What ever happened to class ones or other freight lines owning passenger service?? Why hasn't many (if not, any) railroad created a passenger service like Metra, Amtrak, SEPTA, and others??? With people making the switch back to passenger rails (http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/11/Survey%20says%20Americans%20would%20use%20high-speed%20rail.aspx) It'd make a big difference and we could show the government that non-nationalised thongs can work out after they go through a down period.
Mr. Railman non-nationalised thongs can work out after they go through a down period.
non-nationalised thongs can work out after they go through a down period.
Calling Monica Lewinsky!!
Let me apologize to anyone who finds my above reply offensive. I have no idea what the OP was trying to say, but it was just too funny to pass up.
Tim
From a railroad's point of view, passenger service wasn't necessarily something that was worth the trouble to begin with. Despite the many classic trains that we fondly remember that made money individually (or did they?-depends on your accounting), service as a whole was a great deal of time & trouble for, shall we say, marginal returns. Right now, railroads have all their time, talent & energy focused on freight operations. Any $$ spent there has faster and larger paybacks and the need to patiently invest in new, long range services (such as passenger) that just don't have room to fit in at the table. The opening paragraphs of Fred Frailey's column in this month's Trains says it well. To start a new service at the level of Metra, SEPTA or LIRR is a huge and expensive undertaking that will require years to fully utilize all but the most modest facilities provided. California's Caltrains services have been a generation in the making and newer services (VRE & Salt Lake City spring to my mind) are comparatively modest. If there are any metropolitan areas that would support a large service from the outset, they never really went away to begin with (Metro North, NJDOT, Metra, etc.) There are other costs ("social costs") that aren't recoverable from the farebox, that a public entity can contribute toward providing services-and with the money comes another stakeholder/investor in the game. It may be necessary to have a public/governmental entity in order that the public does contribute to a service that provides ancillary benefits, the cost of providing which would otherwise be borne solely by the railroad, without compensation. I'm reading a 1911(ish) study by the City of Chicago on the question of electrification of the terminals in the city to help abate smoke pollution. One of the examples given in the study cites the damage to clothing from increased dirt and consequent additional cleaning. The savings in men's shirt collars alone was estimated at over $600,000.00/year, enough to pay financing costs on the electrification of two terminals. Very difficult to collect that at the farebox...
From a railroad's point of view, passenger service wasn't necessarily something that was worth the trouble to begin with. Despite the many classic trains that we fondly remember that made money individually (or did they?-depends on your accounting), service as a whole was a great deal of time & trouble for, shall we say, marginal returns. Right now, railroads have all their time, talent & energy focused on freight operations. Any $$ spent there has faster and larger paybacks and the need to patiently invest in new, long range services (such as passenger) that just don't have room to fit in at the table. The opening paragraphs of Fred Frailey's column in this month's Trains says it well.
To start a new service at the level of Metra, SEPTA or LIRR is a huge and expensive undertaking that will require years to fully utilize all but the most modest facilities provided. California's Caltrains services have been a generation in the making and newer services (VRE & Salt Lake City spring to my mind) are comparatively modest. If there are any metropolitan areas that would support a large service from the outset, they never really went away to begin with (Metro North, NJDOT, Metra, etc.)
There are other costs ("social costs") that aren't recoverable from the farebox, that a public entity can contribute toward providing services-and with the money comes another stakeholder/investor in the game. It may be necessary to have a public/governmental entity in order that the public does contribute to a service that provides ancillary benefits, the cost of providing which would otherwise be borne solely by the railroad, without compensation. I'm reading a 1911(ish) study by the City of Chicago on the question of electrification of the terminals in the city to help abate smoke pollution. One of the examples given in the study cites the damage to clothing from increased dirt and consequent additional cleaning. The savings in men's shirt collars alone was estimated at over $600,000.00/year, enough to pay financing costs on the electrification of two terminals. Very difficult to collect that at the farebox...
Mr. Railman What ever happened to class ones or other freight lines owning passenger service?? Why hasn't many (if not, any) railroad created a passenger service like Metra, Amtrak, SEPTA, and others??? With people making the switch back to passenger rails (http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/11/Survey%20says%20Americans%20would%20use%20high-speed%20rail.aspx) It'd make a big difference and we could show the government that non-nationalised thongs can work out after they go through a down period.
Some younger folks seem to have the understanding that the Federal Government Nationalised passenger rail service over the industries objections. If you read up on that period in history you will find that with very few exceptions the railroads basically said to the Gov't "take it over or let us cancel all the services". There were only a handful of railroads that elected to stay out of Amtrak initially, and eventually, those services were either ended or taken over by Amtrak.
I don't understand the "we could show the government" reference, do you own a railroad (maybe the poster is Warren Buffett)?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
On both sides of our friendly border, railroads were on their knees for years, begging the various levels of government to rid them/free them from their obligations to run passenger services that were part of original land acquisition agreements dating back into the 1800's. The rails lost their shirts, their shorts, and were down to drinking bark tea to stay alive.
Essentially, almost none of them could make a financially viable go of passenger service for a huge portion of their obligatory provision of it. At times, yes, but heavily no.
Crandell
carnej1 Some younger folks seem to have the understanding that the Federal Government Nationalised passenger rail service over the industries objections. If you read up on that period in history you will find that with very few exceptions the railroads basically said to the Gov't "take it over or let us cancel all the services". There were only a handful of railroads that elected to stay out of Amtrak initially, and eventually, those services were either ended or taken over by Amtrak.
Now, if Congress should enact a law prohibiting the use of private transport between places served by passenger trains, there would be a greater demand for rail passenger service. But, the capital investment to provide the equipment to be used in such service would be immense.
Johnny
The last profitable year for RR passenger travel in the US was 1929.
Even now, the least unprofitable service in the US, Acela, can't cover it's full cost of operation. It does net some money over the day to day operating cost, but not enough to cover the capital cost of the equipment and it's share of the ROW.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"What ever happened to class ones or other freight lines owning passenger service??"
Simple answer: THEY CAN'T
I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that in the original legislation that created Amtrak, the class 1 railroads who joined were essentially prohibited from operating their own passenger services forever!
Has to do with competition. A railroad couldn't sign over its passenger operations to Amtrak, and then later try to operate its own service. Kind of a contradiction don't you think? What would be the point of joining Amtrak if you were going to operate your own passenger trains?
I think (again, someone correct me if I am wrong) that under the current law; as long as Amtrak exists, no class 1 railroad can operate its own service seperate from the auspices of Amtrak.
Railfanjohn
railfanjohn "What ever happened to class ones or other freight lines owning passenger service??" Simple answer: THEY CAN'T I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that in the original legislation that created Amtrak, the class 1 railroads who joined were essentially prohibited from operating their own passenger services forever! Has to do with competition. A railroad couldn't sign over its passenger operations to Amtrak, and then later try to operate its own service. Kind of a contradiction don't you think? What would be the point of joining Amtrak if you were going to operate your own passenger trains? I think (again, someone correct me if I am wrong) that under the current law; as long as Amtrak exists, no class 1 railroad can operate its own service seperate from the auspices of Amtrak. Railfanjohn
My memory is a bit vague about the situation, now nearly 40 years ago when Amtrak was formed, but didn't the railroads also have to make a financial contribution to get rid of their passenger services. Even though it cost them both money and equipment up front, most jumped at the chance to unload what had become a very unprofitable business line. I believe even today Amtrak's payments to the railroads for use of their track is considerably below what would be a commercial rate.
The two exceptions were the Rio Grande and the Southern, each of whom had a different reason for staying out of Amtrak. Both ultimately realized they couldn't afford not to escape the passenger business. Nothing has changed in the past 40 years to make the Class 1s think any different.
When passenger trains had an effective monopoly in long distance travel, some actually made money in heavily traveled routes. On secondary lines the passengers often had been a sideline with the main business the express and mail, both of which had effectively vanished by the time Amtrak was formed. But if you index regular fares for inflation from the earlier part of the 20th century, it quickly becomes apparent how expensive travel was then.
The competition of the automobile initially put the downward pressure on prices, later followed by the airlines. The railroads minimized their losses by dropping fares (in indexed terms) so at least they kept some revenue. But even so, towards the end that song made famous by Arlo Guthrie had it right, many of the passengers were actually railroad families traveling on free passes.
John
When I hired out in 1998 one of my instructors thought that within a few years Amtrack would end and the freight railroads take back the operation of passenger trains, with an operating subsidy. Meaning instead of funding Amtrack to run the trains, the government would fund the individual railroads to run the service.
While I didn't expect that to happen then or now, I have wondered if it did happen if we would have the same political battles over passenger trains. It seems those most against a subsidy to a quasi-government agency have no trouble handing out large sums of money to business and industry in various guises. Money to Amtrack to carry Aunt Grace bad. Money to BNSF, UP, CSX, NS et.al., to carry Aunt Grace good. Maybe private non-rail companies will get into the game to hire the psgr crews and own the equipment. (I know there are limitations in current law why this can't happen now, but laws can be changed, too.) They may try to starve the California Zephyr run by Amtrack for cash, but I'd bet the Haliburton Express run by a private company would be rolling in government money.
It isn't that members of Congress from both parties have a phobia against spending money, it's who the money is going to that gives certain members apoplexy.
I suppose though there would still be a fight. Only then the left side would say end passenger trains because it's using money that could be used for education, etc. The right side would say no, save them for they create jobs and economic opprotunity (and possibly campaign contributions from those who had government contracts to operate the trains).
Jeff, who doesn't have an Aunt Grace.
If the railroads had been forced to continue running passenger trains, some of them may well have expired. Amtrak was supposed to expire a few years after its creation. Like Rasputin, Amtrak has proven absurdly resilient.
With 20/20 hindsight, would the railroads have been better off taking a direct subsidy to run passenger trains? Would having total control be better than having a paying government guest on the property?
All is probably in the realm of what ifs. The private human and physical capital to support rail passenger service is gone. 40 years is a long time.
cx500 My memory is a bit vague about the situation, now nearly 40 years ago when Amtrak was formed, but didn't the railroads also have to make a financial contribution to get rid of their passenger services. Even though it cost them both money and equipment up front, most jumped at the chance to unload what had become a very unprofitable business line. I believe even today Amtrak's payments to the railroads for use of their track is considerably below what would be a commercial rate. The two exceptions were the Rio Grande and the Southern, each of whom had a different reason for staying out of Amtrak. Both ultimately realized they couldn't afford not to escape the passenger business. Nothing has changed in the past 40 years to make the Class 1s think any different. John
I don't remember just what the Southern's reason was (perhaps the Southern Crescent's sevice would be downgraded by Amtrak?), but the Rio Grande did not want Amtrak to interfere withits freight operation (as I recall).
Victrola1 If the railroads had been forced to continue running passenger trains, some of them may well have expired. Amtrak was supposed to expire a few years after its creation. Like Rasputin, Amtrak has proven absurdly resilient. With 20/20 hindsight, would the railroads have been better off taking a direct subsidy to run passenger trains? Would having total control be better than having a paying government guest on the property? All is probably in the realm of what ifs. The private human and physical capital to support rail passenger service is gone. 40 years is a long time.
Amtrak survived all the early attempts to do it in, and still survives; my wife and I appreciate such service as it has very much.
By the time Amtrack started, the Rock Island had cut all but two intercity trains. The Quad Cities Rocket and the Peoria Rocket were what was left. From what I understand the loss on those was cheaper than the assesment Amtrack was going to charge. The Amtrack figure included losses from trains that had since been discontinued.
The state of Illinois subsized the operation of the two. When the State stopped the subsidy, in late 1978, both runs were discontinued.
Jeff
They can't. THey don't want to. They won't. Frieght operations has a better payback with fewer employees and less demanding techinical standards (come on, give me a break...a passenger train needs different track, speed, signal system, stations, etc., all more expensive than freight; I don't mean there aren't high technical standards for freight, too, just vastly different). Amtrak was formed to take passenger train costs and responsiblities away from the railroads so they could concentrate on freight operations and make money. Intitial National Rail Passenger legislation allowed for all railroads operating passenger trains on Day One to give them to Amtrak or continue operating them at theiir own expense for I think two years. It also allowd for any intercity passenger rail to be only under Amtrak control or with states operating inconjuction with Amtrak. Later the only AMtrak feature was dropped but no one really has done anything toward private passenger service because either railroads are absorbed in freight or passenger service doesn't fit their business plan in some way or another. They might however work with a government type agencey, even a private enterprise, if their lawyers are satisfied that the grand children of their present grandchildren will be held harmless for any slight injury or inconvience incurred by any incident involving a passenger train on their tracks ( yeah, I'm scarcastic!). Commuter services have all come under some kind of municipal, state or regional agency. Only one private enterprise emerged back in the 80's or 90's to want to provide commuter service from I think Phillipsburg NJ to Hoboken via the former DL&W railroad. BUt neither NJT and especially COnrail would have anything to do with it, thus it quietly went away.
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.
Passenger service losses were bleeding the railroads to death in the 1960s. Amtrak was created to stop the bleeding. No one in freight rail management would consider investing his stockholders money in such a known looser.
Mac
Were it not for our legal system, perhaps passengers filling in the void around freight would be profitable. Empty box car, 1st class. Empty gon, 2nd class. Everything else, 3rd class.
It would not be practical to stop a mile long train for passengers. A short freight train on a tight schedule could charge more for the service. Passengers would be icing on the crates.
Other than slop buckets, there would be no need to invest in special, new equipment. Ticketing would be handled by agents and the internet.Teams of conductors would appear unannounced. Any lacking a ticket would be thrown off at speed.
As the economy keeps singing "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime," this type of passenger service may make a come back.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.