out of my way it is a joke. So rail offers no service, time or other incentive to switch from air, why else would people go by train…Price?..sorry in most cases rail cost close to the same and in many cases more.
I’d gladly rife and enjoy a premium train through beautiful scenery like the American Orient express type offerings but to use long distance rail as a means of travel on a semi regular basis forget it. We are wasting money keeping this corpse going, lets end it.
And don’t give m the tired old false arguements that if it was promoted people would use it, and that RR’s did everything they could to kill it in the 50’s and sixties and thus everyone left the passenger train. The fact is the ICC forced the rr’s to run passenger long past the PUBLIC decided a better mode had come along