Too Hot to Post?!

[Anonymous]

National Review Online
December 08, 2004, 8:08 a.m.
It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid
Amtrak, derailed.

By Iain Murray

The news that the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General is deeply concerned about the dangerous state of Amtrak’s railroad infrastructure should come as a surprise to no one. Amtrak has been chronically mismanaged and has never shown any signs of being fiscally responsible. Yet somehow the blame for Amtrak’s recklessness is laid at the door of Congress, for failing to give Amtrak every penny it wants. The problem is not one of underfunding, it is that railroads cannot be run effectively when government is their prime source of revenue. Congress, far from turning up the funding tap, should be preparing to turn it off.

Amtrak’s infrastructure is crumbling. As the inspector general, Kenneth Mead, says, there are “interlockings, bridges and tunnels that are well beyond their economic life.” Amtrak has been deferring capital expenditure on these assets for years. Mead goes on, “Continued deferral brings Amtrak closer to a major point of failure on the system, but no-one knows where or when such a failure will occur.”

This state of affairs is familiar to me, as I was part of the team that privatized the British rail-infrastructure body, then called Railtrack, in 1996. We were aware that there had been a huge backlog in capital expenditure on the railway throughout the 40+ years of public ownership of the British railroad system. That, indeed, was one of the reasons Railtrack had to be privatized, in order to bring in new flows of investment capital that would not be dependent on the political vagaries of the British appropriations process, where rail was pitted against schools and hospitals in the battle for taxpayers’ money.

The trouble was that no one realized just how degraded the infrastructure was. It transpired that many of the rails along which the (mostly passenger) trains were running were in serious disrepair, something that helped contribute to a fatal accident at Hatfield in October 2000. The accident brought Railtrack to its knees, as it found itself unable to rectify the investment-backlog problem and continue to provide a decent service to its customers, the train operators.

If anything, Amtrak’s infrastructure is in worse disrepair than the British system’s was. Former Amtrak official and passenger-rail advocate Joseph Vranich talks in his new book, End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America’s Passenger Trains, about the serious risk posed by Amtrak’s ownership of New York rail tunnels. A 2002 DOT review of these tunnels determined that $900 million was needed to bring them up to modern safety standards. Those of us who have had experience of rail accidents in tunnels know just how dangerous this state of affairs is. A 2001 freight accident in a tunnel in Baltimore saw a street collapse and part of the city closed as emergency teams took five days to extingui***he fire. As Vranich points out, the New York tunnels pose a massive risk not just to railroad passengers but to the city itself.

Yet, despite the sure knowledge that terrorists are only too ready to attack major transportation systems, as the attacks in Madrid demonstrated, Amtrak has repeatedly failed to allocate funds responsibly. As Mead says, “Programming millions of scarce capital dollars for fixing long-distance sleeper cars when bridges that Amtrak owns are beyond their functional and economic lives and must be refurbished or replaced is unacceptable.” Ample evidence that Amtrak is more interested in trains than in infrastructure is provided by Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black, who told GovExec.com in reaction to the inspector general’s report that, “Asking Amtrak to maintain railroad tracks is like asking Greyhound Lines to maintain the interstate highways.”

The inspector general did indeed suggest that one remedy to the underfunding problem would be for Congress to increase funding to Amtrak. Yet the problem of Amtrak’s failure to prioritize responsibly would remain. Again, I am unsurprised. When I was working with it, the nationalized provider of London’s famous tube service would regularly fail to make investments in certain lines, in the knowledge that political pressure would cause its funding to be increased. We cannot allow Amtrak to use the New York tunnels like a sword of Damocles, forever hanging above the nation’s head. All experience suggests that Amtrak has perverse incentives not to invest properly while it is assured of remaining in public ownership.

Instead, we should consider two other options Mead advanced as stopgap measures to prepare the railroad for privatization: “(1) a requirement to focus development on corridors where passenger rail service can make economic sense, (2) decreased funding and elimination of certain operations.” Congress can attach these provisions to any funding it grants to Amtrak. The problem is that this will require political courage from individual congressmen.

For some reason, congressmen seem to think that Amtrak should continue to serve their own district even when they recognize that other routes are a financial burden on the country. Yet it is time Congress cut Amtrak down to size. It should force it to cut routes no one travels on, spend money now where it is most desperately needed, and get the infrastructure back into the condition that passenger safety demands. If that is done, a safe railroad system can then be put back into the hands of people who can provide better service to the customer than to the bureaucrat: the private sector.

[gabe]

What percentage of Amtrak routes are directed over their own trackage rather than trackage rights of other railroads?

For this reason, I just don't get it.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Where is Bob Claytor when you need him?

[Anonymous]

I do agree that major changes need to take place. Privitization of at least parts of Amtrak shouldn't be out of the question, I'm sure there are certain routes that the private sector would love to own, then Amtrak can be a more focused government funded railway that will run fewer routes, with less equipment, and cost less money.

[Anonymous]

***,

Thanks for bringing an interesting perspective regarding Amtrak to this forum. I don't necessarily agree with all the points of the article, but it does serve to inspire discussion.

Gabe, yes this article is specific to the NEC although that specificity goes unmentioned in the article. But it does raise the spector of what might happen if the NEC is either pawned off on the upper right Blue States or privatized without the needed infrastructure improvements being taken care of before such a transfer, vis-a-vis the greater than advertised deteriorated state of the British rail system when RailTrak took over. Notice too that the author does not blame the failures of RailTrak as an inevitiable omen of open access, but of a specific problem regarding the reported state of the infrastructure.

[rrnut282]

Just what is Mr Murray proposing? I don't see any real answers in there. Is he criticizing Amtrak for repairing cars to generate more revenue? Unless he can provide more specific examples dollars wasted and where they could have been better spent, I am inclined to view his article as nothing more than hollow whining. IIRC, the estimated cost to repair some of the tunnels he referred to was over a Billion dollars. The money Amtrak spent repairing those cars wouldn't pay the contractor to move his equipment into place to do the work, let alone make any meaningful progress. In fact, trying attack that large a project with that little funding would most likely have an adverse affect on the overall situation. They made a decision to spend what little money they had, on something positive (a repair) that just happened to bring in a little more money the next day.

[Randy Stahl]

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

[mudchicken]

I work with someone on occasion who has seen the British rail system up close. (Ed has met him)...The difference between the two countries maintentenance systems is night and day. Amtrak's M/W on their corridors and their efficiency leaves British Rail (public or private) in the dust. The struggle that the brits have is often a culture clash and government control has stifled modernisation, change and innovation.

Hint: They still dump ballast from burlap sacks and have not embraced rail grinder technology. They have a ways to go to match the NEC.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

Agree with Randy 100% - Wonder if Ian Murray would agree to stop funding the airline, trucking and barge systems as well (or give them the same amount as they give Amtrak)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

Agree with Randy 100% - Wonder if Ian Murray would agree to stop funding the airline, trucking and barge systems as well (or give them the same amount as they give Amtrak)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

I'm for giving all forms of transportation the same as Amtrak gets.What if the airlines had to fight Congress for every dollar they need?

[ValleyX]

I'm sure you meant Graham Claytor.

[jeaton]

Mike (2-8-2) made a very interesting point and it underscores the ignorance of Mr. Murray. Amtrak's original request for FY 2005 was a total of $1.798 billion. That was to include $349 million for capital investment in fleet, plus some portion of the $570 million operating budget that would go to fleet maintenance. So, if all fleet investment was canceled, and the only other expenditure on the fleet was for cleaning and mandatory inspections, i.e. bad orders go to the dead line, there might be something on the order of $500 million more that could go to infrastructure. That assumes that by a miracle, no cars or locomotives would break down and there would never be a loss of revenue due to equipment shortages.

Even with that idiotic assumption, there would still not be enough money to fix the Hudson tunnel and the three sorry bridges on the NY to Boston line.

Anybody actually interested in the facts could look at the extensive financial reporting done on Amtrak's web site. For example:

FY05 Grant and Legislative Request, Table 3, Page 6, February 10, 2004

Grant Request ($ millions)

Capital
Infrastructure 352
Fleet 349
Other 90 (Environment, Info Tech,realestate, safety, etc.)
Subtotal Capital 791
Operating 570
Debt Service 262
Other
Dot Loan Repayment 100
To working Capital 75

Total Federal Grant Request 1,798

Amtrak made some cuts and amended the request to $1.5 billion.

Last week Congress passed the law that includes the FY '05 grant to Amtrak at $1.2 billion.

Oh yes, anybody that thinks elimination of the 16 long distance train routes is going to generate additional cash for Amtrak can't count, can't read or both. There will be at a cash flow out for at least three years for labor protection and other obligations that will exceed the government cash used for that service.

Jay

[Anonymous]

If you take an old 57 chevy and Amtrak and than put them in an old scrap yard,What do you come up with?

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dick_Lewis

National Review Online
December 08, 2004, 8:08 a.m.
It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid
Amtrak, derailed.

By Iain Murray

The news that the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General is deeply concerned about the dangerous state of Amtrak’s railroad infrastructure should come as a surprise to no one. Amtrak has been chronically mismanaged and has never shown any signs of being fiscally responsible. Yet somehow the blame for Amtrak’s recklessness is laid at the door of Congress, for failing to give Amtrak every penny it wants.

It certainly is Congress' fault that Amtrak has failed to get itself out of the financial mess it is in. How is the NRPC supposed to be of sound financial condition when it has always suffered from inadequate capitalization? Where does the author think the money is going to come from, anyways? When there is no dedicated long-term funding source (like what the highways and airlines have in the form of a Trust Fund) why would the author be surprised when the poorly funded service provider fails to cover its costs?

QUOTE: The problem is not one of underfunding,

Oh, I think it is. What is undercapitalization from the start, but underfinding of a sort.

QUOTE: Amtrak’s infrastructure is crumbling. As the inspector general, Kenneth Mead, says, there are “interlockings, bridges and tunnels that are well beyond their economic life.” Amtrak has been deferring capital expenditure on these assets for years.

All due to inadequate capitalization from the start of the enterprise. Amtrak has to defer repair because it doesn't have an adequate amount of capital.

QUOTE: This state of affairs is familiar to me, as I was part of the team that privatized the British rail-infrastructure body, then called Railtrack, in 1996. We were aware that there had been a huge backlog in capital expenditure on the railway throughout the 40+ years of public ownership of the British railroad system. That, indeed, was one of the reasons Railtrack had to be privatized, in order to bring in new flows of investment capital that would not be dependent on the political vagaries of the British appropriations process, where rail was pitted against schools and hospitals in the battle for taxpayers’ money.

The trouble was that no one realized just how degraded the infrastructure was. It transpired that many of the rails along which the (mostly passenger) trains were running were in serious disrepair, something that helped contribute to a fatal accident at Hatfield in October 2000. The accident brought Railtrack to its knees, as it found itself unable to rectify the investment-backlog problem and continue to provide a decent service to its customers, the train operators.

Comparing British railaroads to the situation Amtrak is in is close to but not quite an apples-to-oranges comparison. British railroads also ran several times more passenger trains over all of their lines, along with much shorter, lighter freight trains. The UK also has much higher taxes, with a lot more financial support going towards theiur rail lines. All it really proves is that no transport system is self-sufficient; they are all subsidized to a certain extent.

QUOTE: If anything, Amtrak’s infrastructure is in worse disrepair than the British system’s was. Former Amtrak official and passenger-rail advocate Joseph Vranich talks in his new book, End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America’s Passenger Trains, about the serious risk posed by Amtrak’s ownership of New York rail tunnels. A 2002 DOT review of these tunnels determined that $900 million was needed to bring them up to modern safety standards. Those of us who have had experience of rail accidents in tunnels know just how dangerous this state of affairs is. A 2001 freight accident in a tunnel in Baltimore saw a street collapse and part of the city closed as emergency teams took five days to extingui***he fire. As Vranich points out, the New York tunnels pose a massive risk not just to railroad passengers but to the city itself.

While Joe Vranich has made several good points regarding the state of passenger rail in the United States, here he is not taking an objective, or even fair, look at Amtrak. One could disregard or dismiss outright much of Mr. Vranich's statements.

QUOTE: Yet, despite the sure knowledge that terrorists are only too ready to attack major transportation systems, as the attacks in Madrid demonstrated, Amtrak has repeatedly failed to allocate funds responsibly. As Mead says, “Programming millions of scarce capital dollars for fixing long-distance sleeper cars when bridges that Amtrak owns are beyond their functional and economic lives and must be refurbished or replaced is unacceptable.”

Fixing up the long-distance sleeper cars returns them to revenue service. Revenue service means that they are making money for Amtrak, bringing funds into the system. These funds could then be used to reduce Amtrak's dependancy upon the Federal dole, or even be used to buy new bridges. Fixing up out-of-commission cars and returning them to service puts money in Amtrak's pocket. While the bridges need replacement, without the supplemental income from newly-repaired cars, the only other options would be either postpone repairs on other parts of the system, or get more money from the Federal dole.

QUOTE: Ample evidence that Amtrak is more interested in trains than in infrastructure is provided by Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black, who told GovExec.com in reaction to the inspector general’s report that, “Asking Amtrak to maintain railroad tracks is like asking Greyhound Lines to maintain the interstate highways.”

Running and operating trains makes money, repairing tracks requires that money be spent. Track repair also requires that you have the money to spend to begin with. In order to make money, you have to spend money, and in order to spend money, you have to make money. Seeing as how Amtrak makes money from the operation of trains, is it no surprise that this profit-generating activity is what they would be interested in? Also, good analogy from Mr. Black.

QUOTE:
The inspector general did indeed suggest that one remedy to the underfunding problem would be for Congress to increase funding to Amtrak. Yet the problem of Amtrak’s failure to prioritize responsibly would remain. Again, I am unsurprised. When I was working with it, the nationalized provider of London’s famous tube service would regularly fail to make investments in certain lines, in the knowledge that political pressure would cause its funding to be increased. We cannot allow Amtrak to use the New York tunnels like a sword of Damocles, forever hanging above the nation’s head. All experience suggests that Amtrak has perverse incentives not to invest properly while it is assured of remaining in public ownership.

Instead, we should consider two other options Mead advanced as stopgap measures to prepare the railroad for privatization: “(1) a requirement to focus development on corridors where passenger rail service can make economic sense, (2) decreased funding and elimination of certain operations.” Congress can attach these provisions to any funding it grants to Amtrak. The problem is that this will require political courage from individual congressmen.

For some reason, congressmen seem to think that Amtrak should continue to serve their own district even when they recognize that other routes are a financial burden on the country. Yet it is time Congress cut Amtrak down to size. It should force it to cut routes no one travels on, spend money now where it is most desperately needed, and get the infrastructure back into the condition that passenger safety demands. If that is done, a safe railroad system can then be put back into the hands of people who can provide better service to the customer than to the bureaucrat: the private sector.

Members of Congress have a self-interest in seeing to it that the train(s) serving their district don't become terminated. It's called bring Federal money to the Home District. Some of the members of Congress have also said that if one wants to have federal funds for the NEC, they had better see a train for their own districts as well. Yet the overall network is so small that we now see drops in the overall Revenue Passenger Mileage whenever one train is cut. While in theory one can increase profitabiltiy and value by making cuts, the system in the US has been cut down so far that additional cuts only serve to reduce the ridership, without any offsetting increases in the profitability of the remainder of the system. As for trains that nobody rides, tell that to the folks who ride the Empire builder. Look at the boarding numbers from Amtraks' web site. The long distance trains do make money, at least on an out-of-pocket basis. It might be that the NEC and the short-distance trains are the albatross around Amtraks financial neck. The Empire Builder is consistently one of Amtraks best performers in both passenger mileage and punctuality, yet it serves the least populous route on the entire national system. Where are these trains that nobody rides? The CZ & the SW Cheif also post high RPM numbers. The comment that nobody rides trains here in the USA is incorrect.

This last paragraph also fails to addres the root causes of why the private railroads got out of the passenger segment of the market place in the first place. If the private RR's thought that they could make money carrying passengers around, they would do so in a heartbeat, yet they don't do so at this time. Why is that? (rhetorical question) If one could make a profit hauling passengers around, don't you think that the private RRs would be doing that?

[UPTRAIN]

I wi***he airlines had to suffer like Amtrak. Too bad planes don't derail and block the ROW and they don't have to hit cars, and they don't have to stop and pick up cars, and they don't go into emergency or have dragging equipment, they don't know how good they have it, and they still complain, you always leave them asking for more!

[Modelcar]

....Who in privatization is going to come running with a billion dollars to rebuiltd the inffrastructure of the NEC...Of course, no one. I believe we know where this kind of blather comes from.

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by UPTRAIN

I wi***he airlines had to suffer like Amtrak. Too bad planes don't derail and block the ROW and they don't have to hit cars, and they don't have to stop and pick up cars, and they don't go into emergency or have dragging equipment, they don't know how good they have it, and they still complain, you always leave them asking for more!

hey I agree. I think sometimes the airline industry dosen't know how good they have it. They stole passanger transportation from out railroads!! Darn them. Oh well that's innovation for ya. But, airlines didn't take freight transportation from railroads!! Dats good. However, the airline industry does have it's own list of problems like railroads.

Upon reading this article I wasn't really aware fully of Amtrak's infastructure. I do know they are doing track repairs and upgrades in my area. They are also investing in station upgrades. The infastructure of Amtrak is pretty good in my area Philly. However, Amtrak's trains have been ariving very late in Philly for well over a Month now. I wonder wuts up wit dat??

[Junctionfan]

The whole thing about Amtrak not doing well is just a bunch of whining. What did they expect? If you set up something to fail then by golly it will fail as it is doing right now-mission accomplished.

The only reason why VIA Rail works is because the government actually gives a damn about passenger service and doesn't like spending money on things they want to fail because that would be illogical and the voters wouldn't tolerate such foolishness.

I don't really understand what those idiots in Congress expect as they were the ones who invited revenue loss and infrastructure degrading so they have nobody to blame but themselves and their predecesors.

[gabe]

Well, I first hinted that the argument contained in ***'s post was dubious; now I am just going to come right out and say it.

Futuremodal, thank you for spelling out my inference.

(1) I dislike the article because it bases its entire argument about Amtrak on the NEC, which is like saying the Interstate Highway System doesn't work and is falling apart because every time I drive through Indiana I hit pot holes. And, as has been suggested, I doubt the NEC is in quite as bad of shape as the author suggests.

(2) I completely agree with Randy's point about the Madrid bombings. Not only is it illogical I find it morally wrong and distasteful. I can't stand it when people stand on the backs of the dead to practice their zealotry when the incident in question has little if any fair relation to their zealotry.

I have previously made known my position that I feel as though there are problems with Amtrak and the current state of Amtrak is better explained by political momentum than rational decision-making. However, that doesn't necessarily mean we should get rid of Amtrak, and it certainly doesn't mean we should substitute irrational political momentum for an equally irrational paradigm that bases its argument on such unsound premises.

Gabe

[jockellis]

The airlines could not have ever started if they had been forced to pay for all the things the government gave them such as airports, air traffic control systems, tax-free air routes, etc. The railroads were from the very first day seen by governments as tax sources. As such, they should have to build their own infrastructure and pay taxes on it. Which they did, including taxes which, later, went to airport construction. Railroad passenger train critics forget that the government supports air and automobile transportation in far greater proportions than they do by subsidizing AMTRAK. But AMTRAK officials from the very start did themselves an injustice by telling Congress that passenger rail could be self supporting. If it could have been, the class 1s would have kept it up.
Our original poster, a retired BNSF exec, must know that. True, it doesn't seem to make sense to keep paying for a service which no one seems to use. But then 9/11 comes.
By the wya, BNSF Southeastern Regional VP Ray Stephens took me though your HQ in Ft. Worth. Now that is the way to run a railroad with the only things going back to the 19th century actually being the wheels and the track gauge. Reading the article in Trains re: BNSF, I see that the modern advancements are system wide. Great, great railroad.
Jock Ellis

[gabe]

From everything I have read about land grant railroads, I have a hard time believing railroads have received no assitance from the government in getting their start. I think it is fair to assert that many railroads received a bigger helping hand than did the air lines.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

I think that is only part of the story. The RRs were required to grant the Fed Gov a large discount on freight rates, and maybe passenger rates also. That requirement has only "recently" expired. It is estimated that the amount of the government's discount totaled many times what the RRs could have bought the land for at the time they received the land grants.

Also, how many airlines have built their own airports or air traffic control centers? Indeed, it is common for port autorities and municipalities to grant tax exemptions, reduced tax rates, free use periods, and other perqs to get airlines to locate their hubs or maintenance facilities at their airports. I don't recall ever hearing of any similar arrangement offered, let alone given, to any RR.

[daveklepper]

I think President Bush has to get some smarts and give David Gunn the money he needs. Without either of the Claytor Brothers around, there isn't much chance of a better manager.

But of course I am all for a National Public Transportation System. Based and Amtrack and supplemented by a much more comprehensive bus network than now exists.

That is a reality emergency energy independence program, not a pie in the sky research for energy independence 20 years from now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

I'm sure you meant Graham Claytor.

I never refuse the correction of a gentlemen and I stand so.[banghead] Another way of saying that is "I knew that"[oops][bow][bow][:)][:)][*^_^*][banghead]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by UPTRAIN

I wi***he airlines had to suffer like Amtrak. Too bad planes don't derail and block the ROW and they don't have to hit cars, and they don't have to stop and pick up cars, and they don't go into emergency or have dragging equipment, they don't know how good they have it, and they still complain, you always leave them asking for more!

That's right, BUT the trouble of it is (That's Georgian for the word problem), that mishaps in the air tends to be somewhat fatal. If I had the choice of which conveyance I would choose to be in an accident, a deplorable as the thought might be, the train wins hands down in the survivor area

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I think President Bush has to get some smarts and give David Gunn the money he needs. Without either of the Claytor Brothers around, there isn't much chance of a better manager.

But of course I am all for a National Public Transportation System. Based and Amtrack and supplemented by a much more comprehensive bus network than now exists.

That is a reality emergency energy independence program, not a pie in the sky research for energy independence 20 years from now.

Dave, I agree with you fully on the matter of David Gunn getting enough money to get a reasonable chance of getting AMTRACK moving on a more positive basis. Myself I'm inclined not to sell the guy to short, or maybe he can get some good help. I do find that your suggestion for the NPTS as facinating, some more of your thoughts on the subject would be a very fine topic for its own seperate thread. Please be more specific in your view on pie in the sky for future energy sourses. Just 100 years ago the very thought of anything but steam or electric locomotion on a railroad was almost unthinkable or to use the popular venacular "pie in the sky." . . . 30 years later passsenger and about 35 years later for freight, the world changed due to the efforts of the folks at EMD.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

From everything I have read about land grant railroads, I have a hard time believing railroads have received no assitance from the government in getting their start. I think it is fair to assert that many railroads received a bigger helping hand than did the air lines.

Gabe

If we can describe subsidies in the broad sense of being an act of government that allows entities to enhance their bottom line in a way not available to other entities, then we can also add the Staggers Act as a form of subsidy. Staggers allows railroads to charge monopoly prices where certain users are captive to that railroad. This is a scenario that is not available to any other transport mode.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

Agreed!

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

I just spent some time at the Ivy City terminal and was impressed by the condition of the infrastructure. The Amtrak employees that I spoke with had very little complaint about the way things were being run on the RR. The trains I rode performed well and I saw no real areas for concern. Using the Madrid bombings as an example is irresponsible . No matter what kind of infrastructure you have it is not immune from a terrorist attack. I see two real choices: get rid of Amtrak , or accept that it is not going to make money. If passenger trains made money the class 1s would still have them.
Randy
BTW.. I'm getting really sick of all these armchair expert railroaders putting their worthless 2 cents in just to sensationalize a foolish issue.

Agree with Randy 100% - Wonder if Ian Murray would agree to stop funding the airline, trucking and barge systems as well (or give them the same amount as they give Amtrak)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

It would be nice that the airline, trucking and barge systems would pay their share AND get the same funding as Amtrak.

[Sterling1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Mike (2-8-2) made a very interesting point and it underscores the ignorance of Mr. Murray. Amtrak's original request for FY 2005 was a total of $1.798 billion. That was to include $349 million for capital investment in fleet, plus some portion of the $570 million operating budget that would go to fleet maintenance. So, if all fleet investment was canceled, and the only other expenditure on the fleet was for cleaning and mandatory inspections, i.e. bad orders go to the dead line, there might be something on the order of $500 million more that could go to infrastructure. That assumes that by a miracle, no cars or locomotives would break down and there would never be a loss of revenue due to equipment shortages.

Even with that idiotic assumption, there would still not be enough money to fix the Hudson tunnel and the three sorry bridges on the NY to Boston line.

Anybody actually interested in the facts could look at the extensive financial reporting done on Amtrak's web site. For example:

FY05 Grant and Legislative Request, Table 3, Page 6, February 10, 2004

Grant Request ($ millions)

Capital
Infrastructure 352
Fleet 349
Other 90 (Environment, Info Tech,realestate, safety, etc.)
Subtotal Capital 791
Operating 570
Debt Service 262
Other
Dot Loan Repayment 100
To working Capital 75

Total Federal Grant Request 1,798

Amtrak made some cuts and amended the request to $1.5 billion.

Last week Congress passed the law that includes the FY '05 grant to Amtrak at $1.2 billion.

Oh yes, anybody that thinks elimination of the 16 long distance train routes is going to generate additional cash for Amtrak can't count, can't read or both. There will be at a cash flow out for at least three years for labor protection and other obligations that will exceed the government cash used for that service.

Jay

Maybe those who can't read, count,, can't smell or touch or hear the numbers and figures. Or maybe they've passed out/on . . .