PJS1Quasi government employees, i.e. Amtrak, don't have any real competition in most of the areas where they operate. And therefore they don't have any compelling reasons to change. Don't rock the boat. Just keep on keeping on until the generious retirement benefits kick in.
To be fair, Amtrak has been beaten into this shape by decades of fighting over subsidy and micromanagment.
It's rare when they have a leader who tries to rise above the "beat-down". They seem to have one now. I can only hope that Wick's focus on getting Amtrak internally functional will mesh well with Anderson's focus on market relevency.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
charlie hebdoSounds like Anderson and you are one and the same.
He writes better...
“Some parts of Amtrak’s business have operated in the same manner for 47 years, and the world is changing around us,” Anderson said, noting that passengers today have different expectations and travel options. “For Amtrak to respond to these changes and remain relevant, we need to carefully review how we allocate our resources, deploy our assets, and positions our products.”
oltmannd http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/05-in-letter-amtrak-ceo-says-national-network-needs-careful-review Some Anderson quotes that fit right in here. I sounds like he looked around and asked "What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?"
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/05-in-letter-amtrak-ceo-says-national-network-needs-careful-review
Some Anderson quotes that fit right in here. I sounds like he looked around and asked "What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?"
Sounds like Anderson and you are one and the same.
Quasi government employees, i.e. Amtrak, don't have any real competition in most of the areas where they operate. And therefore they don't have any compelling reasons to change. Don't rock the boat. Just keep on keeping on until the generious retirement benefits kick in.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
oltmannd Atchee It just never quits. I've read threads here for years about the subsidies Amtrak gets and how they need to become self sufficient. Why? No other form of transportation is. If they passed a law tomorrow that the highways and air travel needed to be self sufficient or shut down, they'd be gone. This ought to be pretty obvious with highways with the creative financing and weird partnering that wind up charging tolls for roadways on public right-of-ways and already funded by supposed transportation funds. Airlines don't pay for all the infrastructure necessary to build, maintain, and access airports. They also utilize a number of government services for weather and upper wind information among other things. I don't really feel like investing the time here to prove how much Amtrak alternatives cost, for me it's easy enough to see how much general fund money gets dumped into highways each year by picking up a newspaper, and how much the next "tweeking" for the airport is going to cost. Without getting too deep into political issues, I can say there are plenty of things the government spends money on I don't agree with, and to me its like they have a large warehouse full of people stuffing hundred dollar bills into shredding machines 24/7. Spending money on supporting not only the rail travel we have now but improveing it by whatever means it takes doesn't bother me a bit. What gets spent now isn't much more than a rounding error for the things shoved down our throat that are completely worthless. You are completely missing the point here. It's not about the subsidy at all or whether the subsidy it out of line with other modes. It's about what Amtrak does with the subsidy and how well they serve the markets they run through. They are running the same LD trains and schedules they ran in 1971 - and many of them were throw-backs to the 1950s when the market still had a sizeable number of business travel. Has nothing in the US changed in over 45 years? So, why hasn't Amtrak changed with it? There is a lot Amtrak can do with what they have to become a "better Amtrak" and remove a lot of the political heat they take (some of if deservedly) Amtrak needs advocates, not appolgists. ...and it's good to see Trains Nation leading the charge, for a change.
Atchee It just never quits. I've read threads here for years about the subsidies Amtrak gets and how they need to become self sufficient. Why? No other form of transportation is. If they passed a law tomorrow that the highways and air travel needed to be self sufficient or shut down, they'd be gone. This ought to be pretty obvious with highways with the creative financing and weird partnering that wind up charging tolls for roadways on public right-of-ways and already funded by supposed transportation funds. Airlines don't pay for all the infrastructure necessary to build, maintain, and access airports. They also utilize a number of government services for weather and upper wind information among other things. I don't really feel like investing the time here to prove how much Amtrak alternatives cost, for me it's easy enough to see how much general fund money gets dumped into highways each year by picking up a newspaper, and how much the next "tweeking" for the airport is going to cost. Without getting too deep into political issues, I can say there are plenty of things the government spends money on I don't agree with, and to me its like they have a large warehouse full of people stuffing hundred dollar bills into shredding machines 24/7. Spending money on supporting not only the rail travel we have now but improveing it by whatever means it takes doesn't bother me a bit. What gets spent now isn't much more than a rounding error for the things shoved down our throat that are completely worthless.
It just never quits.
I've read threads here for years about the subsidies Amtrak gets and how they need to become self sufficient. Why? No other form of transportation is.
If they passed a law tomorrow that the highways and air travel needed to be self sufficient or shut down, they'd be gone. This ought to be pretty obvious with highways with the creative financing and weird partnering that wind up charging tolls for roadways on public right-of-ways and already funded by supposed transportation funds. Airlines don't pay for all the infrastructure necessary to build, maintain, and access airports. They also utilize a number of government services for weather and upper wind information among other things.
I don't really feel like investing the time here to prove how much Amtrak alternatives cost, for me it's easy enough to see how much general fund money gets dumped into highways each year by picking up a newspaper, and how much the next "tweeking" for the airport is going to cost.
Without getting too deep into political issues, I can say there are plenty of things the government spends money on I don't agree with, and to me its like they have a large warehouse full of people stuffing hundred dollar bills into shredding machines 24/7. Spending money on supporting not only the rail travel we have now but improveing it by whatever means it takes doesn't bother me a bit. What gets spent now isn't much more than a rounding error for the things shoved down our throat that are completely worthless.
You are completely missing the point here. It's not about the subsidy at all or whether the subsidy it out of line with other modes.
It's about what Amtrak does with the subsidy and how well they serve the markets they run through.
They are running the same LD trains and schedules they ran in 1971 - and many of them were throw-backs to the 1950s when the market still had a sizeable number of business travel.
Has nothing in the US changed in over 45 years? So, why hasn't Amtrak changed with it?
There is a lot Amtrak can do with what they have to become a "better Amtrak" and remove a lot of the political heat they take (some of if deservedly)
Amtrak needs advocates, not appolgists. ...and it's good to see Trains Nation leading the charge, for a change.
As you once (or twice) so wisely said about Amtrak's philosophy, "We do it this way (routes, schedule, equipment, services) because we've always done it this way."
There is always resistance to change, internal institutional change and external (with the public). At least now, internal change is occuring to try to move Amtrak out of its 1950s mindset where it has been stuck, especially long distance services.
Some folks may object, but many more outside the NEC might see, for the first time, that the train can be a good choice for transportation.
CSSHEGEWISCHBrightline is not a whole lot different than the street railway and rapid transit lines over a century ago that were often funded in part by developers to bring potential buyers to their new housing development. Assuming that the line to Orlando gets built, I wonder how long the real estate developers will tolerate the operating losses.
...which is how we wound up with public transit in many cases...
The original estimates showed that Brightline could cover their operating costs plus capital for the equipment, I believe. I don't think that's a pipe dream - Acela does pretty well in that regard.
The big question I've had is can the RE development cover the construction capital costs? $2B is a lot of money.
Brightline is not a whole lot different than the street railway and rapid transit lines over a century ago that were often funded in part by developers to bring potential buyers to their new housing development. Assuming that the line to Orlando gets built, I wonder how long the real estate developers will tolerate the operating losses.
Gee the millions of people over the years that have riden LD trains (including me) don't think of them as obsolete. That is an opinion of yours that does not reflect reality.
PJS1 MidlandMike PJS1 Under the right conditsion investors could fill a hole that is not covered by Amtrak and/or the states because they don't have the political support and/or the money. Fortress failed to interest investors in their first two bond offerings on the Brightline extension. Now they are trying to sell private activity bonds thru a DOT allocation. However, because of their apparent lack of political engagement, they now have political opposition to even these bonds. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/25-battle-continues-over-brightline-bonds The trains are running. Apparently they are getting a good reception!
MidlandMike PJS1 Under the right conditsion investors could fill a hole that is not covered by Amtrak and/or the states because they don't have the political support and/or the money. Fortress failed to interest investors in their first two bond offerings on the Brightline extension. Now they are trying to sell private activity bonds thru a DOT allocation. However, because of their apparent lack of political engagement, they now have political opposition to even these bonds. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/25-battle-continues-over-brightline-bonds
Fortress failed to interest investors in their first two bond offerings on the Brightline extension. Now they are trying to sell private activity bonds thru a DOT allocation. However, because of their apparent lack of political engagement, they now have political opposition to even these bonds.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/25-battle-continues-over-brightline-bonds
The trains are running. Apparently they are getting a good reception!
Presently Brightline is a commuter line running between its three real estate developements. Are they making any money on it yet? The extension to Orlando Airport is less certain. After two failed junk bond offerings, and now the problematic tax exempt bond sale, the project seems on life support.
The Texas HSR is looking for financing from a Japan consortium, which always sems to indicate some involvement with their government.
I don't really care if a functioning national passenger rail network was government, private, or a hybrid. Nevertheless, based on history, I have no illusion that we will likely see a private rail passenger sucsess story anytime soon.
oltmannd PJS1 If it works what is wrong with the model? It may not be perfect, but I am cheering it on! Completely agree!
Completely agree!
Just as soon as they get the start-up kinks out of the Miami to West Palm Beach run, I am flying to Miami to ride Brightline.
I remember arriving at the old FEC station in Miami in 1957. I had ridden the East Coast Champion from Washington to Miami. I was an 18 year old Marine on my way to the Marine Corps Air Station at Opa Locka, which is just north of Miami.
I am looking forward to seeing the new railway station.
PJS1If it works what is wrong with the model? It may not be perfect, but I am cheering it on!
MidlandMike Fortress failed to interest investors in their first two bond offerings on the Brightline extension. Now they are trying to sell private activity bonds thru a DOT allocation. However, because of their apparent lack of political engagement, they now have political opposition to even these bonds.
oltmannd The Brightline model would include owning land around where you site the stations so the RE development can cover the capital costs.
The Brightline model would include owning land around where you site the stations so the RE development can cover the capital costs.
If it works what is wrong with the model? It may not be perfect, but I am cheering it on!
Amtrak has not been able to get it right after 47 years. It is time to try something different. Give the alternative providers, i.e. Brightline, Texas Central, etc. a decent shot at it. Let them take a risk! Give it a go! They may fail, but we surely will not know if they don’t try! These are attitudes the government wonks in charge of Amtrak will never understand.
Markets drive better outcomes than government managed commercial operations. If there is no sustainable market for passenger rail, irrespective of how it is leveraged, it should go the way of the stagecoach and Pony Express.
The NEC is close to covering its fully allocated costs. If Amtrak or any potential operator were free to focus only on the NEC, and it could negotiate realistic labor contracts, it could be a self-sustaining market-based entity. It might even be able to earn a profit.
PJS1Under the right conditsion investors could fill a hole that is not covered by Amtrak and/or the states because they don't have the political support and/or the money.
PJS1 ... Under the right conditsion investors could fill a hole that is not covered by Amtrak and/or the states because they don't have the political support and/or the money.
Under the right conditsion investors could fill a hole that is not covered by Amtrak and/or the states because they don't have the political support and/or the money.
oltmannd PJS1 If Amtrak were privatized, the only portion of its system that likely would survive is the NEC. ..and the NEC extensions: Empire Service, Keystone Service, Downeaster, Richmond/Norfolk/Newport News and Roanoke, too. I think California would keep their piece going (less the Starlight and Zephyr). I think Washington would keep the Cascades going - probably Oregon, too. Maybe even a stub of the Empire Builder out the Columbia River Gorge. Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan would likely keep the Chicago Hub going (less LD trains). Also, NC Piedmonts and the Carolinian. The states are already picking up most of the tab of the operation of these trains. The lack of national Amtrak won't be a deal breaker.
..and the NEC extensions: Empire Service, Keystone Service, Downeaster, Richmond/Norfolk/Newport News and Roanoke, too.
I think California would keep their piece going (less the Starlight and Zephyr). I think Washington would keep the Cascades going - probably Oregon, too. Maybe even a stub of the Empire Builder out the Columbia River Gorge. Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan would likely keep the Chicago Hub going (less LD trains).
Also, NC Piedmonts and the Carolinian.
The states are already picking up most of the tab of the operation of these trains. The lack of national Amtrak won't be a deal breaker.
Here is a pretty good look at what the future could bring on a wider scale:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/25/wall-street-exec-backs-train-service-for-mini-trips.html
This is the quote that grabbed my attention. It is a good definition of where passenger trains make sense.
"....... Wesley Edens, told CNBC that the railway is perfect for those trips that are "too long to drive, too short to fly." '
Some of our readers may bridle at the views of a Wall Street Executive, but I believe his message has value.
PJS1If Amtrak were privatized, the only portion of its system that likely would survive is the NEC.
While airlines collapsed, the national air network stayed intact. While Trailways may be gone, Greyhound still has a nationwide network, and there are other intercity bus companies. If Amtrak goes, so goes the passenger rail network. A few states may contract out some disjointed corridors, while the individual state legislatures only need to elect a majority one time who might kill thier trains.
CSSHEGEWISCH PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization. Privatization obviously was not working prior to April 30, 1971 or the Rail Passenger Service Act would not have been enacted.
BaltACD If anyone, anyone at all, THOUGHT they could make money privatizing Amtrak's operation they would have made themselves known long, long ago, or even today. The sounds of silence are deafening.
If anyone, anyone at all, THOUGHT they could make money privatizing Amtrak's operation they would have made themselves known long, long ago, or even today.
The sounds of silence are deafening.
True, very true. Private concerns could possibly make money on fast, frequent services on logical, under-500-mile routes that contain multiple large population centers. Maybe.
Correction. The Texas Eagle, not the Southwest Chief, apologies.
I think certain markets can be profitable. I do believe that once all the track impovements are in place and paid for, requiring only normal maintenance, for 125 mph operation over much of the route, that UP could make money and do a terrific public relations job by taking over the Chicago - St. Lous - Kansas City corridor market, with hourly service on the ex-GM&O Chicago - St. Louis, and every other , for every two hours service, St. Louis - KC. Even though the route is longer, overall Chicago - KC time would be shorter than the Zephyr via Galesberg, but the market would be primarily Chi - StL and StL - KC plus intermediate important stations at Joliette, Bloomington, Sringfield, Independence, and one or two more. Normal, IL should be a stop before and after college vacation times. I think the buseinss is there and the opportunity is there.
The operation would be like Brightline but in Armor Yellow and Brown.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
to a point you're correct. But the railroads were required to keep running many money losing trains that everyone knew were losers.
Had the government not been involved, there may have only been 3 trains in the country.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization!
You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization!
BTW, I believe I got the price per car per mile charge from the AAPRCO Charter guide if memory serves me correctly. They have an extra per locomotive charge per mile too I think.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.