Forums

[Anonymous]

I very much fear that if the fascist Bush Administration wins reelection, Amtrak will be as good as toast. Which is why I am entertaining thoughts that perhaps consideration should be given to forcing the railroads back into the passenger busiss with the equpment now in existence and addition equipment be provided as needed. It seems to me that the railroads evaded their common carrier responsibilities once in the 1970s and in the 80s when they tried to dry up small shippers and concentrate on the big guys. If Bush can bail out airlines, some of which deserve to go out of busines, why not Amtrak? We need more trains and more routes, not fewer, besides, Greyhound has discontinued service to a sizeable portion of its service areas of the mid west and Pacific Northwest, mostly rural areas and not all of this service has been replaced by regional carriers. It is such moves by Greyhound that make keeping Amtrak as a cohesive, intact system all the more important. Bush has bankrupted many of the states by the war that he started in Iraq and yet expects the states to pick up the costs of the trains they want to keep? That is why I have brought up the alternative of forcing the railroads back to some of the very common carrier responsibilities that they seem to have evaded in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With Greyhound pulling out of service to rural America and no one else seems interested in servicing the people of Small town USA, that leaves Amtrak as the only alternative for people without cars, afraid to fly, or both.. That is why I believe the idea of forcing the railroads to take over the trains, with public funding, of course, is one that should be considered if Bush has his way and I do not hope that he does. Why should airlines that have been screwing their passengers every which way but loose in recent years deserve a bailout and Amtrak does not. For all I care, United, USAirways and at least a couple others can go under for all I care.

[CSXrules4eva]

I miss the good old days when Conrail,New York Central, PRR and other railroads had passanger service. It was great! Hay don't get me wrong I still like Amtrak :). All in all I think ur right about the Bush administration's softness for airlines, and coldness for railroads. Also some of those airlines DO deserve to plummit like Air Tran. Bush may be a prime example of the many other officials who are in office, they don't know or care to know jack about a vital part of the transportation industry RAILROADS! But. . . .anyway, some of the major class 1s like CSX, should think about providing some passanger service; mabe CSX or NS could provide service on routs like Sand Patch or some place were Amtrak doesn't provide service. Then again some freight rails may not want to do passenger service because, it would cost them billions of dollors for new infrastructure, and managment. :(

[Junctionfan]

No; demand empeachment on your president if he fails to do his job whom ever wins the election. Protests, petitions and other legal forms of attention grabing will get the politicians by the nose. As Patton said, you need to "grab them by the nose and kick them in the pants". Remember, Amtrak belongs to the American people and serves the American people. If the government fails to serve Amtrak, than the government fails to serve America.

Remember that during elections and let those bureaucrats in Washington D.C know it too.

[Anonymous]

Who cares,Amtrak IS DEAD!...........GET OVER IT! America WILL NEVER give up there love for their CARS! The Passenger erra is over......DEAD,GONE!
As for the Railroads&Passenger service.......aint gona happen,no way in HELL!
Railroads MAKE money on freight "NOT" on passenger trains,The Railroads would go BANKRUPT if they were forced to pull these trains that make NOTHING.
AMTRAK IS DEAD!

[Anonymous]

BNSF railfan, I support your position. If a business can't stand on its' own, be it a railroad, airline, or Joe's Burger Joint, it shouldn't exist.

[railman]

The key to all transit-light rail-commuter-intercity-streetcar, is NETWORK. To be effective the train has to go just about everywhere. Yes, people love their cars and will never give them up. That's a fact of life. The key is to make it easy for people to use. The great thing about the old days was that you could get just about everywhere if you wanted, thanks to mail contracts that paid the bills to have a coach ride along. I don't think we would need to increase subsidies, however if the USPS was told to get back to using railroads, that would go a long way in restoring that network.

I will say, that any president, republican or democrat, who continually bails out airlines time and time again and pours billions down a black hole, and then subsequently refuses a rather small request by the ONE passenger rail service for funds needs to go. Amtrak has a good plan on where to spend the money, and nothing is too outrageous in it either; just the basics- ties, bridge repairs, and new/used car purchase and repair. What happened to common sense?

And, yes, passenger trains require people. But don't tell me that a railroad that can run hot freights and the like, with GPS, increased CTC, and so on, can't put in passenger trains and get the same service. Look at the revival of commuter services around the nation. For the most part, you would need to hire station attendants and maybe lease back some of those depots sitting along the tracks that are museums, etc., but if all the railroads had to do it, it would just be a cost of doing business. Maybe tax trucks to compensate and keep things fair.

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railman

The key to all transit-light rail-commuter-intercity-streetcar, is NETWORK. To be effective the train has to go just about everywhere. Yes, people love their cars and will never give them up. That's a fact of life. The key is to make it easy for people to use. The great thing about the old days was that you could get just about everywhere if you wanted, thanks to mail contracts that paid the bills to have a coach ride along. I don't think we would need to increase subsidies, however if the USPS was told to get back to using railroads, that would go a long way in restoring that network.

I will say, that any president, republican or democrat, who continually bails out airlines time and time again and pours billions down a black hole, and then subsequently refuses a rather small request by the ONE passenger rail service for funds needs to go. Amtrak has a good plan on where to spend the money, and nothing is too outrageous in it either; just the basics- ties, bridge repairs, and new/used car purchase and repair. What happened to common sense?

And, yes, passenger trains require people. But don't tell me that a railroad that can run hot freights and the like, with GPS, increased CTC, and so on, can't put in passenger trains and get the same service. Look at the revival of commuter services around the nation. For the most part, you would need to hire station attendants and maybe lease back some of those depots sitting along the tracks that are museums, etc., but if all the railroads had to do it, it would just be a cost of doing business. Maybe tax trucks to compensate and keep things fair.

PREACH BROTHER!

[kevarc]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

I miss the good old days when Conrail,

YOu really need to check your resourses, Conrail never ran passenger trains.

New York Central, PRR and other railroads had passanger service. It was great! Hay don't get me wrong I still like Amtrak :). All in all I think ur right about the Bush administration's softness for airlines, and coldness for railroads. Also some of those airlines DO deserve to plummit like Air Tran. Bush may be a prime example of the many other officials who are in office, they don't know or care to know jack about a vital part of the transportation industry RAILROADS!

Amturds is a dead duck and good riddance. If you wnat it wher you live - you pay for it. I am tired of my tax money going to BS things. Granted amturds is a small part of the federal budget, but it is a good place to start cutting.

But. . . .anyway, some of the major class 1s like CSX, should think about providing some passanger service; mabe CSX or NS could provide service on routs like Sand Patch or some place were Amtrak doesn't provide service. Then again some freight rails may not want to do passenger service because, it would cost them billions of dollors for new infrastructure, and managment. :(

The freight RR's will NEVER start their own passenger service. They were bleeding red all over their books before amturds and they are not THAT stupid as many of you seem to be. It is time to remove your head from the sand an WAKE UP and realize that long didtance passenger trains should die.

[Anonymous]

It would never happen. Railroads are in the business of making profit! They only way it will happen is if somebody can develop a model to make it work. Nobody has so far. Passenger rail will almost be a dependent on your tax dollar$$$$.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

I miss the good old days when Conrail,

YOu really need to check your resourses, Conrail never ran passenger trains.

They ran commuter service into the early 80's.

[Anonymous]

Switching Tracks from "Trains Magazine Forum to Trains.com Forum...I better get out a "Form D"[:)]
Now that I have taken my pills lets get back to buisness
1.Amtrak is a railroad
2. Railroads were given and still have powers of emnate domain given to them by the States and the Feds
3.When Amtrak was created they were given authorisation to gain access to any class one and take over railroad lines that were nesessary
4. They did this in the case of the Montrealer between Springfield Mass and Brattleboro VT with Guilford transportation when tracks got so bad that they were down to 15 MPH(Thats fast on Guilford) on that line. They went to court
and the Fedaral Court ruled in Amtraks favor.
5. Amtrak should use there powers of emnate domain using money from states that want passeger rail to set aside Infrastructure for Passenger rail
6.Abondoned Railroads should be "Railbanked" with rails in place for future Amtrak Use
7.Amtrak eminate domain supercedes that of "Private Railroads" and should use such threats to whip railroads into doing what they want.
8.If there was no Amtrak The Railroads may actualy Have to Run passenger trains themselvers again since Amtrak was a corprate welfare sceme to have railroads weasal out of there obligation to run passenger trains.
9.Railroads should not be taxed on Right of Way that Amtrak uses
Profile Back to top


88gta350 Posted: 12 Sep 2004, 23:53:08 Quote


Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Nov 2002
Location: US
without going into all the points you made, there are others here far more knowledgable than I, let me say this. I don't think railroads have an "obligation" to run passenger trains. If there was no amtrak, there would be no pasenger trains unless demand was sufficient. Railroads are a private enterprise, and they can run the business how they see fit. If they chosse not to run passenger trains because they are not profitable, then what can anyone do except have the government take over again?
Profile Web MSN Back to top


jchnhtfd Posted: 13 Sep 2004, 10:09:06 Quote


Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Location: US
Hmm... fools walk in, so I'll walk in at least a little ways! Dave M. is exactly right: the legal framework which existed which appeared to require railroads to run passenger trains involved the US Mail. If a train does not, or did not, carry mail, there is no current law or regulation which requires any private enterprise -- including Amtrak -- to provide passenger rail service. If a public entity (any level) wants to provide passenger rail service, they are welcome to do so. If a private enterprise wants provide passenger rail service, and can show its owners that it pays, they can -- and will (I don't think they can...!).

Eminent Domain is an interesting power, and the Amtrak/CV/Guilford case was an extremely unusual one. First, eminent domain does not save money: it simply allows entity A (in the above case, Amtrak) to request a Court to find that it is necessary, in the public interest, for Entity B (in the above case, Guilford) to be required to sell -- at fair market -- certain property to Entity A. In the Amtrak/CV/Guilford case, Amtrak prevailed, but only because it was able to show that Guilford had no intention of upgrading the track (and in fairness to Guilford, had no NEED to upgrade the track) and that there was an overriding public interest (ironically, the Montrealer no longer exists -- not enough ridership). I am not a lawyer in this area -- but I would be quite surprised if the power of eminent domain, which involves property rights only, could be invoked to 'whip railroads into doing what [Amtrak] want[s]', at least in most instances where the property is well-maintained and well-run, which is the case for most railroads today.

I quite agree on point 9 -- railroads should not be taxed on rights of way and equipment -- except that I would take it a lot farther and say that that should apply to all railroad rights of way, not just those used by Amtrak. But that's another fight entirely!
Profile Back to top


Junctionfan Posted: 13 Sep 2004, 10:22:41 Quote


Posts: 813
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Location: St.Catharines, Ontario
I would hope negotiating would be a better first step. I would say to one of the responders though that although the private railroads own their property, their property exists because the United States so really the railroads operate on U.S owned soil (unless the railroads have become a new country and plan to join the U.N). Federal governments in all of the world's countries, have the last word over all other juristictions and only federal and I mean federal courts (in the U.S case it is the Supreme Court) has the final say over even the federal government. States are not as powerful as people would like to believe. Federal government controls almost everything in the long run with direct control over the F.B.I and the U.S Forces. The president is called the "commander-in-cheif" for a reason.
Profile Back to top


jchnhtfd Posted: 13 Sep 2004, 12:26:10 Quote


Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Location: US
Junctionfan -- negotiation is always better! Assuming that one can do it. And, in most cases, one can; I doubt either of us could cite too many examples where negotiation hasn't worked to everyone's benefit in the railroad game. As I noted, that Guilford case really was an exception, and had many many odd factors to it -- some of them going back over a century.

My own feeling is that, with very rare exceptions, passenger rail is in the public interest -- but the first stop is not eminent domain or legal action or compulsion of some sort, but a recognition on the part of the politicos that, since it is in the public interest, there should be some public support. Which seems to be sadly lacking...

The taxation issue is also exceedingly complex; I was sounding off in a simplistic way. Which I should never do... a history and discussion of the use of taxation of real property (which is what's at issue here) as a means of support of government is way too complex, I think, for here; suffice it to say that, in my humble opinion, though it made sense when it was introduced (most likely in what was then termed England, in the late 1100s AD -- King Stephen vs. Empress Maud) it really doesn't any more except for a very small selection of civic services (such as fire protection).
Profile Back to top


trainfinder22 Posted: Today, 20:09:08 Quote


Posts: 157
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: Trains Magazine Resident Hobo
Real Estate Property Tax of railroads made sence when railroads carried 90% of the nations goods particauly farm goods. It was a indirect way of taxing the nations GNP or gross national product. Now that we are in he the age of Intermodalism were railroads carry 33.3% of the nations goods and trucks and Boats the other 66% its outdated. There were Populest Outcries in the Farm Belt for regilation and taxation of railroads but now that seems to have subsided with the Decline of the Family Farm.

[Anonymous]

Some might believe Amtrak to be a public service, not a money-making business. If the government didn't believe that rail passenger service was vital to our citizens, it would not have taken it over as the railroads abandoned the service.

As for the premise of this thread, should Amtrak ever be abandoned, unless provisions were written into the agreements creating Amtrak, it seems rather unlikely that even our government has the authority to require railroads to carry passengers, anymore than it can force other private businesses to offer services outside the scope of their charter.

Last I checked, BNSF railfan, Amtrak is still running trains up along Lake Champlain, so it seems that you might be a bit premature in making your pronouncement. I'm sure you;ll get over it.

Wayne

[Anonymous]

Ill tell you what,Ill get over it when we TAX payers stop paying for a stupid system that makes NO profit. Every god damn I turn around the stupid government forks out millions of tax paying money to keep those EMPTY trains running. The American public will never give up their cars,"never".
What makes me so mad is, why can't amtrak stop going after the tax payers every time for help just to bail them out? Amtrak just must love to milk us tax payers to death.[:(!]

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate my taxes going to Social Security, to medicare, to education, to the military, to VA hospitals, to road construction, to medical research, to all those lousy things that don't show one penny in profit and are milking tax payers to death. It's time we stop bailing out these losers too.

Still, I wonder why the 'EMPTY' Amtrak trains I ride on are always so full of people? Maybe there are some taxpayers who find value in the service and have the sense to use it.

Wayne

[Anonymous]

Well that's true too,That I will agree.