passanger trains vs airlines

[Anonymous]

I am in finance for my career. While in college( back in the days before Amtrack) I did my finacial thesis on rail road accounting and airline practices. It took doing research of about 50 years before WWII for back ground. I predicted back about 1970 that the way public transportation was headed and accounted for that by the end of the century the airlines would be in financial trouble. For many years they airlines have been about 4-50 years behind the railroads in many areas. This includes finances.

[Anonymous]

glad to see it happen! I have only flown 3 times, but each time felt like only a number. Rode amtrak 2 times, talked to the crew, and met many interesting people, just in the two times I have been on the train. People need to slow down, RELAX! TALK to EACH OTHER. It's not only finances, but the way the airline conducts buisness. Unfortunately most people dont care how they're treated, or whats going on behind closed doors, as long as they get there as fast as possible.

[Anonymous]

I have noticed that when the airlines were replacing their Boeing 707s and DC-8s a decade ago they ran in the red, and now when the airlines are replacing their large fleet of Boeing 727s, DC-10s, Lockheed L-1011s they are running in the red again.

[BNSFNUT]

Simple rule of business.
If you have more product than demand and then charge to much for this product you lose money. and you go out of business.(if the govement dose not bail you out).

[Anonymous]

Can sombody help me to understand WHY the gov't will give billions of dollars to the airlines for a bail-out, but would rather see passenger rr go down the tubes? I'm just waiting for the day when the gov't says we have to rely on rr for transportaion because the airlines are all in bankruptcy or something like that.

[Anonymous]

It is not so much the bailout, but the federal government funding for airports, terminals, runways, etc., etc.

Amtrak barely got a $1 billion this year, whereas the airports received $12 billion. And this was before the feds bailed out the airlines....

If we had a MORATORIUM on federal airport funding for just 10 years, we would have a high speed rail network the envy of the world, some $120 billion worth.

Which would build new passenger only double track (electrified) rail lines from the northeast corridor to Chicago, Chicago to Texas thru St. Louis and Kansas City, Texas to Jacksonville thru New Orleans and Mobile, Jacksonville thru Atlanta to DC, Chicago to Jacksonville thru Atlanta, Jacksonville to Miami thru Orlando, and not to forget the folks on the west coast, Los Angeles to San Francisco (or Oakland). Some 6,000 miles at Florida's FY 2002 rate of $12 million per mile. And there would still be enough money left over to build another 4,000 miles of high speed double track rail, to other cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Toronto, Montreal, even a short cut from Pittsburgh to DC and Cleveland to Buffalo in the east.

All of this plus more with just a ten year moratorium on federal airport spending....After the ten years were up, the feds would NOT need to spend so much on airports afterwards.....

[Anonymous]

Passenger trains and service are like the steam engine, they are both dead. Let the dead lie dead.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Passenger trains may be dying today, but in the future, hopefully soon, when all of the airlines have gone under in a mountain of red ink, they will thrive.

In the major cities, where the hubs are, airports literally have no more room for growth. The feds have spent so much and built so much, the airports are full. With the population expecting to double in the next 50 years, just where are the airlines going to land their jets, just where are they going to board their passengers, and where are the airliners going to circle and for how long?

The state of Texas DOT has issued a comprehensive study dedtailing its plans of the Trans Texas Corridors. I suggest you read this and get your head out of the sand. There is much more gridlock in your future.

http://www.dot.tx.us/ttc/ttc.htm

After reading this, one might come to the conclusion that high speed trains will be in our future.....

[Anonymous]

I read it. (Not all but most) I liked what I read. One problem, in order for high speed rail to be a success you are going to have to change the mind set of the everyday businessman. They are the bulk of the travelers. They are the one's who have to be sold on high speed rail. Without there support rail travel, remains dead.
TIM A

[jsanchez]

What's pathetic is high speed rail is very profitable in most of the world(France, Japan, Spain, Germany) airlines are huge money losers almost everywhere. The highway system is in trouble also in the USA, I know the transportation commitee in Congress is looking at adding a 60 cent per gallon fuel tax and making more interstates toll roads, my solution would be to build privately owned toll roads and privitize roads like the NJ or Pennsylvania turnpike(both beauracratic nightmares) The United States is about the only country not building privatized highways , because are pork minded politicians both Democrats and Republicans ,don't want to give up control. You think transportation is bad now wait ten years!!! Thanks to unlimited immigration the US population is growing far faster than infrastucture is being built, plus were neglecting the most efficient form of transport, railroads. The person who said passenger rail is dead must not venture out of the USA much, or has never been on a 200mph+ passenger train.

[Anonymous]

I have traveled through-out Europe by rail. I did not travel in Japan by high speed rail but did see the trains. I know for a fact that most of the trains I rode on were Goverment subsitized. Most of the rail employee's I spoke to were afraid they were going to lose there jobs because railroads were losing money. (This was in all country's except Japan I did not have a opertunity to speak to them.) Today, from what I understand most rail companies are cutting routes do to lack of ridership and money through-out Europe and Asia. Only were heavy goverment subsitize exist do passenger trains continue to run.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Nevertheless, you propose to spend more for airports and highways, probably bail out the airlines too, but won't spend a penny for high speed rail. Face the music, the airlines have yet to build one airport, one airport terminal, one airport parking garage, or one airport freeway. The airlines have enough problems leasing new aircraft to replace the old ones.

If the airlines had to purchase the above items in the past, either one of two things would have happened by now: airline travel costs so high you couldn't afford, or all of the airlines being government owned....

Notice that the railroads own their right of way, built their railroad tracks, and pay taxes on the same. While railroad cars and engines can be depreciated, land is very difficult to deprecitate....in fact, usually land appreciates.....

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I doubt if anybody has ridden on a 200 mph + passenger train considering that the maximum speed of most of the high speed trains is around 180 mph. Further, I never heard of any move in Congress to increase the motor fuel tax by 60 cents a gallon, and I live just outside of the Beltway in the suburbs of Washington, DC

[Anonymous]

Well, the maglev train in Hong Kong, or is it Shanghai does over 200 mph. But its only a twelve mile line from downtown to the airport, without any stops in between.

[Anonymous]

That is a commuter train, and yes there will always be a need for commuter rail service. Note that it goes from a city to a major Airport.
Sir, I do not disagree with you on hi speed rail. You make some very valid points. However, in today's economic climate, and bussiness. Airport's are looked at as the safer investment with a better out look for growth. (And I believe this to be true also.) Until you can change the mind set of World leaders, World bankers and the everyday businessmen, passenger rail sevice between major cities is dead.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

I will agree with you as far as long distance trips, but I must disagree with you as far as short distance and medium distance trips.

See this graph, even in America people would rather take a fast train than an airliner:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/400mileairrailratios.gif

In the news this year Amtrak has seen more growth in its Acela ridership, whereas the airlines have lost more business on the northeast corridor/ air shuttle.

Also, keep in mind Acela is running on old tracks south of New Haven, and not reaching its top speed.
Whereas the air shuttle is losing money, Amtrak is posting a profit on its northeast corridor trains... However, Amtrak does have a maintenance backlog of a few billion dollars to reach Acela's top speed which could save another 30 minutes travel time....

So, there, it is not just a European phenomenon.

The question remains, who we be better off spending $6 billion to fix the northeast corridor so that Acela could run as fast as possible, or spend a similar amount building another terminal and rebuilding the runways at O'hare airport in Chicago?

[Anonymous]

You are right! The question is how to allocate the limited funding between the modes and how to make the funding pot bigger or depending on your political persuasion how to reduce the funding required for all modes. High speed rail will become a reality in North America but probably not to the same extent as in Europe. I believe that Amtrak has 60% of the intercity in the NEC corridor now which is approximately double it was several years ago. High speed or even higher speed rail will succeed where the distance is short and congestion is high. Congestion will increase on the interstates around urban areas and between certain urban areas until the only alternative will be higher speed rail because air and road travel will be to time consuming at any price. The critics are right that rail will never take over air for the long haul but I disagree with respect to distances up to 500 miles. There are many city pairs that are less than 500 miles apart.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps I am confused. I have alway's assumed that the Northeast corridor Infrustructor was maintained at a high standard. If this is true, and these trains are seeing growth and making a profit, why would they need Federal Funds? If the potential for even a break even operation existed, Why don't the cities along these routes finance these improvments through the sale of Bonds? Or perhaps the reason the rail industry is not seeing this money is because it is so poorly managed.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

The reason the passenger trains are "not making money" is that they are not run by railroaders but politians. If the airline industry had to abide by the same financial rules the railroads do they would not be flying.

[Modelcar]

....First of all, I imagine it is a matter of question if a profit is being made on the overall length of the N E C...and perhaps it is time for major capitol improvements and for sure there would not be sufficient funds available from any "profits" being earned...and,I believe I recall Mr. Gunn saying much outlay of funds will be required soon to keep it "high Speed" and safe. I believe I read somewhere that the overhead Catenary is in need of major overhall...so if most of the above is true of their maintenance needs on that route....We're talking real money.

QM

[Anonymous]

Nothing lasts forever. Some of the electric lines, caternary, is 90 years old, and as Mr. Gunn said, they are worn out. He also suggested replacing two bridges in Connecticut. Amtrak is working on the tunnels under the Hudson already. There are miles of rotting railroad ties. Cars have not been repaired from accidents in years... Some cars are over 50 years old. Some of the stations need new roofs....

As far as I am concerned, if it is worth having, it is worth maintaining it....

However, the transcontinentals and other long distance trains are only losing Amtrak less than $300 million a year. Yey, Amtrak received a $1 billion budget this year. Somewhere Amtrak is losing $700 million.....Amtrak wants $2 billion next year.....

Many commuter trains are using this northeast corridor. Maybe they should put some funds into maintanence too.

But this is the same story all over America. Old worn out tracks... Old worn out cars... I say it is time for a new generation of tracks and trainsets......

[Anonymous]

It seems everywhere in the world high speed trains win the 300 mile market, and give a good accounting up to 600 miles. And in Europe they are expanding and linking high speed rail lines up to even longer distances. We can too.

You are correct. It is just a matter of spending priorities! The money already exists....

[jsanchez]

The highspeed operations are profitable, TGV,Shinkansen, ICE, the operations that lose money are the traditional operations, some of these could be profitable if privatised, the Europeans government systems are overstaffed and have to deal with militant unions. Japan privatized most of their services and did away with much of the over staffing, that is why they are running traditional and high speed rail at a profit, the Swiss system often runs in the black also. Airlines are very heavily subsidized in the USA, the average fedarl subsidy is around 40 dollars per person, this does not include local airport subsidies,airport construction, or the cost of the recently federalized security . If passenger rail is dead why are there still many thousands ofmiles of new highspeed rail being constructed all over the globe?

[Anonymous]

You are right. As for subsidies, the only turnpike in Texas that has paid itself off, the now Tom Landry Highway, is now being reconstructed as a freeway costing the taxpayers of Texas and the United States billions. Obviously, highways are subsidized.....why not trains?

[jsanchez]

The United States is one of the few countries still building expressways as a government entitlement. Most new expressways in the world are being built by the private sector. Even Socialist Britain just opened a privately owned motorway, also Route 401 in the Toronto Metro area is being Privatized. Our politicians see highway construction as away to maintain power and get re-elected. The problem is highways keep getting more and more expensive to build and maintain, while state and fedral deficits keep increasing. Alaska Republican Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, , proposed a 60 cent per gallon tax increase, this kind shows what a hole were in. Needles to say this out of touch politician receives major contributions from the highway lobby.

[Anonymous]

The paradox. The US has the greatest amount of assets in the world coupled to the most incompetent transportation planning organizations.

The solution. We need transportation planners who are energetic, able to think outside the box, and will have the authority and funding to take action to improve things without interference from all of the bureaucratic and government bone heads.

The airlines vs passenger train question is not one of an "Us vs Them" nature. What's lacking is planning system that can coordinate all forms of transportion, public and private, into an integrated operating system that best benefits the travelling public, as well as reduces costs, improves efficiencies, and conserves resources and the environment to the greatest extent possible.

Most entering this forum are railfans, and most would back whatever is necessary to promote rail travel. Rail deserves a more integral and expanded part in a coordinated transportation system. However, it must be remembered that there are two major segments of the travelling public. Those who travel for business, and those who travel for pleasure. For the vast majority of business travelers and for many pleasure travelers, time is of the essence. For rail transport to claim its rightful position in the transportation heirarchy it must provide frequent, dependable, rapid, safe, comfortable, clean, and affordable service.

The implementation. Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll ever see this happen. Currently each transportation industry segment is beset with its own unique economic problems brought about by either excessive or lack of government interference. The impetus for such changes will have to start in the federal government but wont as long as transportation illiterates continuously pumped up by deep pocketed limited agenda corporate supported lobbyists make up the majority in both the Senate and House. And especially now, where it appears congress is trying make rail transport a "states rights - pay as you go" proposition.

For the sake of our country I wi***he outlook was more promising.

[thirdrail1]

Fortunately, I'm retired, so I don't have to travel anywhere, but I'll tell y'all this. With the current hysteria over terrorists and the indignities the TSA makes the airline passengers suffer, you couldn't get me into an airport for a million bucks. Since the only train operating within a hundred miles of me doesn't go where i want to go and only operates three times a week anyway, guess I'll drive anywhere I have to go and do without going overseas.

Since the invention of the automobile, ALL forms of public passenger transportation, rail, air, or bus, have been heavily subsidized by the government, in different ways. Personally, I'd like to see the airlines forced to buy and operate all the airports, with the land fully taxed, and buy and operate the air traffic control system, too. The railroads' problem, and the ocean liners' too, is that the investment in both capital and labor is equal to that of the airlines, but the airlines get ten times the utilization out of both capital and labor. I worked for the PRR when we attempted to save the Broadway Limited, but there was no way to make a train pay that required over 100 workers to get it from New York to Chicago in 16 hours, when an airliner took 9 people and 2 hours. We gave it a good try though - still remember those humorous newspaper ads..

[Anonymous]

I'll tell ya what, all yee who doubt the future of passenger railroads, just two years ago I would have begruggingly agreed with you. Nobody wants to travel by train for four hours what they could fly in 45 min. It's a sad fact. Hey, when I was thinking about putting in my application to VIA six years ago; my Dad had shown me the application, I said "I didn't know we still had a passenger rail system. Who travels on it?"
Not that many, to tell you the gods honest truth. And although I really did like the work, when they decided to cut the conductors to save money (yes, that's how "in the red" we were.....) Who thought that would work? Not me. I actually put in my applications for the airlines. I was accepted. I ended up turning it down. (Good thing too as it was with Canadian...and I would clearly be out of a job by now.)
Anyway we struggled along. Service got stronger as fresh-blood was hired. Things became vibrant, and positive word of mouth was spreading. For those who did travel with us, they came back.
Still, however, I would go out to bars with my friends . I would meet people. They would say, "and what do you do for a living?" I would tell them and their faces were all confused. "What does VIA do?" It's true.
September eleventh 2001, I was working the club car from Montreal to Toronto, and I was supposed to double out to Ottawa that same afternoon. My preview manifest that morning had indicated an easy, quiet trip. 30 pax in the club, and about 90 in the coachs. I'm sure you can imagine how that changed. (68pax in club, 278 coach) Passengers off airlines, people desperate to get home, no car, no plains, what now? The train? You mean we still have one? yes. yes we do. Those people who travelled that day experienced, for many of them, for the first time what "efficient use of time" really means.

Experiment. Flight from Toronto to Ottawa takes 45min. Train, 4 hrs. Which gets you
there faster? Answer: They're both the same. Airports are never downtown, and rarly eaily accessable. Add 30 min. to the 45min. flight for travel time to airport. (1hr15min.) Still faster? Wrong. You can not arrive 5 min before your flight takes off (no matter what they do in the movies). Add 1hr30min. (2hrs.45min.) Flight time includes time plain take off to time plain land, but does not incorporate the time it takes to run up and down the runway. Add 30 min. (3hr15min.) Walking 5 kilometers through the airport, plus baggage retrival, Add another 30 min (3hr45min). Now get from airport in Ottawa(also not downtown) 20 min. We're now at 4hr. 05 min. Aproximatly the same time. Difference. You get on the train you plug in your lap top, you talk on the phone, you arrive downtown.
911 changed the buisnessmans paradime on the cold side of the boarder.
Amtrac needs to work and focus on catering more exclusivly to them, they may find them coming in in droves. Give it five years.

[ironhorseman]

I had thought occur to me while reading something at the Classic Trains forum: Why are we pitting airline vs train? or train vs bus? or bus vs airline? Airlines have the advantage because there are more than one. But there's only one Greyhound and one Amtrak. It's no longer train vs train. If you want to go from Los Angeles to Chicago what are your choices? Amtrak or Amtrak. When you take a bus the only choice is Greyhound. If passenger trains as a whole are going to survive they need to compete. When you ask yourself: "should I take the plane or should I take the train" you're only comparing apples to oranges.

If I were a rich man (and so forth and so forth) and financial wizard I'd start my own passenger service to compete with Amtrak. And I wouldn't share a line with the major freight roads. Yeah, I MIGHT go broke, but you can't say that for sure. It'd be interesting to see what happens.

I hear the state of Oklahoma came up with the funds to pay for that OKC to Ft. Worth train.

[Anonymous]

I've heard several people on this disscusion suppose that prizatizing the railroad will be better for passengers, better fr the railroad......
Try taking a train in England!
They went privat in 1997 and it was disasterous! You can take a train at 0945 from Manchester to London for £45, or if you don't mind waiting around for another 4 hrs, there will be another one at 1350 for £12. But if you've already purchased your ticket for the 0945 train you can't now exchange it fr the 1350 as they are different operators. Infact there are no echanges permitted at all, unless you pay entirely.
Also, there are plenty of trains going to London, Manchester, Edinbough, Glascoe, but not any trains going to ponty pool, because it is not as popular. End result is everyone wants a pies of the trains that are popular, nobody wants any of the ones not as popular. Not really surprising thatthe government ended up having to buy back most of the rr's back off of the privat giants who didn't feel it was profitable enough and so got rid of it.
Government lost money. Privat sector lost money. Public did not recieve better service at any point.
Privatization and compition does not always equal better.