Oltmannd,
I agree with your points.
If I remember correctly, approximately $1.3 billion of stimulus money was appropriated for Amtrak. Not all of it was spent on the NEC.
As of the end of FY11 Amtrak had used approximately $460.7 million of its stimulus money for security and life safety projects. Amongst other things Amtrak used stimulus monies to make all of its Texas stations ADA compliant.
Amtrak also used stimulus money to upgrade more than 80 cars and locomotives if I remember correctly. Two of the cars (a sleeper and a coach) are sitting in San Antonio as protect cars for the Texas Eagle through cars. And one locomotive and coach sit in Fort Worth for reasons that are not clear. Unfortunately, the operative word is sitting.
If Amtrak had an aggressive management team, they would have made the Texas Eagle a thrice weekly through train from San Antonio to LA, which would have required no more hoist capacity than the Sunset Limited, and implemented a coach connecting train from NO to SA, thereby eliminating the need for protect cars and switching in SA. Unfortunately, because of the political climate Amtrak is forced to operate under, agressive management is not likely to be found amongst the rank's of Amtrak's executives and managers.
Since the dawn of Amtrak, the advocate logic has worked like this:
1. All passenger trains are inherently good.
2. Amtrak runs the passenger trains, therefore, Amtrak is good.
3. More money for Amtrak = more lines on the map = more goodness.
4. Critics of Amtrak operations, Amtrak funding, Amtrak priorities, Amtrak's productivity need only to refer to point #1 and if they are really insistent, point #2.
Has this approach worked? I say, "mostly no."
Has Amtrak gotten more money for more lines on the map? No. They have just barely been able to retain what they have.
Was Amtrak targeted for any stimulus money? Yes, but only to fix up the NEC. Not a dime for any new service. The so-called HSR money was specifically targeted AWAY from Amtrak. Gee, I wonder why?
Has Amtrak demonstrated a "can-do" attitude? No, Amtrak has been completely unsuccessful at maintaining their commuter rail operating contracts - even after their boss made it a priority.
So, clearly, the traditional approach to advocacy is pretty much a failure. Instead, I believe we should applaud them when they do right, call them on the carpet for what the do wrong, demand they do more with what they have, defend what is demonstrably defendable and stop living and dying by "point #1."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Gee, I thought "howling at the moon with righteous indignation" to be rather poetic - and benign. I thought my "intervention" one might be a hair edgy.
What I find offensive is the notion that it is apparently "sinful" to hold Amtrak accountable for anything. I think we can, and should, expect better from them!
DwightBranch oltmannd So, unless your hobby is howling at the moon in righteous indignation, it's best to get behind something that might actually work, particularly if your interest is in there being more passenger trains. This post is offensive, and I have reported it to the moderators.
oltmannd So, unless your hobby is howling at the moon in righteous indignation, it's best to get behind something that might actually work, particularly if your interest is in there being more passenger trains.
So, unless your hobby is howling at the moon in righteous indignation, it's best to get behind something that might actually work, particularly if your interest is in there being more passenger trains.
This post is offensive, and I have reported it to the moderators.
There is a broader issue than whether a claim that the broader advocacy community "is howling at the moon" is on the face of it an offensive personal attack, in contrast with, say, responding with a four-letter word in response to a link to a Wikipedia page, clarifying that there are many near-200 MPH HSR lines in Europe but actual 200 MPH+ in regular service is more rare.
That broader issue is whether proposals of reform or improvement or increased efficiency of Amtrak are welcome within the advocacy community. There appears to be a defensive reaction within the advocacy community to any change to Amtrak apart from increasing trains speeds and train frequencies.
Back in the day of the David P Morgan editorship of Trains, Trains Magazine was reform-minded in its editorial policy, both with respect to passenger trains trains and freight trains. The editorial view was that not only were passenger operations in peril through the pattern of financial losses and ICC train-off petitions, but that the supposed profitable freight side of railroading was also at risk. That risk came to be an actuality with the Penn Central bankruptcy that culminated in Conrail, a kind of super Penn Central of bankrupt or tottering Eastern lines.
The David P Morgan stand was "we are foremost railroad enthusiasts and we would like to see railroading continue so there would remain trains that we could be enthusiastic about. What can we do to see that railroading survives?" Hence that era of Trains gave page space to all points of view, but it gave a column to John Kneiling "The Professional Iconoclast", one that drew a lot of criticism, much as certain iconoclastic commentators here draw criticism from the main-stream passenger-train advocacy point of view.
There is nothing like The Professional Iconoclast in today's Trains Magazine. John Kneiling was saying all of the brash and iconoclastic and to many people also offensive things to "save the railroad industry he loved as a train enthusiast", but David P Morgan, the train enthusiast's train enthusiast, was thinking many of the same things -- you just had to read Morgan's editorials that expressed many of the same ideas, although without the finger-in-the-eye critical-of-labor-and-management-with-a-broad-brush of Kneiling. But today's Trains is pretty much in the main-stream passenger train advocacy camp, ladies and gentleman and for lack of a better word, passenger trains are good, passengere trains are powerful, and people who don't want to fund passenger trains in the style they are accustomed to are ignorant or maybe worse.
Is there any place for iconoclastic opinion in passenger advocacy? I don't agree 100% with the (other) iconoclasts (I once called us as a group "heretics" and received outrage directed my way for using an "offensive" and "religious" term, although the word iconoclast has a religious meaning, and there was a decade long stretch where that word was a byline in Trains Magazine). But I am of the opinion that the main-line passenger train advocacy position has not accomplished enough in the 40 years since Amtrak, and that we need iconoclasts if passenger train service is to survive.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The profit motive helps drive efficiency and effectiveness. I worked for an investor owned electric utility for more than three decades. Even when we were a regulated monopoly, we were constantly reminded of the need to meet the shareholder's expectations, i.e. profits to pay dividends and accrete the value of the stock. With deregulation of the electric utility business in Texas, the profit motive became even more of a disciplinary force.
If a commercial enterprise (a common carrier transporting people for a rental fee is a commercial enterprise) is not governed by competition and the profit motive, what drives or helps drive efficiency? Moreover, why should passenger rail, which is a commercial enterprise, be given a pass with respect to earning its keep?
John WRPerhaps we should have no government services at all and simply do without those that cannot be operated at a profit.
No, but we should measure the cost effectiveness of those services against the alternatives.
As for Amtrak....an analogy. If you had a family member who you loved who continued to indulge in some self-destructive behavior, or at the least, refused to take responsibility for his own welfare, would you continue to enable that bad behavior or or would you intervene and work for their salvation?
DwightBranchNo system of transportation anywhere makes a profit, regardless of its "business model", and there is little to be accomplished by pretending otherwise. If Amtrak has any fault it is that it has perpetually been underfunded compared to other government, socially-supported modes of transportation, that is to say, all of them.
I don't give a flip about "profit". I only care about getting the most from our tax dollars and finding ways to increase and improve passenger rail transportation.
Just saying "spend more" is no plan. We could "spend more" and have trains that just go around in a circle at 10 mph, producing nothing, and then wave our hands in the air and say absurd things like "this train costs less than the land it took to built a 5th runway in Atlanta", or "it's less than a new Abrams tank". But that would be silly. We wouldn't be able to look our neighbors straight in the eye at cocktail parties and and say "thanks for your support".
If Florida wants to "give away" access to a state highway ROW to the FEC for the incremental cost of doing it and in turn get passenger rail service for their citizens with no ongoing direct operating subsidy from the state treasury, why not do it?
In fact, I think it's a model that might work. If you can cover the "above the rails" cost of operation, you might find some political will to fund the infrastructure, particularly where you can show that will cost less than any other equivalent capacity improvement.
With all due respect, Sam, I don't suggest you intend to be pejorative with "broken business model" but I do think the phrase is when used with respect to Amtrak. Since all forms of transportation are subsidized to some degree no "business model" can be created for any which will show a way to profit. It is possible to pull out certain functions and operate them at a profit. For example, at some airports private security services are being used instead of TSA people. It is possible for business to make a profit there because the private security agencies pay less and give fewer benefits than the Federal Government.
Perhaps we should have no government services at all and simply do without those that cannot be operated at a profit. There is, however, a problem with such a plan. If we did away with the Post Office, for example, private businesses could deliver first class mail for less than we currently pay but it could not include remote areas. For me personally that would be no problem; I live in a suburb of New York City. But should I argue for repeal of the Postal Express statute so I can save a few bucks and now worry about people in rural Montana? I choose not to do so.
The other points are well covered by Dwight Branch. I appreciate your concern and attention. John
Sam1 Hopefully the private funded efforts in Florida, Texas, and Italy will be successful. I suspect that they will require some subsidies, but I would be surprised if they cannot offer a better outcome than what we are getting or likely to get from a government run monopoly.
Hopefully the private funded efforts in Florida, Texas, and Italy will be successful. I suspect that they will require some subsidies, but I would be surprised if they cannot offer a better outcome than what we are getting or likely to get from a government run monopoly.
To call the FEC plan"private" is absurd, to start with they want to run it down the middle of SH 528 (five miles from where I live). Even if they somehow rent it (which you can bet they won't) they still aren't paying the cost of initial property acquisition, clearing the land, building through the marshes, bridges, etc.: to paraphrase an ad running round the clock down here, the government built that. And they also want help paying for the track. What we will essentially have is socialized costs and privatized profits, what is mine is mine but what is yours is ours. Further, on your point about monopolies, should it actually get built (the odds of which I have said from the beginning, knowing the political system down here, is 100 to 1 against) would they provide "open access" to other carriers? If not, it is just as much a "monopoly" as if Amtrak operated it.
No system of transportation anywhere makes a profit, regardless of its "business model", and there is little to be accomplished by pretending otherwise. If Amtrak has any fault it is that it has perpetually been underfunded compared to other government, socially-supported modes of transportation, that is to say, all of them.
John WR The reason the idea of the private sector running Amtrak is ridiculous, Sam, is because if passenger service could be run at a profit the freight railroads would be doing it right now. There is nothing to prevent them from running passenger service on routes unserved by Amtrak and there are plenty of those routes. I agree with you that there are "heaps of legitimate opinions." But it seems to me that dismissing Amtrak as a "broken business model" is just a rather academic way of saying it is ridiculous.
The reason the idea of the private sector running Amtrak is ridiculous, Sam, is because if passenger service could be run at a profit the freight railroads would be doing it right now. There is nothing to prevent them from running passenger service on routes unserved by Amtrak and there are plenty of those routes.
I agree with you that there are "heaps of legitimate opinions." But it seems to me that dismissing Amtrak as a "broken business model" is just a rather academic way of saying it is ridiculous.
Don't share your notions about private operators not being able to make money running passenger trains with the investors who are planning to do so in Italy, Florida, and Texas. They might give it up.
Oh, since this subject came up, the Dallas Morning News had an article yesterday that a group of private investors are looking at the possibility of running a commuter service from Plano, Texas to DFW Airport.
If a private operator can scope the service to meet the needs of people who are willing to pay for it, they might be able to make money running passenger trains. However, one thing is for sure. If they follow the Amtrak model, they will lose their shirts.
I don't share your likening a broken business model with ridiculous. A broken business model is a failed business model, i.e. one that over time has not been able to cover its costs. Ridiculous is pejorative.
A Toyota Camry may get close to the same number of seat miles per gallon as an Amtrak corridor train, but I's rather be in full corridor train for a 60 mile trip than a full Camry. One other difference is that travel time may be significantly less with the train when the competing trip on the highway has to deal with congestion. Doing work on the train is a bit easier than in a car - especially for the driver.
As has been noted elsewhere, the CAFE comparison goes out the window with electrification, though EV's further complicate comparisons. Conversely, the train loses big time if one or both pf the endpoints are a significant distance from the rail route.
- Erik
Thank you for a lot of fascinating information, Paul. When I was young, well over half a century ago, and I first became interested in trains my father taught me that the most efficient land transportation we have is a steel wheel on a steel rail. You show that it isn't quite as simple as that; there are a lot of other things to consider. Like the weight of a railroad car.
It has been pointed out that passenger car weights are set by government employees who believe our heavy standards are needs for passenger safety. In Europe other government employees set different, lighter standards and presumably they believe they do not compromise passenger safety. If we adopted European standards our passenger trains would be more efficient.
I assume government employees also set standards for our buses. In March of last year 13 people were killed when, on the New England Thruway, a truck rear ended a bus. Here is a link to a description: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/13-dead-as-bus-overturns-on-bronx-highway/
Perhaps we need heavier buses to better protest passengers. Of course that would cause buses to be less efficient.
Cars too are involved in accidents, all kinds of accidents and more accidents than any other kind of transportation. I don't know if the government mandates weight standards for auto safety. Today we hear about efficiency, getting more miles per gallon, but there seems to be a trade off between weight and efficiency. I don't pretend to know the answer.
But I do travel between New York and Providence from time to time. I hope the safety of train travel will continue to be available to me.
While CAFE standards are mandating more fuel efficient cars, the total number of cars on the road is expected to
increase, so the result could be a wash with regards to fuel use. I would also expect that many train riders are fed up with the overall hassle of driving. The days of carefree motoring of the 1950's is a thing of the past.
BaltACD When people are the 'freight' the entire equation changes. One clerk can handle the complaints of many shippers. One complaining passenger can tie up the efforts of multiple clerks and managers.
When people are the 'freight' the entire equation changes. One clerk can handle the complaints of many shippers. One complaining passenger can tie up the efforts of multiple clerks and managers.
Passenger trains are either the thing that the advocacy community says they are. Or they are not.
On one hand, passenger trains are supposed to be 10 times more energy efficient, only that applies only to freight, and the figure is maybe 3-5 times more energy efficient. When it comes to passenger, Amtrak is only a 30 percent savings, but 30 percent savings is a lot. Isn't it?
On one hand, passenger trains subsidy are no big deal because everybody is getting subsidy in one form or another, only the subsidy rate per passenger mile is indeed high. But what about those motorists in rural Montana, someone on the highways must be getting a high rate of subsidy, aren't they?
Railroad passenger trains have all of these advantages over other modes of transportation, that is, until someone suggests changes to realize those advantages, and it becomes "Son, passenger trains have always required subsidy to operate, back in the day, cross subsidy from the freight operation, and there are all these special things you need to do to carry passengers that cannot change."
On one hand, passenger trains are supposed to have labor productivity advantages because one engine driver can move hundred of people whereas a bus driver moves only 80 on one of those new double deckers that crash a lot. But a bus driver is a "one man band" of driver, passenger service agent, ticket taker, and baggage loader (and food service director by deciding when and where to stop at MacDonalds) whereas a train requires multiple workers to carry out those functions. And these functions cannot be combined or reassigned or simplified because of the special requirements of providing railroad passenger service.
The "freight railroads" wanted to get out of the passenger business because passengers complain because you can't load them up in stock cars, hose them down when they get warm, and toss in slop to feed them, and passenger trains require priority over other trains that gums up the network. Only it seems that the railroad companies have gotten out of hauling livestock because livestock present special needs -- you need to hose them down on hot days, you have to feed them, and there are Federal hours limits on livestock in transit so you have to give stock trains priority over other trains that gums up the network. And when animals die in transit or come out the worse for the wear, oh boy do you hear about it!
oltmannd John WR Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency. Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains. In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense. Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245 Well, I should know a bit about physics. I am a Mechanical Engineer by education and have done quite a few diesel engine efficiency and locomotive fuel consumption tests in my day. And, you'd be right about the rolling resistance if we were comparing trains with rubber tires to trains with steel wheels. But, we're not. The problem is weight. The FRA says, that in order to operate in a mixed environment, you have to build your passenger cars to withstand 800,000 buff force without deformation, plus a few other requirements like collision posts that make US passenger cars much heavier than contemporary high speed train sets in Europe, for example. An Amfleet car is about 55 tons empty. It holds 76 passenger in short haul configuration. That's 1500 # per seat. For a six car train with a P42 on one end and a cabbage on the other and a 60% load factor, that comes out to 4500# per passenger. Three people in a Camry comes out to 1100# per passenger. And, the trend is not going Amtrak's way. The current set of specs (http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx ) out there for new, standard single and bilevel equipment are for equipment just as heavy as Amfleet and Superliner cars. The FRA doesn't seem to want to budge and adopt a Eurporean crash avoidance/crash energy managment spec any time soon - and it doesn't appear that Amtrak is pushing it. Washington State pushed it a bit, getting a waiver for their Talgo equipment years ago, but there's been no push since. Amtrak's 30% fuel advantage will vaporize by 2016. The CAFE standard for fuel economy increases by 35% between now and then. This is a battle Amtrak can win, but they have to take it on. P.S. Amtrak would be wrong about the 11X benefit for freight trains over truck. It's in the 3-4 fold range. The net to tare weight ratio for trucks and trains is fairly close, so the train gets all the advantage of the lower rolling resistance.
John WR Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency. Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains. In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense. Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245
Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency.
Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains.
In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense.
Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245
Well, I should know a bit about physics. I am a Mechanical Engineer by education and have done quite a few diesel engine efficiency and locomotive fuel consumption tests in my day.
And, you'd be right about the rolling resistance if we were comparing trains with rubber tires to trains with steel wheels. But, we're not.
The problem is weight. The FRA says, that in order to operate in a mixed environment, you have to build your passenger cars to withstand 800,000 buff force without deformation, plus a few other requirements like collision posts that make US passenger cars much heavier than contemporary high speed train sets in Europe, for example. An Amfleet car is about 55 tons empty. It holds 76 passenger in short haul configuration. That's 1500 # per seat. For a six car train with a P42 on one end and a cabbage on the other and a 60% load factor, that comes out to 4500# per passenger. Three people in a Camry comes out to 1100# per passenger.
And, the trend is not going Amtrak's way. The current set of specs (http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx ) out there for new, standard single and bilevel equipment are for equipment just as heavy as Amfleet and Superliner cars. The FRA doesn't seem to want to budge and adopt a Eurporean crash avoidance/crash energy managment spec any time soon - and it doesn't appear that Amtrak is pushing it. Washington State pushed it a bit, getting a waiver for their Talgo equipment years ago, but there's been no push since.
Amtrak's 30% fuel advantage will vaporize by 2016. The CAFE standard for fuel economy increases by 35% between now and then.
This is a battle Amtrak can win, but they have to take it on.
P.S. Amtrak would be wrong about the 11X benefit for freight trains over truck. It's in the 3-4 fold range. The net to tare weight ratio for trucks and trains is fairly close, so the train gets all the advantage of the lower rolling resistance.
I think this pretty much sums it up. Many in the advocacy community start with a steel wheel on steel rail having about one tenth to rolling resistance of an automobile tire on concrete, maybe the advantage is a little bit less for a bus or OTR truck tire inflated to much higher pressure. Ergo, trains use one tenth the energy of cars, don't they?
A lot of the drag at passenger trains speeds, and especially at HSR speeds, is aerodynamic. A train can help with that because each train car is in the wind shadow of the train car ahead, kind of like stock car racers "drafting" by driving inches from the next car's bumper. But the minute you assemble coaches into a train, you have the potential for train cars "telescoping" in a derailment or collision, leading to horrific loss of life. So to get the aero drag reduction from running a passenger train, you have to add weight. Now the added weight should not be too much a problem, the 4 times higher weight for the Amfleet train compared to the Toyota Camry per passenger, because the rolling resistance is 10 times lower. But then you need to brake to make your stops and then accelerate where weight incurs a penalty, and then there are railroad lines with substantial grades to tote all of that weight.
A number that sticks in my mind is that a locomotive with a 6 car train operated at 79 MPH uses about 1.75 gallons #2 Diesel per mile. That number was told to me over the phone by WisDOT as the benchmark for the Vision Report and the claim that intercity trains in corridor service would use about half the fuel as automobiles. That suggests that an Amfleet car gets 3.5 miles per gallon whereas I talked to the driver of a motorcoach bus who was waiting for member of the football team to board for an "away game", and he claimed 8 miles per gallon on the highway. If you count the locomotive as two passenger cars, for its greater weight and also for its aerodynamic mismatch between the roof line of a Genesis with that of an Amcoach, that works out roughly 4.5 miles per gallon per rail passenger car equivalent.
So, guess it stands to reason that a passenger-railroad-car-equivalent amounts to about two motorcoach buses. The bus is a somewhat lighter than half a rail passenger car (the motorcoach bus has 2 front wheels, 6 more wheels between a pair of "tandem" axles in the rear or 8 wheels. An 18-wheel OTR truck is allowed, what, 80,000 lbs gross? So the motorcoach grosses at 35,000 lbs (17.5 lbs -comparable to a Talgo coach without including the locomotive)? But the bus doesn't benefit from the wind shadow effect, although on the other hand, the bus appears to have better streamlining than an Amcoach that has all of thoses high-drag "boxes" hanging from the underside for the A/C, toilet retention, and other services.
So maybe the problem isn't weight as the Amcoach is only about 60 percent heavier than either a Talgo or a motorcoach bus, and the bilevels are about the same increase as they are somewhat heavier but are the space equivalent of 3 Talgo cars or motorcoach buses? But then I am not counting the weight of the locomotive, or the locomotive plus a heavy cab car converted from a locomotive and ballasted to the weight of a locomotive? Or running a pair of locomotives on a 6-car corridor train as I have seen?
But then why doesn't the train beat the bus by offseting its increased weight with the 10-fold advantage in rolling resistance (maybe 5-fold advantage because buses use a high tire pressure)? Again, look at the underbody of an Amcoach. Maybe the bilevel has an aerodynamic advantage owing to increased seating space per car, the underbody filled with the streamlined lower level, and less height mismatch with the locomotive?
The Talgo also fills the space between the wheels with streamlined carebody rather than the purposeful clutter of train car accessories. But on the new Talgo for Wisconsin that may or may not run, it looks like the cab car has a bluff front "in response to input from Amtrak engineers" (I presume train operators, not mechanical engineering people?). The European Talgo cab car has a streamlined front. So much for fuel economy. One of the selling points of the Wisconsin Talgo was saving fuel. How much fuel does the Wisconsin-ized Talgo use? Does anyone even know?
So then, a "conventional" passenger train operating at "conventional" speeds, for better or worse, has roughly the fuel economy of an intercity motorcoach bus per linear foot of equivalent passenger car. But the football team motorcoach bus has seats for 56, whereas the Amfleet coach using at least double the fuel only seats 76 in a "corridor" configuration. And you start derating rail fuel economy when you add that heavy, aerodynamically mismatched cab car. Or a second locomotive. Or the baggage car, crew dorm, lounge car, and diner on a long-distance train. And the provision of lower-density seating in coach and even lower density in the sleeping cars.
When the dust settles, Amtrak is saving, on average, 30 percent in fuel compared to people taking cars. That is a Good Thing, but that by itself does not justify the 20 cents/per passenger mile average subsidy, which works out to about 18 dollars per gallon of fuel saved.
oltmannd BaltACD oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't. Shippers and receivers complain, plenty! And, there's a whole army of people whose job it is just to keep track of where the shipments are.
BaltACD oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't.
oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard?
henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional.
Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional.
Got numbers to go with this argument?
Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard?
People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't.
Shippers and receivers complain, plenty! And, there's a whole army of people whose job it is just to keep track of where the shipments are.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sam1 Amtrak has a different mission than the investor owned, freight carriers. Nevertheless, meaningful comparisons about some aspects of the organizations can be made. The management structure could be compared to a variety of criteria. Also, the IT, finance and accounting, treasury, customer service, HR, purchasing, etc. functions could be compared. They tend to be generic. Amtrak is a government owned monopoly. It cannot be benchmarked easily in the U.S., and cross boarder comparisons are notoriously difficult. The only other inter-city passenger rail operation that I can think of is the Trinity Railway Express, which is a commuter railroad that runs from Dallas to Fort Worth. However, Amtrak apologists might not want to go there inasmuch as the FY11 subsidy for the TRE was 17.31 cents per passenger mile compared to 19.12 cents per passenger mile for Amtrak. Comparing Amtrak to the Great Southern Railway, which operates three long distance routes in Australia, and is an investor owned corporation could be meaningful, but I have not been able to get the Great Southern Railway numbers.
Amtrak has a different mission than the investor owned, freight carriers. Nevertheless, meaningful comparisons about some aspects of the organizations can be made. The management structure could be compared to a variety of criteria. Also, the IT, finance and accounting, treasury, customer service, HR, purchasing, etc. functions could be compared. They tend to be generic.
Amtrak is a government owned monopoly. It cannot be benchmarked easily in the U.S., and cross boarder comparisons are notoriously difficult. The only other inter-city passenger rail operation that I can think of is the Trinity Railway Express, which is a commuter railroad that runs from Dallas to Fort Worth. However, Amtrak apologists might not want to go there inasmuch as the FY11 subsidy for the TRE was 17.31 cents per passenger mile compared to 19.12 cents per passenger mile for Amtrak.
Comparing Amtrak to the Great Southern Railway, which operates three long distance routes in Australia, and is an investor owned corporation could be meaningful, but I have not been able to get the Great Southern Railway numbers.
You can also benchmark Mechanical against the frt and commuter agnecies. (a locomotive is a locomotive. A passenger car is about as complex as a locomotive).
You can benchmark food service against restaurant chains and cruise ship companies, or even dinner trains - how much does it cost to feed a guest? How do you do it?
You can benchmark the operation of sleepers against hotel chains and cruise ship lines. A room is a room. What's it cost to keep one clean and get guests in and out of it?
You can benchmark ticketing and revenue collection against any passenger carrier in the world - any and all modes. Tickets are tickets. How's the web site work? How about e-tickets? Fare collections? Who does it when?
The comparisons may not be pure, but the process should show you a lot about what you do well and what you don't. I get the idea that Amtrak does things the way they do them because that is how they have done them.
They do seem to have caught up the the rest of the world on E ticketing, though. Has anyone tried it.
John WR What jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked...... There are people who call for us to abandon Amtrak Some argue that we should let the private sector run our passenger railroads; that argument is ridiculous. If the private sector wanted to run passenger railroads private companies would still be doing that. No company was forced to join Amtrak......
What jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked......
There are people who call for us to abandon Amtrak Some argue that we should let the private sector run our passenger railroads; that argument is ridiculous. If the private sector wanted to run passenger railroads private companies would still be doing that. No company was forced to join Amtrak......
It has worked only because of the largest per passenger and per passenger mile federal and state subsidies of any form of commercial transportation. Through the end of FY11 Amtrak had accumulated loses of $28 billion. Outside of the NEC, Amtrak is a skeleton passenger rail system, augmented by state supported corridors, that is used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers. This is not my definition of "it has worked".
Amtrak is a broken business model. However, those of us who are calling for a different model are not saying that passenger rail does not have a place in America. The question is whether there are better alternatives to the Nation Railroad Passenger Corporation. Clearly, I believe there are. Moreover, just because a person has a different view than your does not mean that it is ridiculous. It is different. There are heaps of legitimate, differing views on most subjects.
For years people in the utility businesses (telecommunications, gas, electric, etc.) said that regulated, monopolistic utilities were the only model that would work. They were wrong. Deregulating the utilities gave use much better outcomes. Those who cling to failed business models are likely to have sub-optimum outcomes. Those who are willing to experiment and compete are likely to produce better outcomes.
For many years railroads faced a special problem with government regulation which almost regulated them out of business. The Staggers Act in 1980 was supposed to do away with that. But I guess there is still problematic regulation for Amtrak. I would like to see regulations revised to more reasonable standards but the point here is that if Amtrak does go out of business the reason is that it has been regulated out of business and not because of anything Amtrak did or did not do.
As far as engine standards go, it is hard for me to understand why we can improve efficiency in engines that go into automobiles but we cannot improve efficiency in engines that go into locomotives.
Because of running passenger trains, Amtrak is by its nature more labor intensive than a freight only line. That said, running an engine is pretty similar, whether passenger or freight. So are many other jobs. And NS must maintain far more miles of track than Amtrak does. The point is that Amtrak has not been able to implement many operating efficiencies of the past 20 years that NS and other railroads have. Why not? Efficiencies would allow Amtrak to offer more service where that was a rational course of action without depending on an appropriation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yeah, I know the Feds hold a major % of NRP stock and the initial railroads the rest, someting like 7% or less. And I know insutiturions, etc, own a majority of the private railroad stock and individuals less. ANd i know Amtrak has to deal with freight railroads and NS has to deal with Amtrak and commuter agencies. But the fact is that Amtrak is so different from NS that there is no way to campare except for the guage of the track and the fuel in the non electric locomotives are the same.
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.
henry6 Reading some further posts this is just a thread to slam Amtrak and not giving it a defense.
Reading some further posts this is just a thread to slam Amtrak and not giving it a defense.
I honestly don't care who runs inter-city passenger trains service in this country, Amtrak or someone else, public or private. Given the limitations Amtrak is burdened with (mandated routes based on political clout, Irrational and outdated service model, overstaffing, inept management) it actually does pretty well on the whole. But if we want real improvements so that we have a modern service, radical changes will be needed. The problem with train advocacy is that there remains a zealous faction who desire a model that hasn't existed for over 60 years and denounce as bus shills or anti-train any and all who desire a different outcome. Good luck with the former. However, the rest of us will not be silenced..
henry6 oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? Yes. 100% of Amtrak employees work for a passenger railroad and 100% of NS employees work for a freight railroad.. 100% of the territory covered by Amtrak is the entire country. 100% of the territory coverd by NS is about 1/3 of the country. 100% of the stock in Amtrak is owned by the Federal government. 100% of the stock of NS is owned by private individuals. I don't understand your not understanding the differences between these two and why you cannot compare the two on an even basis.
Yes. 100% of Amtrak employees work for a passenger railroad and 100% of NS employees work for a freight railroad.. 100% of the territory covered by Amtrak is the entire country. 100% of the territory coverd by NS is about 1/3 of the country. 100% of the stock in Amtrak is owned by the Federal government. 100% of the stock of NS is owned by private individuals. I don't understand your not understanding the differences between these two and why you cannot compare the two on an even basis.
From memory I believe the Federal Government controls the preferred stock of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Some of the common stock is still held by the railroads or investors. More than 70% of NS shares are held by institutional investors, i.e. pension funds, mutual funds, etc. The percentage of the stock held directly by individuals is relatively small.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.