Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail) or similar operators may be the future for dining and sleeper car services. Amtrak has too many external pressures to deliver first class service. Let Amrtak focus on coach class and operating the trains and turn the balance over to a third party operator with flexible work rules to deliver a superior product. Lease the dining and sleeping cars to third party operators for refurbishment and service.
Contractors would need too much money. Let taxpayers continue their modest subsidy of decent rail service as it is. The subsidy is a drop in the bucket compared to the public money spent on competing forms of passenger transportation, let alone on "entitlements."
Passenger rail in this country has become a service of the government because of subsidies needed to keep it going as it does not produce enough profit for private investors...it is too labor intensive and it relies on a population which has become accustomed to highways, airways, water, gas, and electric utilities and rail services both commuter and inter city to be cheap and unencumbered by investors for the most part, i.e. they don't want to pay the full price out of their pockets. Even if services are "out sourced" a government agency will pay for the services to cover losses. It is a game of words not economics.
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 Passenger rail in this country has become a service of the government because of subsidies needed to keep it going as it does not produce enough profit for private investors...it is too labor intensive and it relies on a population which has become accustomed to highways, airways, water, gas, and electric utilities and rail services both commuter and inter city to be cheap and unencumbered by investors for the most part, i.e. they don't want to pay the full price out of their pockets. Even if services are "out sourced" a government agency will pay for the services to cover losses. It is a game of words not economics.
The services would most likely continue to lose money as you suggest, and require a subsidy, but there may well be an improvement in quality.
John Timm
There may be an instant improvement but I doubt it won't be long before it is as bad or worse. Time and again I've seen outsourcing turn into a finger pointing shouting match accusing the other party for not holding up their end of the deal. Then things go down hill. We've seen how LA had problems with their operator, how Boston has changed operators several times, and numerous short line operators have gotten kicked off or *** off and left. So, privatizing or outsourcing is not the panacea for making money. Give up! Moving people is not a money making proposition in this country, so operate the best service possible as a support for both our transportation system and our economic system (businesses helped by the inexpensive and reliable movement of people).
The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained. Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
I'm with you on this one, Schlimm.
That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million.
henry6 That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million.
For what it matters, I don't expect that outsourcing will cost any less. It may even cost more. However, the vendor has an incentive to make a profit and is more likely to do so by providing a quality service. The Amtrak image just might improve in the process, as well as ridership.
desertdog henry6 That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million. For what it matters, I don't expect that outsourcing will cost any less. It may even cost more. However, the vendor has an incentive to make a profit and is more likely to do so by providing a quality service. The Amtrak image just might improve in the process, as well as ridership. John Timm
Correcting the typos, the numbers henry posted were a $ one million loss either way. Service quality may or may not improve. The advantages to outsourcing are usually less costly fringe benefits and easier to eliminate unnecessary services or redundant staff. The disadvantage is that profit for the company doing the work has to come from somewhere, usually workers' pockets. Rather than outsourcing to for-profit corporations, why not outsource to non-profits? The best medical centers use the non-profit model; the quality is top notch, costs are contained, staff is paid very well and any surplus is reinvested in the operation, equipment, buildings, etc. rather than distributing to investors.
MEG Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail) or similar operators may be the future for dining and sleeper car services. Amtrak has too many external pressures to deliver first class service. Let Amrtak focus on coach class and operating the trains and turn the balance over to a third party operator with flexible work rules to deliver a superior product. Lease the dining and sleeping cars to third party operators for refurbishment and service.
Iowa Pacific narrowly averted financial disaster with their wheel / axle problem. If it wasn't for the alert railroad employee that informed that company of their deteriorated wheel sets. They easily could have been wiped out financially by one bad derailment. They were very lucky in that respect.
In regards to outsourcing. Need to have a model beyond simple nostalgia that attracts private investment. So far no such model on the Private side has proven to be sustainable over a period of a couple years. Canadian Operations of the Rocky Mountaineer being an exeception (the reason they do better is they sell hotel packages, tour packages in addition to the train package) They also over more than one level of service.
Rocky Mountaineer Service has proved they can order new passenger cars from a existing passenger car manufacturer (Colorado Rail Car). Iowa Pacific's service has not proved that it makes enough money to do so and relies on very old cars. Rocky Mountaineers model might not be able to support purchase of a completely new trainsets vs new cars here and there. We'll have to wait and see.
So we have not seen a Private model yet anywhere on the continent that can support Private Long Distance Passenger Service with Sleepers over a 10-15 period of time and support refreshment of their fleet (substantial new car orders).
My sense and that of several others is to let Amtrak run passenger service, outsource the food/hospitality services. As far as non-profits go, many non-profit colleges and universities (aka community colleges and state universities) have superb food programs and operate public facilities that serve great food at reasonable prices,even hotels, like at MSU. The food at some really puts Amtrak to shame. Perhaps something could be worked out as externships.
I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
Yes...that is the point of many privatization attempts, to break the unions. Sly, aren't they.
desertdog schlimm henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained. Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me. I'm with you on this one, Schlimm. John Timm
I think he's talking about bidding out the service. The winner is the one with the lowest negative bid. From Amtrak's point of view it would be "How much do I have to pay you to operate sleepers and food service?"
The winner would keep the flat subsidy plus any revenue the service generates. It would give the operator incentive to maximize revenue AND minimize costs - like a real business. It would also minimized the subsidy to operate the service. It's a way of baking in some strong market forces into an operation that only feels them weakly now.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 CSSHEGEWISCH I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best. Yes...that is the point of many privatization attempts, to break the unions. Sly, aren't they.
There's a large area between "no union" and "existing contract" and, yes, it's very likely Amtrak's labor contract are loaded up with all sorts of things that defend the status quo - because that's job protection for management as well as labor.
But, because something may be hard or time consuming to do doesn't mean "give up". It's worth noting that there has been great change on the freight roads in the past three decades - two man crews, RCO, etc. - and they are still union shops. It took de-reg for market forces to hit operations full force and create change. Why not at Amtrak, too?
Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported.
I have to control myself to keep this brief. Nothing is absolute. I am tired of hearing that the government is always bad, and private business is always good. I have deleted the rest of my comments to avoid getting too political.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington I have to control myself to keep this brief. Nothing is absolute. I am tired of hearing that the government is always bad, and private business is always good. I have deleted the rest of my comments to avoid getting too political.
In the end, it has nothing to do with government or private business or union or non-union. It has everything to do with setting the game up such that you are rewarding the behavior you want.
It has nothing to do with how hard working or conscientious Amtrak employees are. It has everything to do with the work they are assigned and the opportunity for improved productivity.
Is Amtrak management trying to bring us the most and best passenger rail service at the least cost or are they just trying to protect their own fiefdoms? How do we get them to more of the former and less of the latter?
Generally, the way this has worked best in out economy it to bring free market forces (not always the same as a free market) to bear. This does not have to happen outside of government, although it seems much harder to make happen inside government.
oltmannd Is Amtrak management trying to bring us the most and best passenger rail service at the least cost or are they just trying to protect their own fiefdoms? How do we get them to more of the former and less of the latter? Generally, the way this has worked best in out economy it to bring free market forces (not always the same as a free market) to bear. This does not have to happen outside of government, although it seems much harder to make happen inside government.
Which is why I sought to introduce a totally different approach, to step away from ideology and the usual unproductive conflictual discussions, especially pro or anti government or unions. The non-profit model may be inapplicable or not, but might be worth consideration.
I also want to agree with what ACY said and draw the obvious conclusion. We are not going to have any sort of decent passenger rail transportation service system in the US as long as we are dependent on private freight railroads as hosts outside the NEC and a few other places. The objectives are incompatible.
henry6 Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported.
You are expressing an arguable point of view from the standpoint of politics -- the relationship between government and business and unions, the arguable but not universally agreed-upon benefits of unions, a political interpretation of actions Ronald Reagan took (with respect to an illegal strike by a public-employee union).
Explain to me why these remarks are not overtly political and hence not appropriate for this forum? Those of you who object to anyone's political remarks around here, tell me how these remarks are not political?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
ACYThanks, Henry & others. The other thread re. Amtrak cuts is covering much the same territory. If I, as a Union member, violate Company policy, or steal from the Company, or fail/refuse to do my job, or take undue advantage of the Company, then the Union can't protect me. The Union guarantees me two major things: 1. The right & opportunity to redress grievances; 2. Reasonable wages and benefits. If I give away free wine or newspapers to passengers, it is because the Company, through my Supervisors, has provided that wine and has told me to do so. I get very tired of front-line employees being blamed for the decisions of Management. In this case, it's not just Management, but the freight railroads that can't keep trains on time, and Congress with their naïve and ignorant expectations, and contractors who provide a second-rate product that we are expected to use to provide first-rate service. If we let down our guard and let the public see our discouragement or weariness, then we end up taking the heat. That's reality.
I am not blaming hard working "line employees", union or otherwise for anything.
But am I to understand that the position of passenger train advocacy is "just give me (Amtrak) money", that if Congress just wrote a big enough check, everything would be fine?
There are design trades in everything. By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority?
Once, just once, could people who advocate for passenger trains admit that maybe the advocacy community has an unrealistic expectation of the on-time service that could be provided for an occasional service on a heavily used network, that making the trains run on time would require a large amount of money to provide the traffic capacity for thinly used trains, and it is all not the "railroads fault"?
One concept of railroad operation that many people cannot comprehend is that line segments can be FULL in the traffic they are handling - both single track and multiple track line segments.
Every train occupys space. Space that only it can occupy. In movement, a 9000 foot freight train and a 800 foot passenger train operationally have the same space requirement, until such time as trains 'close up' under restricted speed at Stop signals or in occupied sidings. To move at track speed in signaled territory trains require a minimum of two blocks between them for the following train to have a Clear signal (under some signal systems that may be three blocks).
With the changes to the signal systems required to implement PTC the carriers in many cases are respacing their Intermediate signals to allow proper braking distances for the freight trains that are being operated in today's railroad world, not the train sizes of 40-50 years ago when a lot of track and signal changes were made with the decrease in passenger train importance to the carriers. In many cases the space between Intermediate signals is being increased from 1.5 or 2 miles to 3 miles. So for a train to receive a Clear signal, the preceeding train must now be from 6 to 9 miles ahead of the train expecting the Clear signal. Longer, heavier, faster freight trains are the facts of todays railroads and will be the reality of tomorrows.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul Milenkovic henry6 Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported. You are expressing an arguable point of view from the standpoint of politics -- the relationship between government and business and unions, the arguable but not universally agreed-upon benefits of unions, a political interpretation of actions Ronald Reagan took (with respect to an illegal strike by a public-employee union). Explain to me why these remarks are not overtly political and hence not appropriate for this forum? Those of you who object to anyone's political remarks around here, tell me how these remarks are not political?
Two things. 1) I don't believe my remarks are politcal as I am not taking sides but rather reporting history as it has happened. and 2) it doesn't make any difference if I did simply because you cannot talk government outsourcing without being political.
Paul Milenkovic By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority? Once, just once, could people who advocate for passenger trains admit that maybe the advocacy community has an unrealistic expectation of the on-time service that could be provided for an occasional service on a heavily used network, that making the trains run on time would require a large amount of money to provide the traffic capacity for thinly used trains, and it is all not the "railroads fault"?
By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority?
Agree. Running once-a-day long distance trains on congested freight lines is not providing passenger rail service. Running on time or running multiple (5-10 or more each way) trains is simply neither compatible with the host railroad's priorities nor the priorities of a rational, focused Amtrak. For those reasons, ending the fiction of LD passenger service by Amtrak in favor of competitive corridor services on dedicated RoWs, is, I believe, what "advocates" [whoever they are] should make the goal. Private cruise rail lines can operate nostalgia trains on schedules that fit with traffic flow on LD routes for the extremely limited market that might patronize them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.