Where would we be without the Rail Passenger Service Act?

Trains Magazine Passenger
1

The political and social climate surrounding Amtrak that has been so rough for the past forty years is now beginning to change towards acceptance and optimism. But the shifting winds beg the question, what would happen without the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970? Would we even know passenger rail today with the exception of tourist and excursion lines? Things have changed so much since the midpoint of construction of the interstate system and the rising airline traffic. We have witnessed more in the past decade like the rise in security issues with airlines, as well as rising gas prices, congestion and environmental questions.

Would railroads be even less willing to share their ROW’s with developing higher-speed projects?

Another question is, would there be any difference between developing HSR in the U.S. with Amtrak in the picture now versus if Amtrak had never even existed?

2

Highly rhetorical…all answers conjecture, but, interesting. I wonder if Amtrak wasn’t crafted then if it would have been later and be even stronger since there would have been a chance that we would have seen how bad people travel could be, how costly it could be, how non responsive to people needs things would be, how much more devesating to the economy it would have been. Communities without rail service do not prosper as well as those which do have rail service. There is even proof that communities with no passenger rail service are not as well off as those that do. These facts apply universally and not just in the USA. The flip side of course, would be that moving people would have become so difficult, there might actually have been a railroad or two, while being overwhelmed with freight and unable to make money at it while the bigger guy next door took all his traffic, might have restorted to carrying people to pay his bills. Forget including politicians, especially Republican and Conservative free markerters, they wouldn’t understand.

3

Another postulation: would certain metropolitan commuter rail agencies realize the need to interconnect or the importance or possible income of becoming more regional with intermetropolitan services?

4

strictly conjecture: if the passenger train industry had been allowed to die off in the early 70s, most people today would have little or no knowledge of ‘taking the train’, and driving on even wider and busier interstates would be endured, but would be considered ‘normal’. quite probably the various NEC rail commuter systems would extend to interconnect with each other and the air lanes would be even more crowded there. the quick ‘buy ticket-hop on’ eastern air shuttle flights of the '60s would have been hugely popular without a rail alternative, but would have come to be a major hassle post 9/11. it is truly a shame that most americans only see the country from 30,000 ft. or from an interstate highway. it is also quite possible that greyhound and trailways would both be prosperous and have comfortable and ‘european’ style buses. remember, in the mid '60s there was a movement in congress to tear down union station in D.C. and replace it with a parking garage. (and probably a small commuter station). by now, most people would have long forgotten what a beautiful building it once was. (a la old penn station in new york)

5

Another conjecture – the ICC and some state PUC’s (like California’s) would have continued to force the railroads to fulfill their historical (and in some cases legal) responsibility as a regulated carrier, to carry passengers as well as freight. Some RR’s committed to providing quality passenger service (such as Santa Fe, Rio Grande, Southern) would have continued to do so with vigor.

And, maybe, as capitalist companies being forced to continue such services, they would have found ways of doing so with less losses, or even a profit. And passenger rail might again be thriving in the US, under private ownership!

Yes, yes, I know – that has not happened anywhere else. But neither did the (highly-subsidized)growth of air travel – nearly everywhere outside of the US, early air service was government owned, only recently being privatised. Only here has the passenger air industry grown up totally on a commercial basis.

This might have happened, even though they may have generated some losses for some time. It seems to me that with technological advances, rationalization of labor laws, some liberalisation of regulation – and a commitment to providing fast, efficient, friendly service, as opposed to pushing customers away, as the SP did – some RR’s might have been able to make it happen.

Also, don’t forget that there have always been – and always will be – a percentage of the populace that will not or cannot fly or drive. As the overall population grows, so does the absolute number represented by that percentage. And as flying lost its mystique, and became more like an airborne bus, more people might have gone back to the “good old” train. Yes, PSA and Southwest revolutionized air travel, but there are still significant business-class and first-class services available.

And maybe, rail services to smaller communities might have been subsidized as “essential”, just as their is subsidised commercial air se

6

I seriously doubt that intercity passenger service would have lasted much longer as a private operation if the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1971 was not passed. Consider that the Santa Fe’s passenger service just prior to Amtrak had an operating ration of around 200% and most of the other roads had passenger operating ratios of 150-180%. Turning that much red ink into black ink was not realistic under any circumstance and the ICC was also starting to become more willing to allow discontinuances after the Penn Central bankruptcy. Liberalization of labor laws and work rules was probably equally unrealistic at the time. Hosmer’s prediction of an end to intercity passenger service by 1975 would have probably come true.

7

[quote user=“CSSHEGEWISCH”]

… Consider that the Santa Fe’s passenger service just prior to Amtrak had an operating ration of around 200% and most of the other roads had passenger operating ratios of 150-180%…

So let’s add another what if at this point…what if they did have to stay in the passenger business, and what if they decided to market and charge for the services. They have found that to be true of freight…businesses will pay a premium or at least a fair price for the service they want, why couldn’t passengers be sold the same way? Part of the thinking is that if they are business people making the decision they would also think the same about hauling themselves with the same rationale. The major problems Americans face is the fact that government has shielded them from real costs in transportation by first taking over turnpikes and canals, then by forcing railroads into charging only what the governments wanted them to charge. The worst case was New York City and the State of New York not allowing private transit companies to raise the nickle fare from its pre 1910 inception…it was, what, about 1949 or 50 before the nickle fare was abandoned and by then the transit system was owned and operated by the City. Farmer’s had the Grange keeping thier rates down until the ICC came along and then the ICC protected truckers from railroad rates.

8

The carriers would have continued to pull trains off and would have exited the business shortly. Something very much resembling Amtrak would have taken over the Northeast Corridor in the wake of the Penn Central bankruptcy.

Today’s freigh carriers would be blissfully free of Amtrak and all would be much better than it is.

Mac

9

The problem was Penn Central. They had by far, the most passenger trains operating at the time of Amtrak’s creation. They would have needed relief one way or another. Interestingly, even the creation of Amtrak didn’t fully solve the passenger train problem for Amtrak. It took two more doses of medicine. One was the direct ownership of the NEC by Amtrak in 1976 and the other was the complete relief of any operating responsibility for Amtrak or commuter train operation in 1980.

So, I’d guess that without Amtrak, the NEC would still have been sold off, probably to the state commuter operating authorities and there could have been some continued Federal support for through service on the route - a continuation of the Metroliner/TurboTrain project.

PC would have needed to be relieved of all the LD trains they operated, so those probably would have been gone by the mid 1970s, with other road that were itching for train-offs quickly following, particularly if they could show they were susceptible to PC railroad rot disease.

I did read in “Leaders Count” that BN would have kept the Empire Builder going - pretty much for pride - had Amtrak came along. Perhaps the ATSF would have kept the Super Chief. Could these have morphed into “tourist trains”? SCL wasn’t doing too badly with the NY-Florida trains, and AutoTrain was perking along. Perhaps they might have hung in there.

One thing that wouldn’t have occurred would be the purchase of new equipment. The railroads were having trouble just covering the year-to-year capital requirements and there wasn’t much room for any “extras” that had a negative, or very, very low ROI. We’d still be riding in old Budd equipment on whatever trains were left.

Amtrak really isn’t a huge burden on the frt RRs, despite what UP used to say. It has become more and more difficult to get the Amtrak trains over the road as operations have changed over the years, but I don’t know

10

Be careful, Oltman, about running passenger trains for pride…Claytor did that with the Southern Crescent and he still handed it over to Amtrak. Pride is not enough to fill the bottom line the way stockholders want to see it. But I still wonder that if Amtrak was not created if there would have been another dynamic which would have helped run passenger trains. Of course, it is easy conjecture to say that without passenger trains highways would be more crowded and airplanes, too. But it is really difficult to gather in all the scenerios and sub scenerios, what ifs and what if nots…it is actually a dreamers world. The reality is that Amtrak was formed in a half hearted show of supporting passenger rail and a whole hearted attempt to relieve private business railroads from having to pay for the privilige of running passenger trains.

11

Henry,

Oh contrare your last statement “. . . a whole hearted attempt to relieve private business railroads from having to pay for the privilige of running passenger trains.”

The freight carriers are still “paying for the privilge” through noncompensatory payments for the use of their railroads by Amtrak. If Amtrak paid like a freight train that would be fair. As it is Amtrak is a hidden tax on the rail industry.

The reason the carriers are not complaining is that the arguement is too obscure for the majority in congress and the carriers have far bigger fish to fry with their limited political capital.

Mac

12

That’s why the effort is half hearted to keep rail passenger service. But there is more track mileage not carrying passenger traffic, more loopholes and and rules so that freight railroads don’t have to run passenger trains nor has to just let Amtrak run a train. Freight railroads are getting paid to run trains…it is just on their terms and not Amtrak’s. What? do you think Amtrak just says it’s gonna run a passenger train the the private railroads have to roll over and play dead? They charge Amtrak, and charge dearly, to allow Amtrak to run on their tracks. Where they pay is when they don’t do it right.

13

Henry,

The railroads are prohibited by law from charging ATK “dearly” for the use of their capacity. BY LAW they can charge only the marginal cost of the passenger train.

Think of it this way. You bought a house and raised a family. You have a four bedroom house because that is what you decided you needed. Now it is just you and your wife. The government comes in and says since you used to have kids you have to rent to someone with kids, but you can only charge them the marginal cost that you incur.

What is your marginal cost? A proration of the mortgage? No, you already have to pay it regardless of whether your unwanted tenant is there or not. How about utilities? Only if you can prove how much of each the tenant uses! Market rent? Oh no, marginal cost, not the value of the service in the market.

Oh by the way they have first rights to the kitchen, you can use it when they do not want it. Then to add insult to injury their freinds come over and complain that your grass is not properly cut and trimed!

The freight carriers would be far, far better off if Amtrak joined the stagecoach and the clipper ship in that great transportation museum in the sky.

Mac

14

Yes, they charge “by law” and then hold up Amtrak for performance “incentives” and “bonuses” so that a passenger train can go one more block before being shunted into a siding for a respite. Do you give your waiter/waitress performance incentives to bring you your soup or salad or entree faster than the next table’s? Or do you pay the supermarket a bonus if they take your cart full of groceries ahead of five others in line? No, Amtrak pays dearly for the ability of running as close to on time as possible.

15

Henry,

The bonuses and incentives are simply a way for ATK to pay less when something goes haywire or heaven forbid actually chooses to serve a paying customer as opposed to the freeloader.

I notice you did not respond to the forced rent of you house analogy.

Mac

16

I missed the mortgage analagy but reading it I don’t agree with what you say. I also dissagree with your final statemtn about freight carriers being better off without Amtrak. I think the opposite. I think that if freight railroads were smart they would usea passenger train’s schedule from which they would have to run their trains…forcing a freight into making it through the next block or to terminal; to be someplace at a particular time; to give crews a sense of pride, a sense of accomplishiment of not just making another trip and get paid but of doing with pride of having made it on time satisfying not the railroad’s but the customers who actually pay their wages. And compareing Amtrak to stagecoaches and clipper ships is another attitiude problem Amtrak and any passenger service faces in this country, too. It is actually a regressive attitude.

17

Henry,

To the extent the freight carriers pay attention to the bonuses the real world practical effect is to delay freight trains since the individual dispatcher’s incentive is to avoid the black mark on his record caused by a decision to advance a freight against a passenger train in a situation that carries ANY risk of delay to the passenger train.

How is my forced low rate rent of a bedroom in your house incorrect? I will be happy to move into your house on these “Amtrak” terms, marginal rent and rent my own place out at market rent.

Mac

18

You must be new around here. Passenger trains are inherently good, and anything done to interfere with them – not fund them, not give them priority and let freight traffic park on a siding, compare them to stage coaches (or clipper ships! The remark about clipper ships is incitement to a good scolding) – all of those things are intrinsically bad.

As it has been said by others around here, you get what you pay for. Amtrak pays some marginal rate for the use of the tracks, and Amtrak sits on sidings. Amtrak incurs the cost of owning the railroad (NEC), and Amtrak offers frequent, on-time service.

There is another angle on this, that of “slots.” It has been said by some defenders of the freight railroads that Amtrak’s time-keeping problems on long-distance trains are of their own making. The host railroad allocates a “slot” where the passenger train is free to run fast free of freights. If Amtrak misses that slot, owing to maintenance problems, lack of a crew, whatever, then Amtrak gets to lump along with the general flow of freight traffic.

Don Oltmann, you once told us you were going to explain this “slots” thing, what it means to Amtrak and to freight operations, what is means to capacity of a freight line, what are the limits on the capacity of a freight line to host passenger tr

19

Henry: Claytor did turn over the Southern Crescent but someone else alluded to the real proble they did. It was equipment plain and simple that was worn out.

1. SOU was running charter and extra sections up to that time but the back up equipment was all heavyweight equipment with friction bearings and AMTRAK did not want them in interchange service. So that charter service was limited to all SOU routings.

2. The light weight equipment that SOU had was mostly Pullman Standard equipment and the rusting out problem of that equipment is well known.

3. SOU had 16 steam generator Es that were needed to cover the daily Wash - ATL and Tri weekly ATL - NOL. Some F units were kept as back up as well. Ran the trains with 4 units to preserve reliability.

4. AMTRAK did not like keeping a few E-60s for Crescent WASH - NYP with steam generators as AMTRAK equipment was rapidly going to HEP. I believe they had 4 E-60 so equipped at the end of SOU service.

5. Although SOU did give some equipment to AMTRAK the equipment was quickly sidelined.

20

Bluestreak, you’re proving my point that pride is a lot but does not carry alway carry to the bottom line!