Since all thye republicans are jmping on the anti-HSR abandonment Bandwagon, why dont private railroads like Wheeling Lake Erie, CSX, and CP take up the tasks. with the recent TSA stuff happening, they might make a profit. Amtrak set their record year in revenue and rideership this year.
CSX and CP arent private.
Well I guess i mean to say non-government controlled companies.
The won’t make a profit. There just isn’t any money in it. Hasn’t been for nearly a century. Amtrak only recovers about 50 cents for every dollar they spend. The NEC covers it’s operating costs, but doesn’t make enough to support the capital investment needed (e.g. the trains don’t generate enough profit to purchase new rail, ties, coaches, etc. when the existing stuff wears out). The other routes are worse off. The worst are the long distance routes. An operator other than Amtrak might find ways to run these trains more efficiently, but the gap is so big it’s not likely they could ever be self sustaining.
There is nothing stopping states from spending their own money on intercity passenger service, and, in fact, some are. VA, NC, WA, IL and CA come to mind right away.
It seems that Sen. Mica, the likely head of the Senate committee over transportation next year is of a mind that the Federal gov’t has a role in providing capital, but should stay clear of investing where long term operating subsidies are required. He believes the Fed should invest more in the NEC, for example, and less in other places. In his view, you could wind up with private operators who would bid for the rights to operate a HSR line once the government built it.
You can argue for or against the fairness of this point of view, but it does seem to be practical and pragmatic.
If demand increases to the point where a private sector company can make a profit on passenger rail, they will enter the business. I would guess that the recent TSA fiasco will certainly drive people away from air travel. But I suspect that most of those people will substitute driving for flying rather than turning to rail as an alternative.
all you need to do to accomplish this is:
A.Invest wisely enough to become as wealthy as Warren Buffet.
B.Purchase one or more of the railroads you mentioned.
C.Start passenger service.
All kidding aside, Passenger trains are not money makers, even with the record ridership Amtrak has experienced lately. There are exceptions such as the Northeast Corridor, but the Freight railroad industry had sound reasons to get out of the passenger business…
There was a proposal a few years ago (by the now deceased President of the New York, Susquehanna & Western, IIRC) that the Class 1 RR’s could take over the long distance trains from Amtrak, but he stated that they could only do this if they received the same subsidy (i.e amount of Taxpayer’s money) as Amtrak does (and I never read of any Class 1 execs lending support to the idea)…
Senator Mica…?? Is there more than one congressmen of that name…Believe he is in the House of Rep. {represents an area of Fl.}
Mea culpa. You are correct. He’s in line to replace Rep. Oberstar.
There IS a model for making money hauling passengers. It’s tourist trains. Rocky Mountaineer, Durango and Silverton, Alaska RR, WP&Y, Strassburg RR and until recently, the Colorado Ski train and the American Orient Express.
But, check their fares per passenger mile against Amtrak or VIA!
And maybe the Auto-Train. That comment and list is pretty much just as John Kneiling said in one of his “Professional Iconoclast” columns in Trains back in the late 1960’s - early 1970’s time frame.
- Paul north.
You do see tourist rail but they only freight rail that has a passenger service like Amtrak or Metra is Great lakes Central and Ontario Northern.
Paul: you are correct about Auto Train. It would make money if Amtrak could assign enough equipment to the operation. Several impediments are still in the way.
1. The replacement auto carriers were built for 70 MPH running which CSX now limits in their employee timetables.
2. The auto carriers are being rebuilt for 90 MPH running with provision for ECP braking being contemplated. That will allow the present 79 MPH CSX passenger limits to be used if CSX co-operates. That will allow an one hour reduction in travel time. At present freight train type braking is used due to length of train ( OVER 1800? FT)
3. At present almost 2/3 of all south bounds arrive Sanford over one hour early. North bounds mainly arrive close to schedule. Once the 3 - 4 new cross overs under ARRA are installed north of Selma, NC - Petersburg then maybe those north bounds will arrive earlier.
5. Along with the freight train braking CSX limits the Auto Train length to 50 cars total otherwise longer trains have to be split into passenger and auto carrier trains.
6. However Superliner trains over about 18 - 20 cars ( depending on number of diners ) have a HEP cord limit ( 4 -4 cord 4O wires) that would require a HEP source at the end of the passenger consist to split HEP requirements.
7. But again to achieve these lengths requires more equipment (both Super liners and Auto carriers) that is not now available.
8. My suspicion after I checked out the new Sanford terminal (
No regularly scheduled passenger RR (and I don’t mean tourist roads) in the world operates without governmental subsidy of some kind. Subways, trolleys, light rail, commuter rail, medium distance heavy rail, long distance rail, and High Speed Rail all get some form of subsidy. Some get it only for capital expenditures most for capital and operating costs.
The commuter line across the Delaware in Philly once called the Lindenwold Line ran a slight profit when it opened but only for its operating costs. Capital costs were not included in this calculation. And as equipment wore out operating costs increased too.
Why do you think any new move by anyone, let alone the freight lines, would overcome this reality?
Jack
You create a majority of opinion agreeing to your proposal. You change your proposal into legislation. You get your legislation passed. You require private railroads to provide passenger service. If it is profitable for the provider is immaterial.
Call it utility regulation in the public interest. If you had done this with a gun, you would be in trouble. As it is, the carrier gets in trouble.
The money losing service threatens all service. The private carrier’s condition deteriorates to the point of collapse. Service period will require a massive influx of public money, or freeing the carrier from providing unprofitable services.
Public balks at the cost of all service, but grudgingly provides taxes to support skeletal passenger service. Free from burdensome regulation, the private railroad recovers.
Fuel goes up and the public yearns for more passenger rail service. The railroads have money and…
Repeat process?
Not to be too contradictory here, but: In the 1960’s - 1970’s time frame, one of the Class I railroad’s Chicago-area commuter service supposedly operated at a profit - I’m recalling C&NW, but it may have been IC instead. I’ll concede that I don’t have any details on that, and it may have been just on the ‘out-of-pocket’ operating costs, or PR hype and ‘spin’, a popular myth, urban legend, even an out-and-out distortion based on a ‘one-time-only’ set of fortunate circumstances, etc. But as Lincoln or Twain suppsoedly once said about a dog walking only on its hind legs - “It’s not that it’s done well - which it isn’t - but that it’s done at all”. [swg] Kind of like today’s “Pigs might be able to fly, if only they had wings”.
- Paul North.
Example: Rocky Mountaineer, Vancouver to Whistler round trip costs $1.46/mile
Amtrak Crescent, Atlanta to Charlotte round trip costs $0.27/mile
Try Telling th
You are correct it was the CNW. they were the last to jump on the RTA bandwagon
[quote user=“Mr. Railman”]
oltmannd:
Mr. Railman:
Since all thye republicans are jmping on the anti-HSR abandonment Bandwagon, why dont private railroads like Wheeling Lake Erie, CSX, and CP take up the tasks. with the recent TSA stuff happening, they might make a profit. Amtrak set their record year in revenue and rideership this year.
The won’t make a profit. There just isn’t any money in it. Hasn’t been for nearly a century. Amtrak only recovers about 50 cents for every dollar they spend. The NEC covers it’s operating costs, but doesn’t make enough to support the capital investment needed (e.g. the trains don’t generate enough profit to purchase new rail, ties, coaches, etc. when the existing stuff wears out). The other routes are worse off. The worst are the long distance routes. An operator other than Amtrak might find ways to run these trains more efficiently, but the gap is so big it’s not likely they could ever be self sustaining.
There is nothing stopping states from spending their own money on intercity passenger service, and, in fact, some are. VA, NC, WA, IL and CA come to mind right away.
It seems that Sen. Mica, the likely head of the Senate committee over transportation next year is of a mind that the Federal gov’t has a role in providing capital, but should stay clear of investing where long term operating subsidies are required. He believes the Fed should invest more in the NEC, for example, and less in other places. In his view, you could wind up with private operators who would bid for the rights to operate a HSR line once the government built it.
You can argue for or against the fairness of this point o