Which railroad is most friendly to Amtrak operations and which is most open to the prospect of adding more Amtrak trains to their lines?
Amtrak has very few friends even here on this forum!! I spent many hours here during the Obama transition, and was amazed that there is so little support for a national, high-speed rail system among rail fans.
The freight railraods have neither nostalgic love nor infrastructure benefit from Amtrak. Our nation supports the most profitable transportation systems, and all over the world it is known that passenger rail must be heavily subsidized.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I think you have it wrong. There is quite a bit of support for passenger rail in general, and Amtrak in particular here in these forums. We're just critical of what we see as Amtrak's shortcomings and are afraid that, if not done wisely, the money coming to upgrade intercity passenger rail service will be squandered.
Speaking for myself, I'd just like to see a "better" Amtrak - one with some level of monetary incentives built into the overall corporate performance and efficiency.
Maglevall over the world it is known that passenger rail must be heavily subsidized.
This may be true, but without understanding why, it is not useful as a fact to support investment and operation of passenger rail services. As my mother said, "If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Maglevall over the world it is known that passenger rail must be heavily subsidized. This may be true, but without understanding why, it is not useful
This may be true, but without understanding why, it is not useful
...well, my reasons are mostly aesthetic. It's a concept called "freedom." Being able to travel in my own country safely, comfortably, and economically.
And it seems that everyone on this forum requires an economic analysis of "freedom." Hey, I know that sometimes fighting for my beliefs is as crazy as jumping off a bridge; "
It must be me. I don't get it. I am pro American, pro business, etc. but because something smacks of so called Socialism it should be ignored at best, totally disdained and condemned at worst? If it doesn't pay for a private company to build and operate the street you live on, to furnish water, sewer, police, fire, or any other municipal or sociatiel service, then why do we allow governments to build and provide them for us? Why don't we just do without? Or the Army, Navy, Marines, AIr Force, and Coast Guard? Since I don't live on the ocean, I don't need a Navy or Coast Guard, so let those who live there pay for it? That's not American either now, is it?
That brings us to the highway system, the interstate highway system and on to the railsystem. Since a majority of the people don't normally use they system (as a whole) on a day to day basis, why shouldn't just the truckers and bus companies build and support it and the rest of us pay a toll as we use it...10 miles to work, 100 miles to Grandma's house, 1000 miles on a vacation someday? And the waterways and the airways the same. So there, I guess we don't need a rail system, passenger or freight, supplied or somehow supported by the government. And where does that put us? Economically? Securely? Socially? Powerfully?
No, government has to step in, as it always has, for the good of the country so that it can ecnomically, securely, socially, and powerfully can allow for the development of its commerce and the prosperity of its people. I am not say it has to be totally the government, it can and should be a partnership of business and government. Research, development, study, designing, manufacturing, assembling, building, and operating are some the the aspects which can develop jobs along with a service to be used by and for all (all=business, industry, government, public). If we can get a real high speed passenger rail service in this country, who cares who gets it to us as long as we get it, we'll all benefit from it.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Correction -- $137 million for approx. 1300 miles is $100,000 per mile; but the Cascades report I had gives minimum costs of $1 million per mile to upgrade for modest speeds, up to $30 million per mile for high-speed electrification (and at that point, maglev at $50 million per mile is not out of the question).
Is is socialist to do what is right? Was my great-grandfather a socialist for supporting passenger trains? Was he un-American when he allowed black men to work along side locomotive engineers? Why did my father lose a leg in Korea? Was it to assure that the Koreans would have better trains?
I just have a hard time with the arguements "because it's the right thing to do" or "because everyone is doing it".
"Right" in this case, is a value judgment, so what values make it right?
Nobody does frt RRing like the US, except Canada, so are we "wrong"?
It can make good sense to our shared set of values to spend public money on things that don't have hard cost/benefit ratios. National Parks, for example.
But, it NEVER makes sense to pour public money down a sewer. There has to be some rationale behind it, or you'll never get consensus.
"It never makes sense to pour money down a sewer."
Are you opposed to government-operated sewage treatment plants also?
I am by and large a friend, although I see lots of opportunities for improvements, many of which I had discussed.
Given its political constraints, Amtrak management does a reasonably good job. But its performance probably would improve if the proper incentives were put in place.
I have taken three or four trips a year on Amtrak for as long as I can remember. Excluding the on-time performance (oxymoron) of the long distance trains, for the most part the trips have been pleasant.
The most effective incentives for Amtrak to lift its game would be to open passenger rail to competition. However, no one outside of the government is going to invest in passenger rail. There is no return. But the Australians have developed a model that offers a workable alternative.
Three of Australia's premier long distance trains (Indian Pacific, Gahn, and Overland) are operated under contract by Great Southern Railway, Inc., which is a consortium of private investors. The contract is let through periodic bidding. If the contractors fail to meet their performance requirements, the contract can be awarded to another bidder when it is re-bid.
I returned recently from a trip to Australia. Whilst I was there I rode the Overland from Adelaide to Melbourne, and the Country Line from Melbourne to Sydney. The NSW government operates the Country Link. The crew on the Overland bent over backwards to provide the passengers with exemplary service. The service on the Country Link was more like that on Amtrak. It was OK, but it was nothing to write home about.
Amtrak has some excellent employees. But it also has a significant number of employees whose primary motivation appears to be to hang on until they can retire. It is frequently reflected in their attitude. They do what is required. But I have encountered only a few who go the extra yards to deliver a first class service.
Most government activities, e.g. defense, police, fire, public education, etc. are non- commercial. Society decided that it is more practicable for the government to provide these services then to have them provided through free market players, although there are some exceptions, e.g. private schools, water companies, utilities, etc.
The government invested in highway, airway, waterway, railway, etc. infrastructure because it believed that it could recoup the investment costs through user fees. For the most part it has, although in some instances the user fees flow back to the government indirectly and, therefore, are difficult to trace. It should continue to invest in projects, including rail projects, that serve the body politic as a whole, have a reasonable probability of covering the cost through user fees and ticket revenues, and is the best alternative for the situation.
Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, has not demonstrated that it can come even close to covering the cost of its investment through user fees and ticket sales. This means the taxpayer has to pick-up the tab. For a nation with a governmental debt burden (federal, state, and local) of more than $13 trillion, this warrants major consideration.
Sam1 Most government activities, e.g. defense, police, fire, public education, etc. are non- commercial. Society decided that it is more practicable for the government to provide these services then to have them provided through free market players, although there are some exceptions, e.g. private schools, water companies, utilities, etc. The government invested in highway, airway, waterway, railway, etc. infrastructure because it believed that it could recoup the investment costs through user fees. For the most part it has, although in some instances the user fees flow back to the government indirectly and, therefore, are difficult to trace. It should continue to invest in projects, including rail projects, that serve the body politic as a whole, have a reasonable probability of covering the cost through user fees and ticket revenues, and is the best alternative for the situation. Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, has not demonstrated that it can come even close to covering the cost of its investment through user fees and ticket sales. This means the taxpayer has to pick-up the tab. For a nation with a governmental debt burden (federal, state, and local) of more than $13 trillion, this warrants major consideration.
But Sam, it has not been given a real chance to prove itself nor does the catch all phrases concerning monies flowing back to the government that are "difficult to trace". Either that phrase has to apply to every form of transportation or none, we shouldn't single out just passenger rail. Since the government has been involved in roads and waterways since before this country's inception and in rail, interstate highways and air traffic terminal and air space control, the mess is too tangled to be undone without serious injury to the overall system. Or can it all be handed over to a profit based investor group to untangle and still allow us to drive, fly, rail, or float to and from where we want and must?
henry6 Sam1 Most government activities, e.g. defense, police, fire, public education, etc. are non- commercial. Society decided that it is more practicable for the government to provide these services then to have them provided through free market players, although there are some exceptions, e.g. private schools, water companies, utilities, etc. The government invested in highway, airway, waterway, railway, etc. infrastructure because it believed that it could recoup the investment costs through user fees. For the most part it has, although in some instances the user fees flow back to the government indirectly and, therefore, are difficult to trace. It should continue to invest in projects, including rail projects, that serve the body politic as a whole, have a reasonable probability of covering the cost through user fees and ticket revenues, and is the best alternative for the situation. Passenger rail, especially high speed rail, has not demonstrated that it can come even close to covering the cost of its investment through user fees and ticket sales. This means the taxpayer has to pick-up the tab. For a nation with a governmental debt burden (federal, state, and local) of more than $13 trillion, this warrants major consideration. But Sam, it has not been given a real chance to prove itself nor does the catch all phrases concerning monies flowing back to the government that are "difficult to trace". Either that phrase has to apply to every form of transportation or none, we shouldn't single out just passenger rail. Since the government has been involved in roads and waterways since before this country's inception and in rail, interstate highways and air traffic terminal and air space control, the mess is too tangled to be undone without serious injury to the overall system. Or can it all be handed over to a profit based investor group to untangle and still allow us to drive, fly, rail, or float to and from where we want and must?
The Australians have unwound a significant amount of government investment in their transport systems and handed them over to private contractors with good results.
Amtrak has not been able to cover its costs since its inception. The market for passenger rail in the U.S. is small compared to the alternatives, and it is likely to remain so. Neither Amtrak nor any of the high speed rail projects in the U.S. is likely to cover its costs. If fact, it is problematic whether they can even cover their operating costs outside of the NEC, which means non-users, e.g. the taxpayer, will have to cover the losses.
The costs and user fees for all modes of transport in the U.S., including passenger rail, can be traced. It takes time, as well as some knowledge about government budgeting and accounting, but I have done it.
The users of most modes paid for the infrastructure that they use. They pay for it in user fees, or they pay for it through taxes paid to the federal and state governments, which in turn flow them back to the government body responsible for implementing and maintaining the infrastructure. Passenger rail is an exception. Because it is used by a relatively small number of people, the users rely on a large subsidy paid by non-users.
Having said this, I favor government investing in passenger rail infrastructure where the cost of expanding highways, airways, etc. is prohibitive and rail is the optimum alternative.
Two points: America is not the rest of the world, our government, society, etc., is all structured and philosophized differently. So to assume superimposing Great Britain, or Germany or Eurpoe or Australia or Japan over our transportation system is futile at best.
Secondly, my main point is that in Amtrak's history, because of politics, it has never been able to progress in any direction far enough or long enough to find out what really could happen. And no one has brought up the "Conrail" concept, either, they just blast it as being socialistic. Up to now I have said give Amtrak anythng and everything and let it work itself out. Now we have a good man at the helm who might actually accomplish that!
Sam frequently throws out the argument that Amtrak loses big money except for the NEC. We never ask the question "What is different about the NEC?" What is different is the trains are fast, frequent, and pretty much on time. Most of the rest of the system is slow, one train a day or even fewer, and seldom on time. On the NEC, the trains move more people than the airlines and buses combined.
I believe that, like the road, airway, and waterway systems, the nation should build a high speed interstate railway system, owned, maintained, and operated by the federal government, intrastate rail should be built, owned, and maintained by the state governments, passenger stations should be built, owned, and operated by the community they serve, and the trains should be run by private companies for profit under the direction of "Rail Traffic Control".
Funded by a system of tolls, fuel, and ticket taxes.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetWhat is different about the NEC?" What is different is the trains are fast, frequent, and pretty much on time. Most of the rest of the system is slow, one train a day or even fewer, and seldom on time. On the NEC, the trains move more people than the airlines and buses combined
Phoebe: I will agree with your conclusions of the NEC. Probably the corridor would have even more passengers if there was enough capacity on every train for last minute travelers to get a seat. Whenever I check on certain trains there are never any available seats. Perhaps when the extra cars for the acelas and corridor trains get extra Amfleet then people will show up to get a seat. That was the idea of the Eastern shuttle and it worked fine.
Other points on NEC making money.
1. The high fares on the Acela certainly helps it to be positive cash.
2. Electric Motors. Servicing certainly is less - 91 day inspections are a long way apart, can make more turns with double ended cabs, overhaul times much greater, better ROW causes less wheel truing. Fuel costs: Electricity cost less than Diesel per mile, Regenerative braking puts some power back into the grid. Can pull regular trains faster.
3. Passenger cars:: Better ROW means less wear and tear.
4. Stations:: Probably the originations and destinations costs per passenger (would like each station have that as a national metric for people like Sam to analyze). I woould think that NYP has a very low cost because AMTRAK does not use any more space there as say PHL.I imagine many readers can come up with their own examples.
5. TAXES:: Do not know if the diesel fuel is subject to any taxes. Does not have to pay property taxes on ROW, stations, and ancillary structures that are part of the contracting RRs contract costs.
6. The public transportation feed is better in the NEC. Another area that is close is California and we can see the results are coming closer to the NEC. The Carolinian is also coming close by great effort by the NC DOT.
7. Certain LD trains get short hauled because of the lack of another train to take the locals (examples = Cresent Charlottesville - WASH, Florida trains RIC - WASH not as bad because not during rush hours, Lake shore fortunally bracketed by ALB - NYP trains.
8. Speeds are a definite problem. One that will take years to fix ( Class 6 track, PTC, etc)
The NEC is also different in that passenger train service has never been discontinued. Travel by train, between cities as well as within cities, has always been important and highways would never be able to absorb the traffic. It is an accepted part of the American culture, and Easterners would protest their loss of freedom if we took away their trains.
So it makes a big difference when the CITIZENS are friends of the trains!! In fact, it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!
The other interesting thing that gives credence to the Corridor is who uses it. Media newspeople will, especially NY to D.C. So do politicians. And sports teams, too. They all bring attention to the Corridor services as does the fact that a huge number of area residents use trains to commute meaining they know about trains and train travel. They may not all be friends, but they are users!
henry6 . They may not all be friends, but they are users!
. They may not all be friends, but they are users!
Amen Brother Henry6
blue streak 1 Phoebe VetWhat is different about the NEC?" What is different is the trains are fast, frequent, and pretty much on time. Most of the rest of the system is slow, one train a day or even fewer, and seldom on time. On the NEC, the trains move more people than the airlines and buses combined Phoebe: I will agree with your conclusions of the NEC. Probably the corridor would have even more passengers if there was enough capacity on every train for last minute travelers to get a seat. Whenever I check on certain trains there are never any available seats. Perhaps when the extra cars for the acelas and corridor trains get extra Amfleet then people will show up to get a seat. That was the idea of the Eastern shuttle and it worked fine. Other points on NEC making money. 1. The high fares on the Acela certainly helps it to be positive cash. 2. Electric Motors. Servicing certainly is less - 91 day inspections are a long way apart, can make more turns with double ended cabs, overhaul times much greater, better ROW causes less wheel truing. Fuel costs: Electricity cost less than Diesel per mile, Regenerative braking puts some power back into the grid. Can pull regular trains faster. 3. Passenger cars:: Better ROW means less wear and tear. 4. Stations:: Probably the originations and destinations costs per passenger (would like each station have that as a national metric for people like Sam to analyze). I woould think that NYP has a very low cost because AMTRAK does not use any more space there as say PHL.I imagine many readers can come up with their own examples. 5. TAXES:: Do not know if the diesel fuel is subject to any taxes. Does not have to pay property taxes on ROW, stations, and ancillary structures that are part of the contracting RRs contract costs. 6. The public transportation feed is better in the NEC. Another area that is close is California and we can see the results are coming closer to the NEC. The Carolinian is also coming close by great effort by the NC DOT. 7. Certain LD trains get short hauled because of the lack of another train to take the locals (examples = Cresent Charlottesville - WASH, Florida trains RIC - WASH not as bad because not during rush hours, Lake shore fortunally bracketed by ALB - NYP trains. 8. Speeds are a definite problem. One that will take years to fix ( Class 6 track, PTC, etc)
The NEC does not make money. It does, however, from time to time cover its operating costs and contributes something to the capital costs, i.e. interest, depreciation, other charges, etc. During FY08 the NEC's trains (Acela, regionals, and special movements) covered their operating costs. However, for the first five months of FY09, only the Acela operations covered their operating costs. The regional and special movement trains were not able to do so.
A business has to cover all of its costs to say that it has made money. Actually, it has to cover its operating or variable costs, as well as the fixed costs, and provide a return to the investors to say that it has made money. Amtrak does not do that anywhere. Nor do any other passenger rail operations outside of a few tourist lines.
It's interesting how this thread got off-topic from whether Amtrak has any friends among the Class 1 railroads to whether Amtrak has any friends among posters on this forum.
To answer the OP's question, I would submit that Amtrak does reasonably well on CSX, though I would hesitate to call the relationship between CSX and Amtrak "friendly." Indeed, freight railroad opposition has always been one huge obstacle to expanding Amtrak service. One would think it would make sense for an Amtrak train to connect Florida and Chicago via Atlanta, for example. But CSX and Norfolk-Southern won't let it happen. It's been tried ever since the Floridian was canceled in 1979 (and remember, that train didn't go through Atlanta either, but took a more westerly route through Alabama and Kentucky -- the old South Wind route).
Now for some other points:
The Northeast Corridor trains are more popular mainly because of the short distances between the major metropolitan areas it serves. It's actually quicker to take the train from New York to Washington than it is to fly there, because of all the time spent on the ground at the airports involved.
That said, the advantage of Amtrak's long-distance trains isn't so much the major metro areas they connect, but the intermediate stops. Try taking a commercial flight from Palatka, Florida to Rocky Mount, North Carolina, for example.
The worst thing that ever happened to Amtrak was the firing of David Gunn, who was Amtrak's president from 2002-2005. He was the most dedicated leader Amtrak ever had, and the railroad made great strides under his leadership. I had the pleasure of interviewing the man on the phone once, and came away extremely impressed. He pointed out to me, for example, that it is the Northeast Corridor, not the long-distance trains, that eat up most of Amtrak's budget. Eliminating all long-distance trains would save nothing in the short term, and only about $300 million a year long-tern.
He told me a story about how he was riding the Sunset Limited when it had to stop in Texas because of a freight train derailment on the tracks ahead of it. The train's passengers had to be taken by bus to the next stop, where another train would meet them to continue their journey. Gunn helped the train's crew load all of the baggage from the baggage car onto trucks. Imagine the president of one of the Class 1 freight railroads helping workers unload a box car! It wouldn't happen. But it's that kind of "in the trenches," hands-on attitude Amtrak lost when Gunn was fired, and which it desperately needs today.
There is one thing Mr. Gunn said to me which I will never forget, and it's still true today: "The public is ahead of the politicians. They get stuck in traffic, so they know the system is gradually congealing. And they know there's an asset in those two steel rails wandering through the weeds that needs to be used."
Great post, BHirschi! As with Mr. Gunn, it's all in your attitude...
Freight rairoads had a good attitude about pasenger trains in the era when it was just part of the business. At one time, good passenger service could actually give a railroad a competitive edge. For example, the NYC could impress and attract shippers; the L & N could support the economic vitality of the region.
Due to competition from cars and planes, demand for passenger service declined and railroads got the attitude that passenger service was irrelevant. This attitude became policy, and affected infrastructure. Along came Amtrak, but the attitude persists.
Passenger trains in the pre-Amtrak era also had a bad habit of devouring money that could otherwise have been invested in the property. Passenger trains did indeed lose money but the public attitude was that they could be subsidized by the freight service.
Passenger trains always lost money, but up until the 1950s, the Class 1 railroads were willing to eat that loss because, as Maglev points out, passenger trains provided PR value and helped the railroads promote their freight business.
One good example: The Texas & Pacific's head dining car chef, at the behest of the railroad's head honchos, came up with a canteloupe cream pie to be served in the railroad's dining cars. The pie had one purpose -- to impress canteloupe growers who were invited aboard T&P trains and served the pie for dessert in an effort to entice them to ship their product on the T&P. It worked.
As people flocked away from trains and to airlines and the interstate highways in the '50s, '60s and '70s, passenger trains lost their PR value. That spelled their doom. Amtrak's creation was a cynical political ploy -- no one in on its creation thought it would survive. That it has survived this long is a tribute to politics -- people like having train service, and many politicians realize that holding onto their trains is an easy way to make their constituents happy.
The government subsidizes every form of transportation we use. Government funds pay for roads and build and maintain airports. Why should passenger rail be different?
It is not quite correct to say that passenger trains always lost money. On some routes at some times, they did because of maybe U.S. Post Office and or Railway Express contracts, or the fact that it was well patronized. But by and large, the began losing money with the advent of increased private automobiles and air services until the both the mail and the express were gone. Often, by charter, they had to provide passenger services too. And, as was also said, the PR value of a well run passenger operation was often a plus in the long run. My point is that there was no one reason for the demise of the passenger train but many which culminated in the formation of Amtrak. Many at that time, especially in high executive political places, believed that by forming Amtrak and taking the burden off private railroads, they whole concept of the passenger train would go away within a few short years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.