Future of the American Passenger Train

[Anonymous]

Recently the Union Pacific railroad has claimed that running Amtrak is costing the railroad millions of dollars per year. The big Railroads and their allies in the Republican party have tried for years to kill Amtrak and the passenger train.

Of course no one ever mentions that Amtrak was begun as a bailout (ie welfare) for the railroads who had tried everything to drive off the traveling public in the late 1960's.

So what do you think? Should the railroads be given back their passenger trains and forced to provide a service they got government to take over? Should Amtrak simply be run off the rails in the name of "free markets". Or do we continue as we have since 1971 weith a quasi governmental rail system which lives hand to mouth depending on the kindness of who controls the government at the time.?

[Anonymous]

Recently the Union Pacific railroad has claimed that running Amtrak is costing the railroad millions of dollars per year. The big Railroads and their allies in the Republican party have tried for years to kill Amtrak and the passenger train.

Of course no one ever mentions that Amtrak was begun as a bailout (ie welfare) for the railroads who had tried everything to drive off the traveling public in the late 1960's.

So what do you think? Should the railroads be given back their passenger trains and forced to provide a service they got government to take over? Should Amtrak simply be run off the rails in the name of "free markets". Or do we continue as we have since 1971 weith a quasi governmental rail system which lives hand to mouth depending on the kindness of who controls the government at the time.?

[ironhorseman]

As part of a generation that never knew anything other than Amtrak it's hard for me to say. I would guess that if the railroads were forced (emphsis on forced) to bring back passenger service they would deliberatly do poor at it. It's like a kid that's being forced to do something he don't want to do he'll whine and put up a fuss.

Now, I'm no financial or business wizard, but I think the short answer to the problem is to find a way for Amtrak to be self sufficient, not relying solely on gov't funding. I was telling someone not too long ago that I read that Amtrak was not supposed to last more than two or three years and they guy I told this to looked surprised and had always thought Amtrak was to be a permanent replacement. He said other countries fund their railroads 100%. I said we're not other countries. Amtrak needs to think, act, and operate like a private business. The only problem is Amtrak has no one to compete with. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to Chicago your choices are simple: Amtrak or Amtrak. Gov't is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of passengers is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of competition is going to kill the passenger train. It's rediculous that Amtrak, Greyhound, and all the airlines are pitted against each other. It should be train vs train, bus line vs bus line, and airline vs airline. My brother took a Greyhound bus recently and the driver was a raving lunitic. Well guess what? If he ever want's to take a bus again his only choice is to patronize Greyhound again.

Well, I hope I made my point clear. It's not a perfect solution. Heck, it's not even a solution, but it'll be ripped apart and criticized like all the other suggestions people have made on Amtrak.

Once I made a satirical point by suggesting we merge all the RR companies and call it Amfrieght. Man, that made some people upset and I was only joking.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[ironhorseman]

As part of a generation that never knew anything other than Amtrak it's hard for me to say. I would guess that if the railroads were forced (emphsis on forced) to bring back passenger service they would deliberatly do poor at it. It's like a kid that's being forced to do something he don't want to do he'll whine and put up a fuss.

Now, I'm no financial or business wizard, but I think the short answer to the problem is to find a way for Amtrak to be self sufficient, not relying solely on gov't funding. I was telling someone not too long ago that I read that Amtrak was not supposed to last more than two or three years and they guy I told this to looked surprised and had always thought Amtrak was to be a permanent replacement. He said other countries fund their railroads 100%. I said we're not other countries. Amtrak needs to think, act, and operate like a private business. The only problem is Amtrak has no one to compete with. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to Chicago your choices are simple: Amtrak or Amtrak. Gov't is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of passengers is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of competition is going to kill the passenger train. It's rediculous that Amtrak, Greyhound, and all the airlines are pitted against each other. It should be train vs train, bus line vs bus line, and airline vs airline. My brother took a Greyhound bus recently and the driver was a raving lunitic. Well guess what? If he ever want's to take a bus again his only choice is to patronize Greyhound again.

Well, I hope I made my point clear. It's not a perfect solution. Heck, it's not even a solution, but it'll be ripped apart and criticized like all the other suggestions people have made on Amtrak.

Once I made a satirical point by suggesting we merge all the RR companies and call it Amfrieght. Man, that made some people upset and I was only joking.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[Anonymous]

Being a rail fan i want to keep passenger trains out of my own pure love for them.I think 99 percent of us feel that way.That being said,the transportation quagmire that resulted after the terror attacks of September 11 2001 demonstated that we simply can not afford to be without a rail passenger network.I dont claim to have any knowlage of how the money can be provided for this service,it is only my humble opinion that it has to be found.

[Anonymous]

Being a rail fan i want to keep passenger trains out of my own pure love for them.I think 99 percent of us feel that way.That being said,the transportation quagmire that resulted after the terror attacks of September 11 2001 demonstated that we simply can not afford to be without a rail passenger network.I dont claim to have any knowlage of how the money can be provided for this service,it is only my humble opinion that it has to be found.

[Anonymous]

No forcing is needed. Just kill amtrack and let free trade decide. With all the old equipment they could buy on the cheap every railroad could decide on there own wether to provide.

[Anonymous]

No forcing is needed. Just kill amtrack and let free trade decide. With all the old equipment they could buy on the cheap every railroad could decide on there own wether to provide.

[Anonymous]

I like several writers before me, do not claim to have the answers to the interstate rail passenger travel problem. I firmly believe we need such a system and I would much rather see my tax dollars go to Amtrak rather than rebuilding the interstate highway system just so some trucker can blow me off of same.

[Anonymous]

I like several writers before me, do not claim to have the answers to the interstate rail passenger travel problem. I firmly believe we need such a system and I would much rather see my tax dollars go to Amtrak rather than rebuilding the interstate highway system just so some trucker can blow me off of same.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

[Anonymous]

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP AMTRACK AROUND NEVER RODE IT BUT ,WOULD LIKE TO.ME PERSONNALY LAST TIME I RODE ON A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS WHEN THEY HAD SEABOARD COAST LINE ENJOYED IT.MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE GOLDEN YEARS WHEN PASSENGER SERVICE WAS KING.I WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AMTRACK WILL SURVIVE

[Anonymous]

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP AMTRACK AROUND NEVER RODE IT BUT ,WOULD LIKE TO.ME PERSONNALY LAST TIME I RODE ON A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS WHEN THEY HAD SEABOARD COAST LINE ENJOYED IT.MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE GOLDEN YEARS WHEN PASSENGER SERVICE WAS KING.I WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AMTRACK WILL SURVIVE

[Anonymous]

Well, whatever you do, don't follow the example of the rail 'privatisation' here in the U.K. The solution here was to nationalise all the track, which is then maintained by one private company (currently 'Network Rail'), and then let other private companies (the Operating Companies) apply to the government for the right to run rail services (passenger or freight) over those rails. These operating companies must pay Network Rail for the maintenance work according to the contracts they have negotiated with it. Periodically the government decides that one of the operating companies has been doing a bad job and replaces them with another. Virtually all the equipment the operating companies use is leased from leasing companies. (There are some recent exceptions, for example Virgin Rail has bought some of its own new equipment).

In practice, what happens is that the maintenance company subcontracts out all the work to a myriad of smaller companies and bills the operating companies in accordance with its contracts. It also receives a fixed allocation of money from the government, on the principle that it is maintaining a national right of way, like the highways. If the sum of the receivables from the operating companies plus the fixed government allocation is insufficient to cover expenses, the maintenance company first defers ‘non-essential’ maintenance and simultaneously squeezes its subcontractors to perform the ‘essential’ work ever-more-cheaply, and, if that fails to stem the red ink, it goes bankrupt. This has happened once already. The shareholders then lose all their value and the company is re-constituted and re-floated on the stock exchange.

The severing of the link between maintenance and operations has proved to be a disaster from both a safety and an efficiency standpoint -- e.g. vital signal and track work going out the lowest bidder, maintenance work being scheduled at peak rush hours, etc.

[Anonymous]

Well, whatever you do, don't follow the example of the rail 'privatisation' here in the U.K. The solution here was to nationalise all the track, which is then maintained by one private company (currently 'Network Rail'), and then let other private companies (the Operating Companies) apply to the government for the right to run rail services (passenger or freight) over those rails. These operating companies must pay Network Rail for the maintenance work according to the contracts they have negotiated with it. Periodically the government decides that one of the operating companies has been doing a bad job and replaces them with another. Virtually all the equipment the operating companies use is leased from leasing companies. (There are some recent exceptions, for example Virgin Rail has bought some of its own new equipment).

In practice, what happens is that the maintenance company subcontracts out all the work to a myriad of smaller companies and bills the operating companies in accordance with its contracts. It also receives a fixed allocation of money from the government, on the principle that it is maintaining a national right of way, like the highways. If the sum of the receivables from the operating companies plus the fixed government allocation is insufficient to cover expenses, the maintenance company first defers ‘non-essential’ maintenance and simultaneously squeezes its subcontractors to perform the ‘essential’ work ever-more-cheaply, and, if that fails to stem the red ink, it goes bankrupt. This has happened once already. The shareholders then lose all their value and the company is re-constituted and re-floated on the stock exchange.

The severing of the link between maintenance and operations has proved to be a disaster from both a safety and an efficiency standpoint -- e.g. vital signal and track work going out the lowest bidder, maintenance work being scheduled at peak rush hours, etc.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: You can't legally "force" the railroads to take back a service they originally paid a one-time (albeit ridiculously low) fee to get out of. Even more to the point, you don't want to force them; the "service" they'd wind up providing would be so bad it'd make their previous efforts -- back in the days when roads like the SP were doing everything short of waving guns at passengers to scare them out of rail travel -- look like the golden age of rail travel by comparison.

Amtrak did two things wrong right from the start: First off, it allowed the railroads over which its trains run to reverse the priority of traffic (freight movements now superior to passenger, which is guaranteed to slow things down), and then its first generation of employees was almost entirely made up of the same railroad personnel -- and the same anti-passenger mindset -- that had made rail travel such a mess to begin with.

As additional icing, Amtrak continues (mistakenly) to emphasize long-haul traffic as opposed to more localized marketing: Even in this post-911 era, very few people are going to willingly choose the train to get from Chicago to LA, as an example, over the plane. Amtrak can't compete in that arena, but it can and should compete for the traffic in between the long-distance terminals. There's where it's future lies, if it's to have a future.

Amtrak can compete -- and does so, very effectively, in many instances -- with Greyhound. I can think of at least several existing routes where Amtrak's combination of train and bus (Amcoach) service is both cheaper and faster (and a whole lot more comfortable) than Greyhound. Amtrak nees to expand on this service and identify new markets for it. Additionally, Amtrak could likely increase its on-time arrival rate (dismally low now) by offering performance incentives to the railroads on which it's a tenant. The rail industry as a whole isn't waxing that fat these days that another source of revenue such as this wouldn't be welcome.

And who knows? Amtrak might even turn self-supporting yet. If only its management starts using its head.

-- Paul

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: You can't legally "force" the railroads to take back a service they originally paid a one-time (albeit ridiculously low) fee to get out of. Even more to the point, you don't want to force them; the "service" they'd wind up providing would be so bad it'd make their previous efforts -- back in the days when roads like the SP were doing everything short of waving guns at passengers to scare them out of rail travel -- look like the golden age of rail travel by comparison.

Amtrak did two things wrong right from the start: First off, it allowed the railroads over which its trains run to reverse the priority of traffic (freight movements now superior to passenger, which is guaranteed to slow things down), and then its first generation of employees was almost entirely made up of the same railroad personnel -- and the same anti-passenger mindset -- that had made rail travel such a mess to begin with.

As additional icing, Amtrak continues (mistakenly) to emphasize long-haul traffic as opposed to more localized marketing: Even in this post-911 era, very few people are going to willingly choose the train to get from Chicago to LA, as an example, over the plane. Amtrak can't compete in that arena, but it can and should compete for the traffic in between the long-distance terminals. There's where it's future lies, if it's to have a future.

Amtrak can compete -- and does so, very effectively, in many instances -- with Greyhound. I can think of at least several existing routes where Amtrak's combination of train and bus (Amcoach) service is both cheaper and faster (and a whole lot more comfortable) than Greyhound. Amtrak nees to expand on this service and identify new markets for it. Additionally, Amtrak could likely increase its on-time arrival rate (dismally low now) by offering performance incentives to the railroads on which it's a tenant. The rail industry as a whole isn't waxing that fat these days that another source of revenue such as this wouldn't be welcome.

And who knows? Amtrak might even turn self-supporting yet. If only its management starts using its head.

-- Paul

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with much of what Paul has to say, in his last posting. I do think that the government, the Fed's that is, should be consistant in their support for the entire transporation industry. In order to maintain that consistancy, they need to increase the subsidy to AMTRAK.

Look at the other modes of transporation. Air: the airports are supported by the FAA for operations and the local communities for maintenance (terminals), Bus: That's obvious, who pays for the Interstate and Federal highway systems, tax dollars. Water: the inland waterway system of rivers is operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even our seaports are maintained by the Corps, again tax dollars. To expect AMTRAK or any passenger service (UP, BNSF, N&S, etc.) to survive without an equivalent subsidy is sticking your head in the sand. There was a proposal some years ago for the railbeds to be taken over by and operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers, much like is done on the river system now.

I also agree with what Paul said about AMTRAK should be looking for what part or niche of the Passenger Traffic system it is best suited to fill. I believe they are doing that in the Northeast corridor. There should be other places where that works well. There has been progress on the Chicago-Detroit high-speed line, and also the Chicago-St. Louis. But progress has been so slow, one wonders just what the level of committment there is to finding these niche's.

One also wonders if the progress has been so slow on these opportunities because the competing modes see the threat and are lobbying, apparently very effectively, against AMTRAK.

--Don

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with much of what Paul has to say, in his last posting. I do think that the government, the Fed's that is, should be consistant in their support for the entire transporation industry. In order to maintain that consistancy, they need to increase the subsidy to AMTRAK.

Look at the other modes of transporation. Air: the airports are supported by the FAA for operations and the local communities for maintenance (terminals), Bus: That's obvious, who pays for the Interstate and Federal highway systems, tax dollars. Water: the inland waterway system of rivers is operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even our seaports are maintained by the Corps, again tax dollars. To expect AMTRAK or any passenger service (UP, BNSF, N&S, etc.) to survive without an equivalent subsidy is sticking your head in the sand. There was a proposal some years ago for the railbeds to be taken over by and operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers, much like is done on the river system now.

I also agree with what Paul said about AMTRAK should be looking for what part or niche of the Passenger Traffic system it is best suited to fill. I believe they are doing that in the Northeast corridor. There should be other places where that works well. There has been progress on the Chicago-Detroit high-speed line, and also the Chicago-St. Louis. But progress has been so slow, one wonders just what the level of committment there is to finding these niche's.

One also wonders if the progress has been so slow on these opportunities because the competing modes see the threat and are lobbying, apparently very effectively, against AMTRAK.

--Don

[pgillis]

The future of the passenger train is like every other funded service in this country. We have highways, airports, river systems, sports facilities, etc. because our society puts a priority value on such projects. If our society ever gets to that point with passenger trains then we will have the finest system in the world - if not, plan on buying videos as the passenger train will be history.

[pgillis]

The future of the passenger train is like every other funded service in this country. We have highways, airports, river systems, sports facilities, etc. because our society puts a priority value on such projects. If our society ever gets to that point with passenger trains then we will have the finest system in the world - if not, plan on buying videos as the passenger train will be history.

[Anonymous]

Here's my two cents' worth. Amtrak isn't the greatest railroad to ever come down the pike, to be sure--I remember the delights of riding the Silver Meteor, the Crescent, and the Southern Belle, among others, when a railroad like the Seaboard could still advertise itself as "the Route of Courteous Service" without fear of contradiction or satire. Nevertheless, Amtrak has, I believe, done the best it could on the starvation funding meted out by Uncle Sam these thirty-two years.

Why no Congress or President in this period has had the political will to make passenger trains an integral part of our national transportation system--I mean out here beyond the Northeast Corridor--is something I just can't understand. Trains are much more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than airplanes; they can serve smaller communities more effectively than airlines in many cases; they offer an alternative means of travel in case of disaster (remember 9/11?); increased train travel would relieve clogged airports and highways; a revived train industry would create jobs; and for short- and medium-length journeys, trains are simply the most comfortable way to go if you don't or can't drive yourself.

I suppose govenment hesitates to fully fund Amtrak because the politicos assume it would mean "new taxes," although the truth is, every airline ticket and every bus ticket in this country is already subsidized by plenty of tax dollars. (Who pays for air traffic control? Airport terminals? Highways and bridges and traffic signals? Not the plane and bus companies, not nearly--Your Tax Dollars At Work.) I don't see a logical objection to subsidizing, directly or indirectly, another major form of transportation that would provide so many benefits to the environment, the economy, and the traveling public. But for whatever reasons--and who knows what they might be?--Uncle Sam never has had the will to revive train travel and give this country a first-class passenger rail system.

We ought to have one--speedy, comfortable, convenient, and reliable--that complements airplane and bus travel and is integrated with them (imagine big-city airline terminals combined with bus and train stations). And I don't particularly care whether Amtrak provides the service, or whether the "freight" railroads do, if some bright boy with an economics degree figures out a way to give them a profit motive for reviving passenger trains. As a taxpayer, I just would like to have the choice, a real choice, one that doesn't leave town at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday only (holidays excepted). People like John McCain love to point to low ridership numbers on trains like the Sunset Limited, as if they prove that trains are a waste of money. But I just wonder how many more riders would be on those trains if they left on time, at decent times, with the choices and convenient connections that our government-subsidized airplanes offer?

But for thirty-two years, the annual anxiety has been, "Will Amtrak live? Will it die?" Please, let's either put it out of its misery and content ourselves with fond memories of train travel--or let's do something really wonderful with trains and people. We're the richest, smartest, savvyest nation on the face of the earth. It CAN be done, and done well, if the powers that be decide it should be done.

[Anonymous]

Here's my two cents' worth. Amtrak isn't the greatest railroad to ever come down the pike, to be sure--I remember the delights of riding the Silver Meteor, the Crescent, and the Southern Belle, among others, when a railroad like the Seaboard could still advertise itself as "the Route of Courteous Service" without fear of contradiction or satire. Nevertheless, Amtrak has, I believe, done the best it could on the starvation funding meted out by Uncle Sam these thirty-two years.

Why no Congress or President in this period has had the political will to make passenger trains an integral part of our national transportation system--I mean out here beyond the Northeast Corridor--is something I just can't understand. Trains are much more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than airplanes; they can serve smaller communities more effectively than airlines in many cases; they offer an alternative means of travel in case of disaster (remember 9/11?); increased train travel would relieve clogged airports and highways; a revived train industry would create jobs; and for short- and medium-length journeys, trains are simply the most comfortable way to go if you don't or can't drive yourself.

I suppose govenment hesitates to fully fund Amtrak because the politicos assume it would mean "new taxes," although the truth is, every airline ticket and every bus ticket in this country is already subsidized by plenty of tax dollars. (Who pays for air traffic control? Airport terminals? Highways and bridges and traffic signals? Not the plane and bus companies, not nearly--Your Tax Dollars At Work.) I don't see a logical objection to subsidizing, directly or indirectly, another major form of transportation that would provide so many benefits to the environment, the economy, and the traveling public. But for whatever reasons--and who knows what they might be?--Uncle Sam never has had the will to revive train travel and give this country a first-class passenger rail system.

We ought to have one--speedy, comfortable, convenient, and reliable--that complements airplane and bus travel and is integrated with them (imagine big-city airline terminals combined with bus and train stations). And I don't particularly care whether Amtrak provides the service, or whether the "freight" railroads do, if some bright boy with an economics degree figures out a way to give them a profit motive for reviving passenger trains. As a taxpayer, I just would like to have the choice, a real choice, one that doesn't leave town at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday only (holidays excepted). People like John McCain love to point to low ridership numbers on trains like the Sunset Limited, as if they prove that trains are a waste of money. But I just wonder how many more riders would be on those trains if they left on time, at decent times, with the choices and convenient connections that our government-subsidized airplanes offer?

But for thirty-two years, the annual anxiety has been, "Will Amtrak live? Will it die?" Please, let's either put it out of its misery and content ourselves with fond memories of train travel--or let's do something really wonderful with trains and people. We're the richest, smartest, savvyest nation on the face of the earth. It CAN be done, and done well, if the powers that be decide it should be done.

[SALfan]

I believe Amtrak should be given 1/2 cent of the Federal excise tax on gasoline, or should have some other dependable funding mechanism. As things stand now, they cannot even set up a budget for the next fiscal year with any degree of confidence. As others have pointed out, all other modes of transport are subsidized by our tax dollars. I would ride Amtrak more often if trains went where I need to go with a reasonable schedule frequency.

[SALfan]

I believe Amtrak should be given 1/2 cent of the Federal excise tax on gasoline, or should have some other dependable funding mechanism. As things stand now, they cannot even set up a budget for the next fiscal year with any degree of confidence. As others have pointed out, all other modes of transport are subsidized by our tax dollars. I would ride Amtrak more often if trains went where I need to go with a reasonable schedule frequency.

[Anonymous]

I do not personally feel that forcing the railroads to take back passenger would result in better service. I agree with the one respondent would said that they would simply "put up a fuss." I also do not think that it should be left to the free market either. Free market control of railways was what brought us here in the first place.

I believe the answer lies in a change of ideology. Here in Canada where I live, and also in many European nations, passenger railroads are run and funded by the government. Canada has VIA Rail which is a federally owned crown-corporation (an entity that runs like a business but is answerable to the government directly). This arrangement seems to be working quite well as VIA has recently purchased a new fleet of Genesis locomotives, some British-built "Renaissance" passenger cars and has even introduced a new tourist train route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Sydney on Cape Breton Island. In France, the TGV is run at an incredible loss but the government feels that the economic benefits of having that service - benefits that are not easily quantifiable - far outweigh the financial cost of the service.

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.

[Anonymous]

I do not personally feel that forcing the railroads to take back passenger would result in better service. I agree with the one respondent would said that they would simply "put up a fuss." I also do not think that it should be left to the free market either. Free market control of railways was what brought us here in the first place.

I believe the answer lies in a change of ideology. Here in Canada where I live, and also in many European nations, passenger railroads are run and funded by the government. Canada has VIA Rail which is a federally owned crown-corporation (an entity that runs like a business but is answerable to the government directly). This arrangement seems to be working quite well as VIA has recently purchased a new fleet of Genesis locomotives, some British-built "Renaissance" passenger cars and has even introduced a new tourist train route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Sydney on Cape Breton Island. In France, the TGV is run at an incredible loss but the government feels that the economic benefits of having that service - benefits that are not easily quantifiable - far outweigh the financial cost of the service.

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.