Sale the Amtrak Northeast Corridor ?

[conrailman]

I would to see Amtrak sale to Corridor to the States or Comm Railroad like NJ Transit and Metro North Railroad. Why Corridor is a Black Hole for Amtrak Spending Millions and Millions to Maintain give it to the States. Amtrak just Runs 130 Trains a day on Northeast Corridor, Where Comm Railroad has 1200 Trains a day. Amtrak could save that moneyfor Long-Distance Routes and more new Cars too?[?]

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by conrailman

I would to see Amtrak sale to Corridor to the States or Comm Railroad like NJ Transit and Metro North Railroad. Why Corridor is a Black Hole for Amtrak Spending Millions and Millions to Maintain give it to the States. Amtrak just Runs 130 Trains a day on Northeast Corridor, Where Comm Railroad has 1200 Trains a day. Amtrak could save that moneyfor Long-Distance Routes and more new Cars too?[?]

that would solve nothing but make amtrak later then it already is as well as get ride of the only real money maker amtrak has...the corridor is the only real money maker amtrak has..with the express train services to and from NYcity the long hall runs is where amtrak is bleeding money....ridership on the long hall trains is down... amtrak needs to find away to boost ridership to get more cash..better ontime performace would be a help too...not selling rails...
csx engineer

[Junctionfan]

How much money are they charged per kilo watt?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the proposal to kill off passenger service to my area completely. There's a reason why the company you propose to buy the routes, Metro-North calls itself a commuter railroad. It's to carry the most people in the quickest time to their jobs and back home at the end of the day. Sure commuter lines may run 1300 trains a day. Short distance, local trains carrying packed cars. Twice daily. If the numbers game means anything, maybe the Yellow Cab Company should buy Amtrak. NYC taxi cabs probably make 100s of thousands of trips a day.

Precious few commuters are making the daily trip from the Northern Adirondacks to NYC and if Metro-North would ever consider your suggestion, it would be to acquire trackage and a few key stations above Poughkeepsie, NY. The rest would be abandoned in a heartbeat. Certainly not much above Albany would survive. All this ignores the fact that rail service north of Dutchess County is outside the scope of Metro-North's charter.

I have strong doubts that the State of New York would pay Amtrak for the rights to subsidize a "Black Hole" as you call our route.

Let Amtrak buy the new cars you want at someone elses expense.

Wayne

[conrailman]

NO, I love Amtrak as much as you do Wayne. I am in No Way trying to Kill off Passenger of Amtrak. Will Need amtrak in U.S. more than ever. About 2 or 3 Years ago in Trains Mag they had thing on Amtrak Calling for the Northeast Corridor to be split into 2 companys, That what I mean to say. About the Black Hole the Northeast Corridor Needs 2-3 Billions in Major Work Tracks, Tunnels, and new Wire, Just like Trains Mag wrote for October about the Capital Programs for 2005. I didn't Mean to call your Route the Black Hole in that way. I just want Say the Corridor needs alot of Work.

Brian

[Junctionfan]

How much is their electric bill though? How much do they pay per kilo watt?

Maybe their profit drains stem from rising electric rates and since the NEC uses a lot of electricity, maybe it is to high and requires price freeze, I don't know. I would have to compare electric rates to other rates in both U.S and Canada before that could be determined.

[Anonymous]

give the NEC to the states and they'll make it a line of airports [:p]

I can't see Amtrak surviving much longer. then when its gone, the government will try to fix it by forcing states to have commuter lines because hightways and airports will get congested, more traffic accidents, etc.
And the day Amtrak is killed, lets all call the radio stations and have them play "City of New Orleans" at the same time nation wide!

[jeaton]

The ideas to break up the NEC to separate operating and infra-structure companies and other "plans" such as making the states that recieve service pay for any deficits, or getting any other entities to take over all or parts of Amtrak all are the dreams of the present federal administration.

I have looked far and wide, and I have not been able to find a rational basis for any of these ideas. I have no idea how the separate entities proposed for the NEC would change the financial needs of the corridor. To me, pushing some or all of the cost on the states does absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of funds required, and the added bureaucracy to manage such a program might actually increase the total cost to the taxpayers. As far as I am concerned "taxes is taxes". It doesn't make any diference who gets the check.

Another private entity taking over? How about a consortium of the world's magicians?
Who in their right mind would buy a business that is deeply in debt, needs an additional +/- $5 billion to get in good condition and likely won't ever make enough profit to pay off the debt.

More moneyt would be made keeping $5 billion in bank passbook savings accounts.

Jay

[jeaton]

THG-I don't think anything will happen before the November elections. When a poll shows that 70% of those polled favor a national rail passenger service, I don't think a shut down on the current administration's watch would be allowed. Next year?

[Anonymous]

I do get a bit defensive when I think something might stop the only train out of Dodge. [:)]
Amtrak and off-line communities need to create a reason for people to want to take the train to more outlying areas. The major thing that effectively prevents Amtrak from serving our neck of the woods is the lack of transportation to the mountain communities.

Example: An Amtrak ski package from NYC to Whiteface Mountain in Lake Placid would fail given the current lack of any form of public transportation from the train to our town. A cab ride would cost more than the entire trip from NY. Once in town, there are shuttle buses to hotels, the ski area, etc. But the 40 mile dead-zone from the Amtrak Station to town makes certain that to come here you either have to drive or spend a day on several Trailways busses.

Wayne

[gabe]

The contrast between social viewpoints here is priceless.

View #1: get it out of the Federal Government's hands to solve the problem.

View #2: have the federal government artifically control prices.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

I certainly don't want to reargue the numerous discussions I've seen here and elsewhere about this, but it would be hard to point to a transportation system in the US that doesn't exist partly due to subsidies in some form. I don't know of any that are on a pay-as-you-go program.

We know our roads aren't paid for completely by gasoline taxes and tolls, municipal airports and air traffic controllers aren't completely paid for by surcharges on tickets, city busses don't run solely on the quarters dropped in fare boxes. The simple act of driving a car down a public road is kept artifically low by government spending.

Transportation in all its various forms is vital to the economy, security and general well-being of the country. I don't think government subsidies for transportation is by definition a bad thing.

Wayne

[Junctionfan]

The best thing I can think of that can help Amtrak's financial problem is this.

1/ Sell advertising space on the locomotives and rollingstock to large and interested corporations who would be interested in the idea. Via does this already (Telus , Spider Man 2, CBC Broadcast F-40ph). GO Trains do it with their bi-level commuter cars too.

2/ Stop using as many engines on trains like the "maple leaf" (Toronto to New York) which only has 5 coach cars.

3/ I don't know if Amtrak does this or not but if they don't, try to get more people to book seats on the trains so you don't put anymore than necessary cars on the trains thus decreasing the amount of money they have to spend per axle.

4/ Offer better seating or classes and charge accordingly like VIA does ie (Comfort, Economy, VIA1)

5/ If possible, lease cars like the MHCs and roadrailers out for extra profit. If amtrak secures any large contract to move a decent amount of thease cars, than run it separate from the passengers as a required train.

6/ Try operating trains on schedules that will attract the optimum amount of passengers

7/ Market the hell out of the services-I don't see enough commercials or anything on Amtrak-not good business sense.

This is what the government could do

1/ Put a cap on fuel charges and electricity rates ( works good for other railroads too)

2/ Attempt to negotiate with railroads like U.P to find ways of getting better running rights on the lines to improve on-time scheduling and reduce late arrivals.

3/ Reduce taxes on stations and actuall Amtrak property and instead only collect taxes through food at the station, fares, bagage service or any special services that Amtrak has in its stations or trains.

4/ Government must actually come up with an envisioned strategy on where they see Amtrak in the future and invest accordingly. Amtrak is an important alternative to cars and in some case air travel and must be recognized by the government.

This what I see anyways, so this is my opinion right now unless anybody else has a better way of coming up with ways to increase Amtrak's revenue.

[Modelcar]

....Isn't the Auto-Train a money maker as well....? Trouble is, it now needs new capital equipment to continue good service.
Bottom line.....New funding....to purchase and repair equipment or it all goes down the tubes soon. In general Amtrak is not structured to be a money maker...It is a service and in some places such as the NEC really carries it's share of the traveling public and will really cause a problem if it's not there.

[gabe]

Wayne,

I am not--nor have not--disagreed with your position.

My only contention is that one of the above strain of posts indicated that the way to success was to pull the federal government further away from the operation. Yet another strain suggested that the way to success was to have the federal government expand its role further by artifically altering electrical prices.

I am not suggesting either approach is wrong or that government subsidy is a bad thing--nor am I suggesting it is a good thing. I am just noting the value of this forum in exposing differing view points and watching how they interact with one another.

However, I would point out that there are those who would disagree with you. For instance, if the government didn't subsidize highways, some would argue the market would guarantee that only the most efficient forms of transporation would be used and our economy would function more efficiently. Allowing the government to step in has allowed considerations such as interest groups, lobbying, and those who attempt to export their costs to the tax payer, etc. to allow less-efficient forms of transportation to supplant more efficient ones.

And, of course, there are those who would argue that your contention is the correct one, because the market does a poor job at looking after national and long-term interests. Lest not forget it was the Cold War that gave us the interstate highway system.

I am not expressing a preference for either position, as I don't feel the need to alter other's views at this point or on this subject. I am merely reveling in the open expression and competition of differing view points.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

You're right. Like most social & economic issues, transportation concerns won't have an either/or solution.

There are things that are far better performed by private industry as there are certain services that can only be performed by government with some degree of subsidies.

By way of example, I pont to the US Postal Service. One of the most democratic institutions, it provides a system of mail delivery to nearly every citizen on US soil. Over the years there have been attempts to privatize the system, with some inroads made by industry in the delivery of overnight, second -day air, etc. But the "monopoly" on first class mail still is held by the Postal Service and rightly so, in my opinion. The mandate of the Postal Service is to provide service to all, while the mandate of private industry is to make money for the investors. Delivering mail to far-flung, sparsely populated areas is not cost effective and the argument is made, and not strongly disputed by industry, that service to these area would be curtailed or eliminated. In other words, private industry would skim off the profitable areas leaving the areas that lose money to be served at government expense or, worse, writing rural folk off as not worthy of service.

A personal experience of mine is the computer part I had shipped overnight via Airborne Express. The delivery person, whether he even tried or not, could not find my house on the main highway in a village you could practically spit across. When I called their office, I was told that I'm in a limited service area and they would not be back in my town for several days which left me out of work or requiring me to drive to Vermont to their terminal.

This is my fear of private industry regaining control of our nation's rail passenger service. Efficient, profitable routes within urban areas and on high-traffic runs expanded, curtailment or abandonment of service to areas like mine.

Wayne

[Junctionfan]

Progress and money-making don't always go together unfortunately but it happens. The thing that one has to ask though in order to make a decision for the future is this; which is more important money or progress?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

The best thing I can think of that can help Amtrak's financial problem is this.

1/ Sell advertising space on the locomotives and rollingstock to large and interested corporations who would be interested in the idea. Via does this already (Telus , Spider Man 2, CBC Broadcast F-40ph). GO Trains do it with their bi-level commuter cars too.

[#ditto]

[Anonymous]

The reasons Amtrak spends so much money on the NEC are:

1. Its the only line that makes money with such a small budget.
2. Its the only major line they own.

[Junctionfan]

All other ideas a side of mine, since the NEC goes through some heavily populated areas like Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Hartford?, and Washington D.C; it would be the best thing for them to use advertising on the rollingstock. Amtrak would benefit with the engines too of course. The next thing is of course media advertising. Do you think that half the products would be sucessful without the proper and aggresive advertising ads of t.v and other forms. Unlike the railroad who caters to the large business which is not easily fooled by the ploys of advertising, Amtrak caters to the average person who can be easily swaded into the product by aggresive and psychological manipulative advertising gimics that work well.

Look at the Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola commercials, car commercials, Super-Bowl commercials, Movie theatre commercials and others. They all use some kind of message that appeals to the target groups with added appeals like music, voice, use of sex appeal, use of famous celebrities, use of appealing back drops etc. The idea is to make the consumer "have" to use your product and that it is the better product on the market. That is how Amtrak should lure people from their cars and buses and bring them to the train. It is all manipulation and the advertising companies have the skills to do it so Amtrak must use this.

People will not use your product if the service is lousy. You could have the best fares in the world but it won't matter if you are not happy with the service. People don't mind spending a lot of money as long as they think they are getting their money's worth. Look at some of thease cruise ships and hotel chains that cost a fortune. People are willing to spend a lot of money on that in principle because the service is outstanding and they are please with the end results and will come back in the future. It is important that you satisfy the customer because part of your marketing strategy comes from the customer's word of mouth. If he or she hates your product, than the customer bad mouths their experience and word travels and other people start talking...etc. This is good if what they say is positive so it can be used to Amtrak's advantage.

The government or private enterprise can throw money at it until they are blue in the face but it won't mean a damn thing if it is not marketed properly which is one of Amtrak's biggest weaknesses.

Andrew

[Anonymous]

No one would really buy it. That's been discussed before at Amtrak. There really isn't a profitable passenger rail service anywhere in the world. It's more like a gov't. provided service for mass transportation. CONEG (Coalition of Northeastern Govenors) have probably met more than once with Amtrak trying to get the states served by their trains to kick in funds to help reduce the level of Federal gov't. funding.

There was even talk years ago that Donald Trump was going to buy us, and, we'd be known as "The Trump Express". But, the Northeast Corridor needs massive funding to get everything from tracks, underground signal cables, overhead power (catenary) lines, etc., etc., back to a good state of repair. So, bottom line is, we're not really an attractive investment if you plan to make a profit.

[Paul3]

For starters, the east end of the NEC between the NY/CT state border and New Haven, CT is owned by the state of Conn. The stretch of NEC between the RI/MA border all the way to South Station is owned by the state of Mass.

So, really, some of what you said has already come true.

The result in Mass. is a great relationship (operationally) for Amtrak, but there are not nearly so many MBTA trains as there are M-N trains west of New Haven.

The result in Conn. is a rather poor relationship that results in delays for Amtrak, due to the number of trains and the "surliness" of M-N, as Amtrak trains are dispatched by M-N dispatchers.

In Mass., the dispatchers are Amtrak employees.

IMHO, breaking up the NEC into a bunch of different companies is completely ridiculous. If anything, it should be made to be one company covering all aspects (operations, MoW, dispatching, etc.), just like the New Haven and PRR days. Why? Because it works extremely well when everything is unified. J.P Morgan was right about that part, which is why he spent so much money buying up the Shore Line route (NEC) in the first place.

Back in NH days, no dispatcher would dare stab the "Merchants Limited" or the "Yankee Clipper" and let a commuter train go in front of it, but that happens everyday on M-N.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

Ahhhhh, so very true. Too bad the PRR didn't survive! We need "real" railroaders at the helm again!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is for Paul Cutler
I agree. Back in the Frederick (Buck) Dumaine jr's administration no New Haven dispatcher would dare allow local trains or commuter trains to stab the Merchants Limited, the Yankee Clipper, the Senator, or any of its New York - Boston trains.

What some are proposing here is a system similar to what they have in Great Britain when the British government privatized Britrail, and broke it up into an infrastructure company, equipment leasing companies, and numerous train operating companies. In fact, the Amtrak Reform Commission (remember them?) suggested something similar for the Northeast Corridor.

[jeaton]

Artmarx-I am in agreement that rather than Amtrak, some form of subsidy to the rail lines operating passenger trains AT THAT TIME might have been a better solution. Problem is, I don't think attitudes have changed very much. Then as now, the sense is that the railroad owners, i.e., shareholders, would benefit more than the general public. That seems to be a big stumbling block for current proposals/ideas for government subsidies for freight rail fixed plant expansion.

It might be out there, but I have never read anything that spelled out an in depth rational criteria for activities that should be eligible to receive government subsidies and those that should not. Of course I have read plenty of garbage that says that the government should stick to the national defense, and that's it. That work tends to be done by the same crackers who feel it is their mission to tell everybody that it's not the government's money, it's the peoples money. Well, duh! Those are the narrow minds that wouldn't recognize public good if it kicked them in the face.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone notice the aftermath of the British Railway after they were privatized? A once great railroad now with a terrible on-time performance record, infrastructure problems, and so on (or, so I had read).

[Puckdropper]

Q: How do you save Amtrak?
A: You don't. It's too big of monster for it to be saved. Start again, building a high-speed rail line and slowly expanding over time. Go from Chicago to St. Louis in 2 and a half hours, and you'll get riders. Do it on time, and you'll keep them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Puckdropper

Q: How do you save Amtrak?
A: You don't. It's too big of monster for it to be saved. Start again, building a high-speed rail line and slowly expanding over time. Go from Chicago to St. Louis in 2 and a half hours, and you'll get riders. Do it on time, and you'll keep them.

Exactly how I would save Amtrak but cooperation with the Federal Government for funding's is a big hurdle. But not impossible!