Amtrak travellers frequently complain about Amtrak’s poor track record for on time arrivals. Of course one has to exspect this from a line that has virtually no track mileage of their own. Since it is a government pet project, I think that if old Uncle Sam really wants to keep passenger trains from becoming more than tourist attractions, then the government would set aside tax money to build lines or buy lines for Amtrak.
Please remember that the railroads “joined” Amtrak in '71 to be relieved of their passenger losses. A condition of their joining and being relieved of said losses was to operate the trains responsibly. Just because this aspect hasn’t been enforced well lo these many years doesn’t relieve the railroads from their fiduciary responsibility in the matter, trackage rights not withstanding. A railroad that didn’t join Amtrak had to continue their passenger service until termination was permitted by the regulatory bodies.
My position is Amtrak should just hand the trains back over to the individual carriers once more and have a commission appointed to oversee the proper execution of the service.
The railroads can be given a subsidy in the amount of what an RPO contract would be in today’s dollars and go from there.
Mitch
Amtrak only runs one long distance train per day on routes outside of the northeast corridor. Amtrak owning it’s own track for just one train a day is not feasible. The first question is where Amtrak would get the money to buy it’s own tracks. Then there’s the other questions: What track would they buy? Anything that the freight railroads would be willing to sell is not going to be a mainline with the track in passenger train condition. Would Amtrak own and dispatch the line “renting” extra capicity to the freight railroads?
I just can’t see this happening.
CC
I agree with Mitch. It would be cheaper for the nation’s taxpayers to subsidize passenger operations via the Class I’s than it is to pour money into the current Amtrak setup.
I’m thinking about this more and more. No additional officers or executive, railroads get pride of onership and stake their service reputations. Depots that are now “freight only” but still a source of pride to communities could go back to being what they’re supposed to be and eliminate the bus stop shelters. Crews could be better rationalized as they would also be available for freight, etc. et al. All that would be needed was a nationwide reservation system on line, and an organization that could take care of the diners and sleepers like PULLMAN did.
Could someone weigh in if this could be cost effective?
Mitch
I like artmark’s idea best as far as the many ideas tossed about relating to passenger train service.
I thought I’d never say it but I’m getting tired of subsidizing Amtrak. I think they should sell off the Northeast Corridor or let Amtrak run it without government involvement. Also stop all long distant trains. If the train can’t make money then remove it. Forget about long distant trains, they’ll never make money. People take their cars for short to medium distances. Airlines for the longer trips.
One of the key tipping points to preceed the formation of AMTRAK in the early 1960/ 1970’s was the cancellation of railroad mail contracts for RPO services [ in fact a gov’t operational subsidy]. Without those mail contracts and certain accounting methods practiced by the railroads [ ie. the lines were paid and maintained by the passenger transportation] with the freight operations being relieved of that burden, in effect, they became the gravy… Thus the railroads were out of the passenger business, the headache went to somebody else. It has been the lack of enforcement by preceeding Amtrak administrations to hold the RR’s to their operating agreement in '71, to support Amtrak operations cooperatively that has been the cause of poor Amtrak preformance.
T
If you have been listening to any of the words coming from the administration over the past 5 years you must know they they want their pet put to sleep.
Baltacd has hit it on the sweet spot! Ponder this,(see reactions to the Gunn firing) If the railroads had to shoulder their share of Amtrak’s costs as Owners/ Co-owners, then there wouldn’t be any advantage for the railroads in doing what they (well some of them) do to Amtrak. As an industry/ government partnership Amtrak MIGHT be taken off most subsidies. The Taxes the “big six”(KCS has no Amtrak trains on it’s tracks to my knowledge), and smaller carriers pay would be invested in Amtrak, instead of going into general funds. There would be greater industry involvement in Amtrak, which is badly needed in my opinion,and the “welfare” aspect is removed. The majors do not need the protection they and their 1970’s predecessors needed from Passenger train losses. Then the carriers could run Amtrak with as many “votes” as they would be entitled to, as shareholders or partners, based upon their investment in the enterprise. The government and states that own trackage Amtrak uses would not have the political heat on them since, they would not be a majority owner of the “new Amtrak”! I’d love to think that this would be taken seriously, but Pols want their turf all to themselves! No “outsiders” need apply is an inside the beltway way of doing business. There it is. What d
Amtrak should end.
Mac
Amtrak was concieved by Congress to be a failure. Congress has been confounded that for 34 years their failure has continued to live despite their best efforts to give it no more that Intensive Care unit medicine and minimal IV injections of funds so they can’t be accused of pulling the plug on the heart/lung machine and removing the feeding tube. Cowards.
Yow! That would be HUGE $$ to aquire and HUGE $$ to maintain.
If all you’re trying to do is run 1950s style streamliners at 79 mph, once or twice a day, how in the world would you justify the cost? You wouldn’t be doing anything new. You’d just be doing what you’re already doing a bit better. Billions for “just a bit better?” Do you think that the typical Amtrak rider is very sensitive to on time performance? I’ll be they’d rather be 2 hours late from Chicago to Denver in a smooth riding, clean coach, than on time in a coach with flat wheels and a smelly bathroom.
Unless you’re proposing >120 mph service, the existing routes work just fine.
I would like to see Amtrak continue. Given the subsidies of the other modes of tranportation, the cost to keep Amtrak running does not seem prohibitive. I, also, think that in the near future we’ll need it. As the population density continues to rise in this country, parts other than the NE corrridor will have a high demand for passenger trains. While the gas price scare of Septembe/October is fading, it’s only a matter of when, not if, gas prices permanently pass $3/gal and head on up.
Enjoy
Paul
thats not a bad idea. never thought of that. sounds good to me
But that ignores the possible wider benefits. As I pointed out on another thred, unprofitable does not necessarily mean uneconomic. Just to recap briefly, the wider economic benefits may mean that something the private sector could not do profitably would still be beneficial with a limited amount of subsidy. Then there are other issues such as social inclusion, greater mobility etc.
I think you have all gone bonkers. There are (or were prior to Gunn’s dismissal) Amtrak employees who had pride in their work, who went out of their way to help passengers, and who tried to make a multiple train trip as seemless as possible.
If your ideas were implemented:
One railroad of the four, BNSF would show some pride in passenger service because it has a heritage of good service on the lines that make up the present operation. One might expect a new Super Chief and and Empre Builder to be a living advertizement and public relations effort for that railroad.
At the other extreme, you can expect CSX’s management to take its Federal money and decide how to provide the service as cheaply as possible and with as little interference with freight operatons as possible, and the results would be very similar to what we experienced in Penn Central days. The UP might possibly be closer to the BNSF model but I would expect CN to not be any better than CSX and NS to be just a bit better.
Since the passenger trains would be run at the convenience of the freight trains, don’t expect any rational connections or through equipment.
Expect a finger pointing excersize at Union Passenger Stations, with no heat, no soap, and no toilet paper in the washrooms.
If Gunn had gotten the money he wanted and the cooperation he wanted he would have made Amtrak shine at least as well as VIA does with today’s Canadian.
HOWEVER
If freght railroads had an INCENTIVE to carry passengers in style, you could expect an improvement. But the money that would be required to be earmarked for such an incentive subsidy would probably be two or three times the annual Amtrak subsidy.
Wow - talk about a way to get a congressman’s attention! This is the plan Congress has been looking for - a way to pay out more money and benefit major corporations in the process. Why waste money on a pseudo-government operation when we can pour money into a corporation that will use the money to make more money - and pay better dividends to its stockholders! Who cares if it’s multiples more than what Amtrak is costing now? It’s a question of who benefits.
In all the Amtrak threads I start to get confused. Do we have posters that are pro passenger train, but anti-Amtrak, or pro-Amtrak folks that just want Amtrak as is, and do we have a legion of “Give the passenge trains back to the railroads and make 'em run 'em right?”
Remember Amtrak’s first two slogans, “Tracks are Back,” and “America’s First Nationwide Passenger Rail System.” The former implies that tracks had dissapeared at some point, and the latter implies at some point ther’ll be another nationwide system.
Mitch