Amtrak [lack of], budget...

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry guys.
I know that right now as your rail system is suffering, it sounds like a great idea to privatize...but really, honestly, it would only work for the really busy city centres. Trains need to run to the other areas too. If you take the only trains that make any money away frrom the government, you will not see things getting better, it will only get worse. Further more, Ed was right. passenger transpertation has never been profitable. Infact, even in the hay day of train travel, it was the fright train money that payed for the passenger rail. CN and CP owned the passenger system in Canada, and they NEVER made money on passengers. That's no great sales pitch to a privat company coming in to try and "rescue" the pax trains.
Sorry, I just don't see it being successful.
I use England as a wonderful exsample of how UNsuccessful privatzation of railroads can be.
Let the government take care of it. It's the only way to keep it.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry guys.
I know that right now as your rail system is suffering, it sounds like a great idea to privatize...but really, honestly, it would only work for the really busy city centres. Trains need to run to the other areas too. If you take the only trains that make any money away frrom the government, you will not see things getting better, it will only get worse. Further more, Ed was right. passenger transpertation has never been profitable. Infact, even in the hay day of train travel, it was the fright train money that payed for the passenger rail. CN and CP owned the passenger system in Canada, and they NEVER made money on passengers. That's no great sales pitch to a privat company coming in to try and "rescue" the pax trains.
Sorry, I just don't see it being successful.
I use England as a wonderful exsample of how UNsuccessful privatzation of railroads can be.
Let the government take care of it. It's the only way to keep it.

[kenneo]

Ed ---

With the exception of the Anglo-American countries, it is the rare railroad that is or was privately owned or operated. France and Germany are usually held as examples of how to run a passenger operation and in Germany, for example, the railroads were built by the King or Duke of the area and he funded not only the construction, but also the operations. All of the revenue, therefore, went back into his pocket. AND, the public mind set reflects that and considers passanger rail successful at a service level, not a fare-box recovery issue. In fact, they demand the service level.

As an example of DEMAND, in TRAINS News Wire a week or so ago, there was an item about the DB re-ordering more cars of its double-deck regional equipment, calling them elegant. I rode those cars in June, and elegent does not begin to cover it. And these are considered "long-distance-commuter" equipment for trains with 2 hours or less running times. It would work for long distance in the US today.

Even if the US passenger system (Amtrak) is to stay public, a mind set of "for-profit" that is centered on making each dollor go as far as possible and also to provide a service that will be supported by ridership is essential to public (read congress) confidence and support. Yes, it would be nice if Amtrak turned a profit, but it probably can't, and the $200 per seat subsidy of some trains can not be politically maintained.

Congress, however, is not to blame for all of the problems with Amtrak. Monies were diverted between internal budgets to fund things how Amtrak wanted without approval of Congress, which made for bad blood between them. Managers simply did not manage to obtain the greatest return for the dollor in many highly visable areas.

When the on-time/ahead-of-time bonus paid to the freight railroads was cutoff by congress, timekeeping tanked, and this in turn caused a reduction in ridership due to non-dependableity. Trains that used to run 16-18 cars now run 8, and I understand occupancy generally is less than 80%, but I don't know that to be a fact. So it is easy to see how the subsidy can be so high.

Just to get an idea of how "figures can lie", if you take the subsidy now - say $200 per passenger, and assume that occupancy is 100% - an 8 car train will have 6 revenue cars (diner and lounge and baggage/express do not count). A 16 car train, however will have 13 or 14 revenue cars and a 18 car train will have 15, at least. The actual mix of seats/beds makes a real comparison impossible here, but let us assume that 6 cars = 300 seats/beds, therefore, a 16 car train would have +/- 650. But even if it were only 600, your per seat/bed subsidy would be reduced to $100. But if only the same number of people rode the train, your per passenger subsidy would remain at $200 with an occupancy rate of 50%. One of the points here is, are we dealing with "Revenue Seat Miles" or is it "Seat Miles". It can make a HUGE differance.

The last issue (at least for this post) is that when the freight roads ran the trains, they carried revenue head-end traffic - express and mail. In fact, dedicated head-end trains always made money until the postal contract when to trucks and aircraft. Amtrak is prohibited by law (National Railroad Passenger Corporation Act of 1970 (?was it 70, I can't remember and title probably not correct) from carrying that kind of traffic despite what Amtrak tried to do in recent years. The intent by the railroads was to keep the revenue and shed the loss. All of this traffic is either TOFC or Air and guess who does it? USPS, FEDEX and UPS for the most part.

[kenneo]

Ed ---

With the exception of the Anglo-American countries, it is the rare railroad that is or was privately owned or operated. France and Germany are usually held as examples of how to run a passenger operation and in Germany, for example, the railroads were built by the King or Duke of the area and he funded not only the construction, but also the operations. All of the revenue, therefore, went back into his pocket. AND, the public mind set reflects that and considers passanger rail successful at a service level, not a fare-box recovery issue. In fact, they demand the service level.

As an example of DEMAND, in TRAINS News Wire a week or so ago, there was an item about the DB re-ordering more cars of its double-deck regional equipment, calling them elegant. I rode those cars in June, and elegent does not begin to cover it. And these are considered "long-distance-commuter" equipment for trains with 2 hours or less running times. It would work for long distance in the US today.

Even if the US passenger system (Amtrak) is to stay public, a mind set of "for-profit" that is centered on making each dollor go as far as possible and also to provide a service that will be supported by ridership is essential to public (read congress) confidence and support. Yes, it would be nice if Amtrak turned a profit, but it probably can't, and the $200 per seat subsidy of some trains can not be politically maintained.

Congress, however, is not to blame for all of the problems with Amtrak. Monies were diverted between internal budgets to fund things how Amtrak wanted without approval of Congress, which made for bad blood between them. Managers simply did not manage to obtain the greatest return for the dollor in many highly visable areas.

When the on-time/ahead-of-time bonus paid to the freight railroads was cutoff by congress, timekeeping tanked, and this in turn caused a reduction in ridership due to non-dependableity. Trains that used to run 16-18 cars now run 8, and I understand occupancy generally is less than 80%, but I don't know that to be a fact. So it is easy to see how the subsidy can be so high.

Just to get an idea of how "figures can lie", if you take the subsidy now - say $200 per passenger, and assume that occupancy is 100% - an 8 car train will have 6 revenue cars (diner and lounge and baggage/express do not count). A 16 car train, however will have 13 or 14 revenue cars and a 18 car train will have 15, at least. The actual mix of seats/beds makes a real comparison impossible here, but let us assume that 6 cars = 300 seats/beds, therefore, a 16 car train would have +/- 650. But even if it were only 600, your per seat/bed subsidy would be reduced to $100. But if only the same number of people rode the train, your per passenger subsidy would remain at $200 with an occupancy rate of 50%. One of the points here is, are we dealing with "Revenue Seat Miles" or is it "Seat Miles". It can make a HUGE differance.

The last issue (at least for this post) is that when the freight roads ran the trains, they carried revenue head-end traffic - express and mail. In fact, dedicated head-end trains always made money until the postal contract when to trucks and aircraft. Amtrak is prohibited by law (National Railroad Passenger Corporation Act of 1970 (?was it 70, I can't remember and title probably not correct) from carrying that kind of traffic despite what Amtrak tried to do in recent years. The intent by the railroads was to keep the revenue and shed the loss. All of this traffic is either TOFC or Air and guess who does it? USPS, FEDEX and UPS for the most part.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Fund it the way we fund highways, with a small nation wide tax

I agree that public funding for Amtrak should emulate the model used to fund highway construction and maintenance. Since highway funding is collected as a gasoline tax, how do you propose collecting the funds for the Amtrak system? It seems to me that you can't charge the ticket holders the fuel tax. So I guess you have to charge them a basic mileage tax.

What do y'all think about charging a mileage surcharge on Amtrak tickets to pay for capitol improvements and maintenance? - The other Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Fund it the way we fund highways, with a small nation wide tax

I agree that public funding for Amtrak should emulate the model used to fund highway construction and maintenance. Since highway funding is collected as a gasoline tax, how do you propose collecting the funds for the Amtrak system? It seems to me that you can't charge the ticket holders the fuel tax. So I guess you have to charge them a basic mileage tax.

What do y'all think about charging a mileage surcharge on Amtrak tickets to pay for capitol improvements and maintenance? - The other Ed

[Modelcar]

......I will keep trying from my corner of life.

[Modelcar]

......I will keep trying from my corner of life.

[edblysard]

Yeah, but you gotta keep trying.
I think the major hurdle is that this is not a very public issue.
Outside of the railroad press and magazine trade, and the railfan comunity, not to many folks even think about it.
But if you want a idea to mull over, go to the TDOT website, (texas dept of transportation)and look at the Trans Texas plan. Wi***hey would hurry up, I would love to see this happen in my lifetime.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Yeah, but you gotta keep trying.
I think the major hurdle is that this is not a very public issue.
Outside of the railroad press and magazine trade, and the railfan comunity, not to many folks even think about it.
But if you want a idea to mull over, go to the TDOT website, (texas dept of transportation)and look at the Trans Texas plan. Wi***hey would hurry up, I would love to see this happen in my lifetime.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Modelcar]

....Ed, I wish your message would be the message the Congress and Adminstration could soak up and do something about....Sadly, with the makeup of Washington now, I think our chances of having a decent passenger rail system in place to serve the public and not expect it to generate a profit...will not be seen. They just will not put that up as a priority.

[Modelcar]

....Ed, I wish your message would be the message the Congress and Adminstration could soak up and do something about....Sadly, with the makeup of Washington now, I think our chances of having a decent passenger rail system in place to serve the public and not expect it to generate a profit...will not be seen. They just will not put that up as a priority.

[edblysard]

I agree, the very fact the it survived this long means there is a need and a want for it.
My point was, if left alone, it would continue to function just as it has. But, if given to the private sector to run, what we view as passenger trains would dissappear, in favor of the city to city mass transit systems, because the amount of profit vs cost of those type of operations would outweigh the return any long distance train could generate.
The farebox recovery, plus the lesser cost of shorter infrastructure, and the built in return customer would make commuter railroading more attractive to the private sector.
But, if run by a goverment agency, or it's own stand alone Federal agency, then the need to have any real farebox recovery is no longer there, as the need to profit dosnt figure into the operating structure. So as long as the only driving force is the need of the customer to go from New York to L.A., well, great. Making money would no longer be a factor in decisions as to where and when to run a train, only the needs of us, the general public, and our wants and need would determine that.
There are cities out there desperatly wanting passenger train to service their city, but Amtrak is cutting, or already has done away with service to them, because the trains dont generate enough money to even cover their operating cost. But shut down the Northeast corridor, and see how long Washington DC stays in business. The money there covers the cost, and then some.
Most European, Asian and South American countries realized, even pre WWII, that a profit from passenger trains no longer exsisted. They knew, even then, that it had to become a form of public transportation, subsidised by the goverment, for the service of the public. I think we should follow suite.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8]

[edblysard]

I agree, the very fact the it survived this long means there is a need and a want for it.
My point was, if left alone, it would continue to function just as it has. But, if given to the private sector to run, what we view as passenger trains would dissappear, in favor of the city to city mass transit systems, because the amount of profit vs cost of those type of operations would outweigh the return any long distance train could generate.
The farebox recovery, plus the lesser cost of shorter infrastructure, and the built in return customer would make commuter railroading more attractive to the private sector.
But, if run by a goverment agency, or it's own stand alone Federal agency, then the need to have any real farebox recovery is no longer there, as the need to profit dosnt figure into the operating structure. So as long as the only driving force is the need of the customer to go from New York to L.A., well, great. Making money would no longer be a factor in decisions as to where and when to run a train, only the needs of us, the general public, and our wants and need would determine that.
There are cities out there desperatly wanting passenger train to service their city, but Amtrak is cutting, or already has done away with service to them, because the trains dont generate enough money to even cover their operating cost. But shut down the Northeast corridor, and see how long Washington DC stays in business. The money there covers the cost, and then some.
Most European, Asian and South American countries realized, even pre WWII, that a profit from passenger trains no longer exsisted. They knew, even then, that it had to become a form of public transportation, subsidised by the goverment, for the service of the public. I think we should follow suite.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8]

[Modelcar]

....Limping along [with funding], is one thing that has contributed to the just partial success of Amtrak. Politicians unable to fund the program in a proper manner. For 32 years the system has lived from hand to mouth and really just existed and just barely at that. Don't we think if it was funded properly it would have a chance to have better success and build a viable system we wouldn't have to be ashamed of.

[Modelcar]

....Limping along [with funding], is one thing that has contributed to the just partial success of Amtrak. Politicians unable to fund the program in a proper manner. For 32 years the system has lived from hand to mouth and really just existed and just barely at that. Don't we think if it was funded properly it would have a chance to have better success and build a viable system we wouldn't have to be ashamed of.

[edblysard]

Either chop it up, and sell it to private companies to run as for profit railroads, or make it a wholey subsidised arm of the federal goverment, under the DOT jurisdiction. Fund it the way we fund highways, with a small nation wide tax.
If left alone, will it die? Most likley not, there is still enough political self interest involved in it to keep Amtrak limping along.
As a private company, you would see intercity routes between the major population centers grow, and long distance trains go away, no profit there.
As a goverment agency, most current routes would remain, and the cross country train would stay there, as a bare bones ride. But then again, do you see airlines advertise the quality of their "ride"? Of course not, there is no way to make sardines look comfortable.
But the plus side is that you wouldnt have to rely on fare box recovery of your operating cost. Add to that the facts of goverment employees running it, and you would see a constant level of service, maybe not the greatest, but still constant. Trust me, as a ex state employee, the one thing any goverment employee is really good at is making sure their jobs is still there tomorrow[:D]
The days of the streamlined passenger trains in Classic Trains is long gone, for the most part, they never made the carriers any money, but were great public relation tools, even if they were mandated by the feds. But railroads nowadays could care less what the general public thinks about them, its the shippers who count, and shippers could care less about Amtrak, or any other passenger train for that matter.
So we are left with three choices, sell it off and privatize it, make it a goverment agency, or leave it alone, and put up with it staying the same, unprofitable, unpleasent for the most part, and unrealiable.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8D]

[edblysard]

Either chop it up, and sell it to private companies to run as for profit railroads, or make it a wholey subsidised arm of the federal goverment, under the DOT jurisdiction. Fund it the way we fund highways, with a small nation wide tax.
If left alone, will it die? Most likley not, there is still enough political self interest involved in it to keep Amtrak limping along.
As a private company, you would see intercity routes between the major population centers grow, and long distance trains go away, no profit there.
As a goverment agency, most current routes would remain, and the cross country train would stay there, as a bare bones ride. But then again, do you see airlines advertise the quality of their "ride"? Of course not, there is no way to make sardines look comfortable.
But the plus side is that you wouldnt have to rely on fare box recovery of your operating cost. Add to that the facts of goverment employees running it, and you would see a constant level of service, maybe not the greatest, but still constant. Trust me, as a ex state employee, the one thing any goverment employee is really good at is making sure their jobs is still there tomorrow[:D]
The days of the streamlined passenger trains in Classic Trains is long gone, for the most part, they never made the carriers any money, but were great public relation tools, even if they were mandated by the feds. But railroads nowadays could care less what the general public thinks about them, its the shippers who count, and shippers could care less about Amtrak, or any other passenger train for that matter.
So we are left with three choices, sell it off and privatize it, make it a goverment agency, or leave it alone, and put up with it staying the same, unprofitable, unpleasent for the most part, and unrealiable.
Stay Frosty,
Ed[8D]

[Modelcar]

....More on the budget. House Appropriations subcommittee approved an Amtrak budget of 580 million for the 2004 budget year starting Oct. 1....."As a practical matter, this is a shutdown scenario", Amtrak official Cliff Black said of the amount. Now if this isn't altered before then will that mean the total system shuts down and we have no more service, and.....at the same time the NEC remains open...I believe we all know that has to remain open unless other plans are put in place and what would they be at this time....Interstate routes couldn' t handle that much more traffic...So what are we looking at....? This could get interesting.

[Modelcar]

....More on the budget. House Appropriations subcommittee approved an Amtrak budget of 580 million for the 2004 budget year starting Oct. 1....."As a practical matter, this is a shutdown scenario", Amtrak official Cliff Black said of the amount. Now if this isn't altered before then will that mean the total system shuts down and we have no more service, and.....at the same time the NEC remains open...I believe we all know that has to remain open unless other plans are put in place and what would they be at this time....Interstate routes couldn' t handle that much more traffic...So what are we looking at....? This could get interesting.

[Wdlgln005]

Yep, here we go again

Billions spent on highway. Billions on airlines (spell bankrupt United USAir can American be next?) Lucky to get 600 mil spent on Amtrak, and we wonder why they killed the Ky Cardinal. So what to do: With the elections coming up, it's time to find out how much the Congress cares about what the people want. Restore & spend 1.8 bil on Amtrak. Get the wreck damaged cars out of Beech Grove & on the rails. Buy Superliner 3's for long distance trains. We've been though this as long as Amtrak! Spend just enough to keep it going buy new equipment every 10 to 20 years but not enough to have a first class system. So we'll prpbably have to settle for 1.5 bil.

[Wdlgln005]

Yep, here we go again

Billions spent on highway. Billions on airlines (spell bankrupt United USAir can American be next?) Lucky to get 600 mil spent on Amtrak, and we wonder why they killed the Ky Cardinal. So what to do: With the elections coming up, it's time to find out how much the Congress cares about what the people want. Restore & spend 1.8 bil on Amtrak. Get the wreck damaged cars out of Beech Grove & on the rails. Buy Superliner 3's for long distance trains. We've been though this as long as Amtrak! Spend just enough to keep it going buy new equipment every 10 to 20 years but not enough to have a first class system. So we'll prpbably have to settle for 1.5 bil.

[JoeKoh]

Scottydog
there are too many things the gov't wastes our money on.Rail service can work in this country.at least we'd be helping our country not some ungrateful foriegn land.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

Scottydog
there are too many things the gov't wastes our money on.Rail service can work in this country.at least we'd be helping our country not some ungrateful foriegn land.
stay safe
joe

[jsanchez]

What gets me is the massive increase in HIGHWAYspending, hello, aren't we still importing most of our oil!! ,isn't looking after the good of the nation more important that giving the highway lobby its undeserved pork. They talk about privitizing parts of Amtrak, why not privitize parts of the highway system, the United States is one of the very few countries that hasn't done this to any great extent, even socialist Canada and Britain are experimenting with highway privitization.
I am one Republican who is vey disgruntled with the bad transportation choices being made by the Republican Whitehouse administration and the Republican transportation committees in the house and senate. There is more to transportation than highways and as long as railroads are the most economical and efficient form of transportation it should not be ignored. Most of our representatives have no idea how bad our transportation systems have become, since they always fly around in private jets or helicopters.
If some suggest having the private sector run passenger trains, why don't they go ahead and just do it!!! I for one would like to see if this works or fails, the new operator probably couldn't make ends meet due to liabilty insurance costs, a whole other can of worms.

[jsanchez]

What gets me is the massive increase in HIGHWAYspending, hello, aren't we still importing most of our oil!! ,isn't looking after the good of the nation more important that giving the highway lobby its undeserved pork. They talk about privitizing parts of Amtrak, why not privitize parts of the highway system, the United States is one of the very few countries that hasn't done this to any great extent, even socialist Canada and Britain are experimenting with highway privitization.
I am one Republican who is vey disgruntled with the bad transportation choices being made by the Republican Whitehouse administration and the Republican transportation committees in the house and senate. There is more to transportation than highways and as long as railroads are the most economical and efficient form of transportation it should not be ignored. Most of our representatives have no idea how bad our transportation systems have become, since they always fly around in private jets or helicopters.
If some suggest having the private sector run passenger trains, why don't they go ahead and just do it!!! I for one would like to see if this works or fails, the new operator probably couldn't make ends meet due to liabilty insurance costs, a whole other can of worms.

[Anonymous]

I have written my congressman several times on this topic [an idiot called Henry Hyde] and all I get is is the same all junk "I refer you to study-----You really should read the report of----" . Although I have asked some pretty direct questions such as; Why big bucks for the Airlines, why big subsidies for trucking, why billions for the likes of Israel but nothing for what built this country. How many immigrants rode the rails to settle the interior, it it wasn't for them there probably wouldn't be an Iowa to have a presidential primary in. Isn't it funny, we have preserved WW11 battleships and other assorted warships from carriers to submarines but can't preserve passenger service in this country.

[Anonymous]

I have written my congressman several times on this topic [an idiot called Henry Hyde] and all I get is is the same all junk "I refer you to study-----You really should read the report of----" . Although I have asked some pretty direct questions such as; Why big bucks for the Airlines, why big subsidies for trucking, why billions for the likes of Israel but nothing for what built this country. How many immigrants rode the rails to settle the interior, it it wasn't for them there probably wouldn't be an Iowa to have a presidential primary in. Isn't it funny, we have preserved WW11 battleships and other assorted warships from carriers to submarines but can't preserve passenger service in this country.

[Modelcar]

....A few hours ago I noticed at the bottom of the TV screen on a news crawler...."Amtrak will have to shut down if Congress doesn't provide requisted budget money"....as the Adminstration is providing less than 600 mil., less than a third of what Gunn says it takes to run what we have now....So what do we think will finally happen now...?

Money for everyone's difficulties except ours...