First thing- All Forms of Transportation require some form of subsidy be it road(Fed and state highway funds) water (Army Corp of Enigineers Locks and Dams and Coast Guard) Air( FAA and local airports) Pipelines (right of way aquisition)
So be it do we write a check each year to CSX,NS,CN,CP,BNSF,UP and FEC to run passenger trains under a direct contract with the USDOT?
This as opposed to Writing a check to amtrak who then turns around a write a check to all the above mentioned for track rental?
Why not? Something has got to give! Gas is out the roof and going higher everyday. There is no transportation without government funding. Why not help the railroads upgrade their lines to accomodate freight and passengers? In these tough times, I know a lot of folks who would love to take the train and leave the gas guzzler in the garage. Not to mention the new jobs created to construct the line upgrades and run the trains.
This is called the “TrailerTrain model” or the “RailBox model” and it has been out there for years. The idea is simple: all Class I carriers hosting intercity passenger service get to own a piece and place one member on the board of a new company. Class 2’s regionals and shortlines hosting such service can place a member on the board, or in lieu, non participating members can, as a group, place a member. The balance is filled out by USDOT and AAR if needed. Chairman of the new company is on a 5 year term, selected from the executive ranks of host carriers.
The carriers make all the decisions regarding service levels, routes and operations. Operation and existing infrastructure improvement costs are offset by revenue and tax credits for specific projects. Balance of operational funding is provided via Congress as now, either by direct subsidy or by tax credits to the commpany and/or its participating owners.
New infrastructure funding is shared by the new company, and state and local governments where new facilities would be placed. Cost of new equipment is shared by all carriers and offset using tax credits or direct subsidy.
Employees are absorbed into participating local carriers’ workforces and protected against existing freight employees for passenger service only.
These are only the highlights. There is detailed info out there about this proposal, presented (and presumed dead) many years ago. The idea was to give the carriers a “piece of the action” so to speak, in operational terms, finances and decision-making. One of the requirements: service had to continue at or above current frequencies and service levels for at least the next 50 years.
i believe there is a problem with hours of service law. Isn’t freight RR’s operating crews limited in their monthly on duty times when in passenger service and the AMTRAK act did not have that problem. due to schedule consistency. Any CSX crews in DC know about this??
Don’t you think that if the Class 1’s, or any other rr, thought they could make money off of passenger traffic, they would have been all over it already ?
In other words, maybe, just maybe, they have a bit better picture of things then, say, us ? [;)]
Simply not going to happen. The carriers were not making money on this after the USPS pulled the mail off in '67, and they won’t make a profit now. We all know if the big boys could make money off this, they already would be doing it. Another part to consider if the class 1’s did return back to psgr business, chances are that these trains would be coach only w/no food or slpr car services along w/fewer stops. Also this would create a union nightmare in terms of crew districts. Would the pre Amtrak 1987 crew districts then be rule here? Example: currently it takes 6 condr crew changes and 7 eng crews to move 3&4 between CHI-LAX. If BNSF were running the show, the crews needed would increase to atleast 9 condr districts. ABQ is currently one of the crew bases for the SW Chief. They run west to Kingman. BNSF would not be able to do that because of a change of seniority districts @ Winslow. Another factor is there are now so many new hire freight condrs that have hired within the past decade (like myself) that they wouldn’t even know how to be in charge of a psgr train.I wouldn’t want it.
And I think this is the point! No, the railroads could not make money as it is now. That’s where the subsidies come in. Let’s face it. Government subsidies of one form or another make ALL transportation possible.
Railroads could make money in passenger service if 1- Railroads had room to carry freight and passenger (government help in building double lines, signal systems,) 2- If consistent service was available, and 3-If passenger service was necessary to the point that people in much of the country would have to use it for economic reasons.
I just filled my daughter’s car with gas. A little compact that gets really good mileage. It cost me $44 dollars. Folks, we are quickly approaching the point that mass transit isn’t a nice idea. It is becoming a necessity.
And everytime I see more lanes being built on interstates, I think about how new rail lines could be built, easing traffic and allowing me to sleep on the way to work!
And again, do you really think a RR wouldn’t love the chance to get their hands on a fat govt handout ?
Of course they’d love it. But they haven’t shown any interest in doing so.
Why should they ?
I.e., making money hand over fist in freight, coal, etc.
Keep doing that, and its not going away anytime soon at all, and at the same time, take on very iffy passenger service, that has always lost money in the past, with all the huge headaches and logistic nightmares, and massive Federal oversight, what with all the tax money suggested.
No brainer if I was CEO of Railroad X.
Problem with allowing any govt. to do something for you, is that you then allow that same govt. to do things to you.
Government already does things to the railroad without the whole hangup over operating passenger rail. That means state governments too. Are truckers, airlines and bus companies suffering because of having to “allow the government to do things to” them, as it were? Or have they been thriving due to that?
Passenger rail has not “always lost money in the past”. Nor did railroads have to give up freight in order to run passenger service, certainly not with the government building highways for the truckers and bus companies to take the freight and passenger business away from them, never mind giving free money away to airports (no, not from so-called “user fees”) until the 1970s.
The govt. oversight currently pales in comparison to the amount that would occur with the suggestions of this thread, and the only thing that kept passenger traffic going in the past was mail contracts. It certainly wasn’t passenger service.
So, again the question; if passenger service is such a good idea, why hasn’t a Class 1, or whoever, shown any interest in doing it ?
No problem with hours of service law. Same law applies to both Amtrak and frt roads. Unlike airlines, there are no monthly maximums. RR law is just 12 on and then 8 or 10 off.
Today’s Class I’s do not have sufficient physical plant to run a passenger system the way it needs to be run to be a viable entity, no matter the level of subsidy.
No Class ones will make money on passenger service… When Conrail and Erie-Laccawanna ran subsidiezed commuter trains they did a pee poor job of running the service…
However the Value of the Contract might be worth somethimng for the right price…
Pay CSX to run The Lake Shore and the Capital Limited with there own crews and Equipment?
Assuming the Class 1s could put a passenger dept back together after 30+ years of not having one… how would you provide an incentive for them to do a good job?
As I recall the former (now deceased) President of the NY,S,& W was an advocate of the “TTX” concept for passenger rail.
If this came to pass I think there might be a temptation by some in the industry to take the subsidy and then run the passenger trains as “second class citizens”. After all the freight shippers would still be their main customers. I’m unclear as to how this proposal would save the taxpayer money?
From a public relations standpoint, railroads would probably not do that. They would insist on getting enough subsidy to do the job right or they would be unwilling to do the job at all. Isn’t it somewhat amazing that so many passenger trains operators still maintainted high standards right up to 1 May 1970: