QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it. ....but if it is for the common good or is the most efficient way to do it, or requires capital above and beyond what markets can provide, then the gov't SHOULD do it. - public schools - public roads - rural electrification - police - fire - hydro power - flood control - recreation - historic preservation - et. al. You can argue whether Amtrak meets the criteria for public spending, but you can't say the gov't should never provide any services that private industry won't.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it.
QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Dave-honestly,other than a dislike of theBNSF, an ongoing game of flame-o-rama with Ed, and that little*obsession* thingy you have with open access, what are your railroad interests?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350 But I thought that you thought that I was really Peterson, isn't that right, Gabe? Edited to try to eliminate emblematic issues. Sorry. Have a nice day! Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 7:55 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick 88gta350, my only quibble with your idea is that governnment should require freight roads to run passenger trains. As the others here have pointed out, that would be a gov't taking of private property. A better approach would be for gov't to make it attractive for freight roads to run pax trains. Give them a chance to turn a profit. That's probably a better idea than forcing the Class I's to run passenger trains - offer them some kind of incentive to take over passenger services from Amtrak. You might just find one or two Class I's who (with the proper financial incentives) would be glad to get Amtrak off their territory and take over passenger operations. If anything else, it gets rid of the spector of foreign rights of passage Amtrak has, and Amtrak may be able to transfer that right of passage to other entities. Next thing you know, you got forced open access [}:)] on your rails. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 7:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350 But I thought that you thought that I was really Peterson, isn't that right, Gabe? Reply Edit dehusman Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Omaha, NE 10,621 posts Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:44 PM I would assume that the railroads would do the same thing this time that the did with passenger service last time. The minimum. There is zero incentive to make it a successful venture and every incentive to make it fail. The problem is that you can never afford to pay them enough to make passenger service palatible. If the government could, it would just use the money to fully fund a Amtrak. Its not the costs of the crews, its not the cost of the engines or cars, its the millions of dollars in delay they absorb in disruption to the rest of their network to expedite the passenger trains. Its the millions of dollars in extra maintenance to get the track to 79 mph speeds Basically all your proposition does is transfer the equipment and operating staff (and their costs) to the freight railroads. You will have to still maintain all the office staff to monitor the performance to decide who gets penalties and who gets incentives. then to manage that budget, etc. You will need a federal department that figures out and coordinates the schedules. One thing the railroads did many years ago is to change the schedules so that the trains hit the most populated areas at 3am in the morning, moved stations to inconvienient places and ensure that inbound trains missed the connection with outbound trains so every train change cost you hours of layover. Pretty soon passenger usage goes to zero. Then you don't need 2 engines and 20 cars, one and one will do it. If you root around you can find where railroads did those kind of things to justify abandoning passenger service 30 and 40 years ago. If America wants passenger service, fund Amtrak and be done with it. Dave H. Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it. ....but if it is for the common good or is the most efficient way to do it, or requires capital above and beyond what markets can provide, then the gov't SHOULD do it. - public schools - public roads - rural electrification - police - fire - hydro power - flood control - recreation - historic preservation - et. al. You can argue whether Amtrak meets the criteria for public spending, but you can't say the gov't should never provide any services that private industry won't. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,568 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:12 PM QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:38 AM You forget that Amtrak was created to relieve the railroads from the cost burden of providing passenger service. Now you are proposing to foist it back on them. You have got to be kidding! Of course in the runup to Amtrak the politicians all said the railroads were lying, they did not loose money on passenger service. One idiot congressman was quoted at the time as saying he would not have voted for Amtrak if he thought it would require ongoing subsidy. In the PNW Amtrak ran one pair of trains day one where BN had been running four. Gee, wonder why they did that? Maybe the ex-railroad passenger guys who moved over to Amtrak knew more than the congressman. The freight carriers are now subsidising Amtrak becuase they have to make the track available for just short of free. Congress can take all your property, all they have to do is pass a law. That is what due process is. Look at the history of railroad regulation if you do not believe it. Kill the beast!!! Mac Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:35 AM 88gta350, my only quibble with your idea is that governnment should require freight roads to run passenger trains. As the others here have pointed out, that would be a gov't taking of private property. A better approach would be for gov't to make it attractive for freight roads to run pax trains. Give them a chance to turn a profit. Airlines prosper (at least those who can control costs) because gov't builds, operates and maintains airports, navigation facilities and air route traffic control systems. The entire FAA, including all the controllers, aviation safety inspectors and all the rules makers are on the gov't payroll. So to apply this to railroads, I suggest the government offer to construct higher speed lines (say 110 mph) along existing ROW in exchange for pax operations. Do you think CSX might agree to run passenger service New York to Chicago if they could also use the gov't rails for their freight? If they didn't have to maintain the rails or the signal systems? Could they turn a profit on such a service? I'll bet they would give it a lot of careful thought, because it just might work for them. At least it would ease their freight congestion and add to freight profitability. And btw, that rail construction would be a lot cheaper than adding another lane to I-90. More productive, too. Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:08 AM Interesting debate; some new slants on what is probably the oldest topic on this forum! A few ramblings... first, Amtrak offers a major advantage (and having spent a good bit of time in Britain, it seems to me that this will highlight an overlooked problem with the UK system): If you want to take a train from X to Y, you have one company to work with and one ticket to buy and one reservation to worry about. Those of us old enough to remember the 'glory days' of passenger rail are also probably old enough to remember the incredible hassle of trying to make a connection in Chicago between the 20th Century and the Super Chief, or in Washington DC between the Merchants Limited and the Silver Meteor, or... you name it. Argh. No thanks. Further, this one stop shop substantially reduces (not increases) overhead for passenger rail operations. Does competition improve quality of rail transport? It probably did, in the 'glory days', at least in the northeast, Florida and Chicago-Seattle markets, where there was competition. But one does need to remember that in those days, the improvements really were only on the top end trains -- there were an awful lot of other trains... some of which, while entertaining, were pretty bad... The flagship trains were improved, and very very heavily subsidised, as advertising, to attract freight business. That won't fly today, and I don't really think competition would improve much today. And is it really necessary for quality service? No -- good pay and good morale and a pride in the product is what is needed, and believe me the Amtrak folks do pretty well at that. I cannot think of single good reason why a freight railroad would take on the responsibility, unless the subsidy payment was so high that they could make an honest profit out of it. And that's a lot higher than it is now... Jamie Reply ndbprr Member sinceSeptember 2002 7,478 posts Posted by ndbprr on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:02 AM Let me rephrase your idea. It costs me too much to run my car so I will get the government to make you maintain it and operate it so I can ride around. Good luck! Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 7:54 AM Let me see if I can paraphrase your problem statement. "Given that the Federal Government is going to provided subsidized passenger rail service, would it be more effiecient to let the frt RRs provide the service directly instead of being the landlord?" In my opinion, the answer to this question is "not likely". Unless there is some sort of market force that incents efficiency, you won't get efficiency. It is not likely that these market forces would be any easier to create for the frt RRs than for Amtrak. Could you save the Gen'l Admin and overhead expenses? All of the "grunt level" work being done by Amtrak staff would still need to be done - you might save the cost of a bunch of execs, tho'.. If you want the trains to run on time, then you'll have to pay the frt RRs enough to make it worth their while. If they're going to hold an intermodal train to let Amtrak go first and this makes the intermodal train late to it's dest., then the cost is the cost of the equipment delayed PLUS the value of the shipments delayed PLUS the loss of customer goodwill PLUS the weakening of pricing power. The last two are the most important and hardest to calculate. Amtrak incentive payments are peanuts compared to this. The frt RRs won't jeapordize their franchise in order to earn a few thousand dollars in incentive payments. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 3:11 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick 88gta350, since we have a problem with prison overcrowding, the government should REQUIRE you to host some prisoners in your private home. Of course you would be provided a subsidy to cover some of the costs, but you will have to find some way to make this proposition profitable or you will still come up short. And don't complain that you don't have room. Just move the kids to the basement and free up a room for the guests. And you will be happy to know the gov't is going to give you a worn out prison van to use for your guests transportation. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe you get the point. The railroads already are forced to keep prisoners in their house, so to speak. Amtrak runs on their rails already, it's not a factor of not having the room for the trains. The railroads would simply be taking over the operations side of things, as well as any profit/loss. QUOTE: Didn't like my first constitutional objection? Here's another one demolishing your law to require existing RRs, retroactively, to operate psgr trains as a condition of their doing business. This time we go to the body of the Constitution, no messing around with those pesky ammendments, specifically Article 6 that prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, imposing penalties retroactively that weren't in efect before. The ex post facto law only says you have to be punished under the statutes that existed when the crime was comitted. t says nothing, and was never meant to imply anything, about running a railroad. If Congress passed a law tomorrow that said the private railroads would absorb Amtrak, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. It's not a punishment dolled out by a criminal court, it's a law requiring a future action. The railroads wouldn't be running passenger trains retroactively... to my knowledge no one has yet learned how to make a train travel back in time. It would be a law reuiring a future action, not a punishment for a past crime. I can see that this is a rather unpopular idea, and seems to have been discussed before, but I'm not sure I see any real arguments against it other than it's not fair to the railroads. To be honest, it probably isn't. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. I'm simply throwing out an idea that could be tried should the government be serious about dropping Amtrak. Personally I feel they should just give Amtrak the funding it needs to be run successfully and bring in some frsh management. But I doubt that will happen. Dave M Reply jimrice4449 Member sinceApril 2004 From: North Idaho 1,311 posts Posted by jimrice4449 on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:08 AM Didn't like my first constitutional objection? Here's another one demolishing your law to require existing RRs, retroactively, to operate psgr trains as a condition of their doing business. This time we go to the body of the Constitution, no messing around with those pesky ammendments, specifically Article 6 that prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, imposing penalties retroactively that weren't in efect before. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,568 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, September 5, 2005 10:20 PM Not a very sporting thing to try. I thought the RRS were freed of their legal obligations to provide passenger service with advent of Amtrak. Why limit your imagination to the RRs? In the interest of fairness, I could make equally compelling cases for other companies to become involved. Microsoft has tons of cash, why not force them run a passenger RR instead of wasting it in diversions such as XBox? They could provide lots of outside-the-box ideas of running a RR. Or maybe the petroleum companies they have lots of ca***oo. UPS knows logistics and makes lots of money. I could imagine such an imposition being possible only with a successful communist revolution.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350 But I thought that you thought that I was really Peterson, isn't that right, Gabe?
Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350
QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick 88gta350, my only quibble with your idea is that governnment should require freight roads to run passenger trains. As the others here have pointed out, that would be a gov't taking of private property. A better approach would be for gov't to make it attractive for freight roads to run pax trains. Give them a chance to turn a profit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350 But I thought that you thought that I was really Peterson, isn't that right, Gabe? Reply Edit dehusman Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Omaha, NE 10,621 posts Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:44 PM I would assume that the railroads would do the same thing this time that the did with passenger service last time. The minimum. There is zero incentive to make it a successful venture and every incentive to make it fail. The problem is that you can never afford to pay them enough to make passenger service palatible. If the government could, it would just use the money to fully fund a Amtrak. Its not the costs of the crews, its not the cost of the engines or cars, its the millions of dollars in delay they absorb in disruption to the rest of their network to expedite the passenger trains. Its the millions of dollars in extra maintenance to get the track to 79 mph speeds Basically all your proposition does is transfer the equipment and operating staff (and their costs) to the freight railroads. You will have to still maintain all the office staff to monitor the performance to decide who gets penalties and who gets incentives. then to manage that budget, etc. You will need a federal department that figures out and coordinates the schedules. One thing the railroads did many years ago is to change the schedules so that the trains hit the most populated areas at 3am in the morning, moved stations to inconvienient places and ensure that inbound trains missed the connection with outbound trains so every train change cost you hours of layover. Pretty soon passenger usage goes to zero. Then you don't need 2 engines and 20 cars, one and one will do it. If you root around you can find where railroads did those kind of things to justify abandoning passenger service 30 and 40 years ago. If America wants passenger service, fund Amtrak and be done with it. Dave H. Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it. ....but if it is for the common good or is the most efficient way to do it, or requires capital above and beyond what markets can provide, then the gov't SHOULD do it. - public schools - public roads - rural electrification - police - fire - hydro power - flood control - recreation - historic preservation - et. al. You can argue whether Amtrak meets the criteria for public spending, but you can't say the gov't should never provide any services that private industry won't. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,568 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:12 PM QUOTE: [i]. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. Now, there's where I'd have to disagree with you. It's not up to the government. If private industry can't or won't,it's probably because there's no money in it. Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply PNWRMNM Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 2,593 posts Posted by PNWRMNM on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:38 AM You forget that Amtrak was created to relieve the railroads from the cost burden of providing passenger service. Now you are proposing to foist it back on them. You have got to be kidding! Of course in the runup to Amtrak the politicians all said the railroads were lying, they did not loose money on passenger service. One idiot congressman was quoted at the time as saying he would not have voted for Amtrak if he thought it would require ongoing subsidy. In the PNW Amtrak ran one pair of trains day one where BN had been running four. Gee, wonder why they did that? Maybe the ex-railroad passenger guys who moved over to Amtrak knew more than the congressman. The freight carriers are now subsidising Amtrak becuase they have to make the track available for just short of free. Congress can take all your property, all they have to do is pass a law. That is what due process is. Look at the history of railroad regulation if you do not believe it. Kill the beast!!! Mac Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:35 AM 88gta350, my only quibble with your idea is that governnment should require freight roads to run passenger trains. As the others here have pointed out, that would be a gov't taking of private property. A better approach would be for gov't to make it attractive for freight roads to run pax trains. Give them a chance to turn a profit. Airlines prosper (at least those who can control costs) because gov't builds, operates and maintains airports, navigation facilities and air route traffic control systems. The entire FAA, including all the controllers, aviation safety inspectors and all the rules makers are on the gov't payroll. So to apply this to railroads, I suggest the government offer to construct higher speed lines (say 110 mph) along existing ROW in exchange for pax operations. Do you think CSX might agree to run passenger service New York to Chicago if they could also use the gov't rails for their freight? If they didn't have to maintain the rails or the signal systems? Could they turn a profit on such a service? I'll bet they would give it a lot of careful thought, because it just might work for them. At least it would ease their freight congestion and add to freight profitability. And btw, that rail construction would be a lot cheaper than adding another lane to I-90. More productive, too. Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:08 AM Interesting debate; some new slants on what is probably the oldest topic on this forum! A few ramblings... first, Amtrak offers a major advantage (and having spent a good bit of time in Britain, it seems to me that this will highlight an overlooked problem with the UK system): If you want to take a train from X to Y, you have one company to work with and one ticket to buy and one reservation to worry about. Those of us old enough to remember the 'glory days' of passenger rail are also probably old enough to remember the incredible hassle of trying to make a connection in Chicago between the 20th Century and the Super Chief, or in Washington DC between the Merchants Limited and the Silver Meteor, or... you name it. Argh. No thanks. Further, this one stop shop substantially reduces (not increases) overhead for passenger rail operations. Does competition improve quality of rail transport? It probably did, in the 'glory days', at least in the northeast, Florida and Chicago-Seattle markets, where there was competition. But one does need to remember that in those days, the improvements really were only on the top end trains -- there were an awful lot of other trains... some of which, while entertaining, were pretty bad... The flagship trains were improved, and very very heavily subsidised, as advertising, to attract freight business. That won't fly today, and I don't really think competition would improve much today. And is it really necessary for quality service? No -- good pay and good morale and a pride in the product is what is needed, and believe me the Amtrak folks do pretty well at that. I cannot think of single good reason why a freight railroad would take on the responsibility, unless the subsidy payment was so high that they could make an honest profit out of it. And that's a lot higher than it is now... Jamie Reply ndbprr Member sinceSeptember 2002 7,478 posts Posted by ndbprr on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 8:02 AM Let me rephrase your idea. It costs me too much to run my car so I will get the government to make you maintain it and operate it so I can ride around. Good luck! Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 7:54 AM Let me see if I can paraphrase your problem statement. "Given that the Federal Government is going to provided subsidized passenger rail service, would it be more effiecient to let the frt RRs provide the service directly instead of being the landlord?" In my opinion, the answer to this question is "not likely". Unless there is some sort of market force that incents efficiency, you won't get efficiency. It is not likely that these market forces would be any easier to create for the frt RRs than for Amtrak. Could you save the Gen'l Admin and overhead expenses? All of the "grunt level" work being done by Amtrak staff would still need to be done - you might save the cost of a bunch of execs, tho'.. If you want the trains to run on time, then you'll have to pay the frt RRs enough to make it worth their while. If they're going to hold an intermodal train to let Amtrak go first and this makes the intermodal train late to it's dest., then the cost is the cost of the equipment delayed PLUS the value of the shipments delayed PLUS the loss of customer goodwill PLUS the weakening of pricing power. The last two are the most important and hardest to calculate. Amtrak incentive payments are peanuts compared to this. The frt RRs won't jeapordize their franchise in order to earn a few thousand dollars in incentive payments. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 3:11 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick 88gta350, since we have a problem with prison overcrowding, the government should REQUIRE you to host some prisoners in your private home. Of course you would be provided a subsidy to cover some of the costs, but you will have to find some way to make this proposition profitable or you will still come up short. And don't complain that you don't have room. Just move the kids to the basement and free up a room for the guests. And you will be happy to know the gov't is going to give you a worn out prison van to use for your guests transportation. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe you get the point. The railroads already are forced to keep prisoners in their house, so to speak. Amtrak runs on their rails already, it's not a factor of not having the room for the trains. The railroads would simply be taking over the operations side of things, as well as any profit/loss. QUOTE: Didn't like my first constitutional objection? Here's another one demolishing your law to require existing RRs, retroactively, to operate psgr trains as a condition of their doing business. This time we go to the body of the Constitution, no messing around with those pesky ammendments, specifically Article 6 that prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, imposing penalties retroactively that weren't in efect before. The ex post facto law only says you have to be punished under the statutes that existed when the crime was comitted. t says nothing, and was never meant to imply anything, about running a railroad. If Congress passed a law tomorrow that said the private railroads would absorb Amtrak, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. It's not a punishment dolled out by a criminal court, it's a law requiring a future action. The railroads wouldn't be running passenger trains retroactively... to my knowledge no one has yet learned how to make a train travel back in time. It would be a law reuiring a future action, not a punishment for a past crime. I can see that this is a rather unpopular idea, and seems to have been discussed before, but I'm not sure I see any real arguments against it other than it's not fair to the railroads. To be honest, it probably isn't. It's up to the government to provide products and services that private industry can't or won't, but our government doesn't seem to feel the same obligation. I'm simply throwing out an idea that could be tried should the government be serious about dropping Amtrak. Personally I feel they should just give Amtrak the funding it needs to be run successfully and bring in some frsh management. But I doubt that will happen. Dave M Reply jimrice4449 Member sinceApril 2004 From: North Idaho 1,311 posts Posted by jimrice4449 on Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:08 AM Didn't like my first constitutional objection? Here's another one demolishing your law to require existing RRs, retroactively, to operate psgr trains as a condition of their doing business. This time we go to the body of the Constitution, no messing around with those pesky ammendments, specifically Article 6 that prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, imposing penalties retroactively that weren't in efect before. Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,568 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, September 5, 2005 10:20 PM
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick 88gta350, since we have a problem with prison overcrowding, the government should REQUIRE you to host some prisoners in your private home. Of course you would be provided a subsidy to cover some of the costs, but you will have to find some way to make this proposition profitable or you will still come up short. And don't complain that you don't have room. Just move the kids to the basement and free up a room for the guests. And you will be happy to know the gov't is going to give you a worn out prison van to use for your guests transportation. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe you get the point.
QUOTE: Didn't like my first constitutional objection? Here's another one demolishing your law to require existing RRs, retroactively, to operate psgr trains as a condition of their doing business. This time we go to the body of the Constitution, no messing around with those pesky ammendments, specifically Article 6 that prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, imposing penalties retroactively that weren't in efect before.
Originally posted by futuremodal Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Oh thank goodness, for a minute there I thought you WERE 88gta350 Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply tpatrick Member sinceMarch 2002 From: Lakewood NY 679 posts Posted by tpatrick on Monday, September 5, 2005 9:31 PM 88gta350, since we have a problem with prison overcrowding, the government should REQUIRE you to host some prisoners in your private home. Of course you would be provided a subsidy to cover some of the costs, but you will have to find some way to make this proposition profitable or you will still come up short. And don't complain that you don't have room. Just move the kids to the basement and free up a room for the guests. And you will be happy to know the gov't is going to give you a worn out prison van to use for your guests transportation. I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe you get the point. Reply eastside Member sinceMarch 2001 From: New York City 805 posts Posted by eastside on Monday, September 5, 2005 8:44 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by 88gta350 Now for the idea: What if Amtrak was dissolved, and the passenger business was given back to the railroads? More to the point, what if the government required the railroads to run certain passenger lines? Not a very sporting thing to try. I thought the RRS were freed of their legal obligations to provide passenger service with advent of Amtrak. Why limit your imagination to the RRs? In the interest of fairness, I could make equally compelling cases for other companies to become involved. Microsoft has tons of cash, why not force them run a passenger RR instead of wasting it in diversions such as XBox? They could provide lots of outside-the-box ideas of running a RR. Or maybe the petroleum companies they have lots of ca***oo. UPS knows logistics and makes lots of money. I could imagine such an imposition being possible only with a successful communist revolution. The real problem is that Amtrak is a political issue that has little or no traction among the voters. QUOTE: Amtrak's equipment could be given to the respective railroads in those regions as an incentive, so they would not have to invest heavily in brand new equipment, My impression is that the book value of their passenger car fleet is probably close to zero. I doubt that any RR is chomping at the bit to takeover Amtrak's "assets". I read that the cost of shutting down the whole shebang after transferring its operations would probably be at least $10 billion. Let the RRs eat that too so it won't be a burden on the taxpayer. Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Monday, September 5, 2005 6:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I don't think it is a workable idea under present condiitions. Care to expand and say why not? Don't be afraid of hurting my feelings. I know little about rail operations, so I could be way off on my assesment, but it seems like a logical, doable step to me. I'm always open to constructive critisicim. Dave M Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,063 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, September 5, 2005 3:30 PM I don't think it is a workable idea under present condiitions. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 5, 2005 3:10 PM Dave M. I have made basically the same point on previous threads, so naturally your idea is a brilliant one.[8D] It should have been done at the advent of Amtrak, subsidizing the remaining private passenger services that still existed in 1970, rather than creating this ludicrous monstrosity we have today. The difference that makes the difference is that such services would have the one thing missing from Amtrak: Competitive pride between natural rivals. Even with subsidies, I expect a BNSF North Coast Hiawatha would be operated in a way that calls out a challenge to a UP Californai Zephyr, and vis versa. Reply Edit 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Monday, September 5, 2005 1:24 PM QUOTE: Even if they could be persuaded to do so with sufficient incentives from the government there is still the danger that they would see it as a distraction. I'm not saying they should be persuaded, I'm saying they should be required. QUOTE: From a political standpoint, it isn't going tohappen. It is hard to " force" a non-government company to do anything and would require legislation that won't be passed. The railroads actually have a pretty good lobby in Washington and lots of friends in Congress. The government already forces the railroads to do lots of things in order to be allowed to run trains on rails. From safety to competition, the government regulates lots of aspects of the business already. QUOTE: I have a hard time understanding where overhead goes away if Amtrak services are privatized. - passenger rail still needs reservations and ticketing services which freight does not need - passenger trains still need car attendents, etc. and these need to be managed - freight equipment (including locomotives) cannot be used for passenger service because of differing requirements - maintenance of passenger equipment is very specialized Where is the overlap? I didn't say there wouldn't be any overhead. Some consolidation could happen, but I acknowledged that it would still operate at a loss. I think, however, that if the R's were required to do this, it would be in their best interest to figure out how to do it most efficiently, which is usually in the passenger's best interest as well. QUOTE: I refer you to that pesky old Constitution, in partuicular ammendment #5...."nor shall private property be taken for public use without payment of just compensation". And if you think that's a dead letter in the face of "a compelling public interest" just look at the furor (finally) that the imperial activist judiciary created w/ the Ct. rulling on "taking" that confused public use w/ public benefit. The government wouldn't be atking anything in this case. It would simply become another requirement for operating a railroad. You want to run a Class 1 in the U.S., you have to run some passenger trains. Can't do that and keep the company afloat? Get out of business. The entire Amtrak business would be spread out over 5 Class 1's, so no one railroad would have to take on the entire Amtrak burden. Each road assumes the responsibility for the Amtrak runs originating in its territory. Dave M Reply jimrice4449 Member sinceApril 2004 From: North Idaho 1,311 posts Posted by jimrice4449 on Monday, September 5, 2005 12:10 PM I refer you to that pesky old Constitution, in partuicular ammendment #5...."nor shall private property be taken for public use without payment of just compensation". And if you think that's a dead letter in the face of "a compelling public interest" just look at the furor (finally) that the imperial activist judiciary created w/ the Ct. rulling on "taking" that confused public use w/ public benefit. Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, September 5, 2005 11:49 AM I have a hard time understanding where overhead goes away if Amtrak services are privatized. - passenger rail still needs reservations and ticketing services which freight does not need - passenger trains still need car attendents, etc. and these need to be managed - freight equipment (including locomotives) cannot be used for passenger service because of differing requirements - maintenance of passenger equipment is very specialized Where is the overlap? dd Reply jsoderq Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Saginaw River 948 posts Posted by jsoderq on Monday, September 5, 2005 7:32 AM From a political standpoint, it isn't going tohappen. It is hard to " force" a non-government company to do anything and would require legislation that won't be passed. The railroads actually have a pretty good lobby in Washington and lots of friends in Congress. Reply Tulyar15 Member sinceJuly 2005 From: Bath, England, UK 712 posts Posted by Tulyar15 on Monday, September 5, 2005 6:42 AM I think your idea is in principle correct. Ie if you had the freight railroads operating the passenger services as well you could potentially share overheads. I presume Amtrak has to pay access charges for using lines owned by other railroads, so this is one area where it would be done at cost. But in practice, how easy would it be to persuade the freight rail roads to go back in to passenger? Even if they could be persuaded to do so with sufficient incentives from the government there is still the danger that they would see it as a distraction. When British Rail introduced its business sectors which I described on another thred, one of the benefits this gave was that the unprofitable rural lines, which had hitherto been seen as the unwanted poor relations by the old regional management structure, now hand their own management team who were focused on operating them as efficiently as possible. As a result these lines received investment in new trains and signalling which helped to cut costs and boost revenue. Indeed in 1993/4, the last financial year before BR was broken up ready for privitisation the Regional Railways business sector just about broke even. The success of some of the smaller TOC's like Chiltern since privitisation suggests that perhaps small is beautiful with railways and that mergers dont always bring the hoped for benefits. So in conclusion while I think the principle behind your idea is sound I'm not so sure it would work out in practice. Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by 88gta350 Now for the idea: What if Amtrak was dissolved, and the passenger business was given back to the railroads? More to the point, what if the government required the railroads to run certain passenger lines?
QUOTE: Amtrak's equipment could be given to the respective railroads in those regions as an incentive, so they would not have to invest heavily in brand new equipment,
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper I don't think it is a workable idea under present condiitions.
QUOTE: Even if they could be persuaded to do so with sufficient incentives from the government there is still the danger that they would see it as a distraction.
QUOTE: From a political standpoint, it isn't going tohappen. It is hard to " force" a non-government company to do anything and would require legislation that won't be passed. The railroads actually have a pretty good lobby in Washington and lots of friends in Congress.
QUOTE: I have a hard time understanding where overhead goes away if Amtrak services are privatized. - passenger rail still needs reservations and ticketing services which freight does not need - passenger trains still need car attendents, etc. and these need to be managed - freight equipment (including locomotives) cannot be used for passenger service because of differing requirements - maintenance of passenger equipment is very specialized Where is the overlap?
QUOTE: I refer you to that pesky old Constitution, in partuicular ammendment #5...."nor shall private property be taken for public use without payment of just compensation". And if you think that's a dead letter in the face of "a compelling public interest" just look at the furor (finally) that the imperial activist judiciary created w/ the Ct. rulling on "taking" that confused public use w/ public benefit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.