Axe Amtrak!

[jsanchez]

I'm afraid of the same mess in England happening here, it seems the private sector with goverments help made a bigger mess, than when the railroads were under British Rail. To me it seems like they franchised to many private operators, it should have been limited to 4 or 5. Seperating the track owenership from the operating companies was the biggest disaster, what scares me is the clowns on the Amtrak Reform Council want to try this, idiots that they are. Some of the British operators want to do away with this miss-guided seperation, best of luck to them.
Also where is the demand from Libertarians(hypocrites) and Texas Republicans to privatize the interstate highway system, this is a bigger drain and welfare system on the taxpayer than Amtrak ever will and can be. Japan is privatizing its interstate equivilents, maybe the U.S and Britain should look into it. New freeway construction and maintenance keeps going up substantially every year as truck sizes and auto traffic increases, this is coming to a head also, and will make the Amtrak crisis seem minscule.

James
A Republican who thinks theres a role for passenger trains and mass-transit

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind a couple of points. Firstly,Railway Age is not a railfan publication,it is the most widely read trade publication in the industry.it's fair to say that all the big movers and shakers read it. The editors of the magazine do not take editorial positions lightly. I urge everyone to go to www.railwayage.com and read it.
Secondly,the main concept is that the railroads would not be operating passenger service to make a profit off of ticket sales,but instead in return for major tax breaks,which in turn would contribute to the bottom line. This is a very different proposition than the pre-Amtrak situation where the railroads operated in a highly regulated environment,and were essentially forced to operate unprofitable passenger routes as a public service. I'm not saying this is a complete solution,but it may be part of a bigger restructuring plan.

[Anonymous]

It is strange how people think that investing in roads and airlines is just that: an investment, whilst less money put into rail systems is considered a subsidy!

I would advise those advocating changes to/axing of Amtrak NOT to do what the Tory government did here in the UK with BR. Railtrack lost the in-house engineering and maintenance facilities that BR had built-up, with the result that it had to subcontract out.

(There was an interesting drama on TV a while ago about Rail Privatisation: 'The Navigators').

Our West Coast Main Line Route Modernisation Scheme is well over-budget (the current cost esitmate is something like £7-8 billion as opposed to to an estimate of arounf £2-4 billion), and even though Virgin is having trains capable of 140 mph, they think they will not run above 120 mph for another 10 years!

At the same time they are phasing out the HST 125 'Inter-City' trains which were a success story for BR. The East Coast Main Line is not being upgraded to the same degree as the WCML, hence the HSTs are having to be refurbished (they are excellent trains) to improve services.

A long-term plan is needed: build some high-speed corridors (150mph to 200 mph) and maintain a strong in-house engineering department.

It could be possible to allow different companies to run different trains.

[widave]

I have to believe a national system can work if run properly. Economies of scale have to realized and the operation of passenger trains by the freight railroads individually is not enough. A corporation composed of those companies hosting the trains could work. Maybe a sort of passenger railroad in the form of Trailer Train. Standardized equipment and supply chains must be realized, as well as interconnectivity and run through cars/routes. Facilities have to be clean and safe with adequate parking and amenities.
But a network has to be set-up. A network of interconnected long distance and corridor trains. With enough frequencies and equipment to satisfy demands of the travelers and do it reliably. The NEC is a whole railway in and of itself and should be seperated from the national/regional system, and answer to itself and its market. The long distance market should be run likewise, standing on it's own merit with it's own ability to make(or lose depending on the source) it's own structure of routes and have the people to manage it. The new Amtrak will have to work with the freight railroads to guarantee capacity enhancements that will allow trains to be able to run in a needed consistentcy. The Federal gov't will be the hinge in the whole thing though.
The airlines' passengers will have to pay their own way on their preferred mode of transport, and after the network of rail is running, the rail users can begin to pay their "fees" like the airline passengers do. These fees will then be returned to each mode to help fund itself.
I'd hate to lose the long distance trains. Try and price a flight for a family of five, then ask if you want to be stopping every half hour while in a car, not to mention motels. I'll take a 28 hour train ride over a three day car trip anyday!
Warrington has to go. Or at least stay with the NEC when everything is said and done. This old boy network from NJ doesn't have a clue!

[BRAKIE]

That may sound good,but,that is how Amtrak got started.I can not see this happening.After all it was the freight railroads that wanted out of passenger business in the frist place.Only 6 did not choose to join amtrak in 1971.

[Anonymous]

I just read a very interesting editorial on the Railway Age magazine website which seriously proposes that the big freight railroads consider taking over long distance passenger service and have it subsidized by tax breaks,with additional financing sources for capitol(low or no interest loans backed by the Federal Government). In the same issue there is an interview with the President of Canadian National where he states that this might actually work.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak needs leaders, not politicians.
The name needs to change, too. it relates to failure too much. the current executives need the boot. the next or inheriting leaders, should be interested in providing fast, reliable, and friendly passenger service.

[Anonymous]

Living as I do about 3 miles from the NEC in Rhode Island I follow discussions regarding it closely. I am very interested in the current privatization proposal from the Amtrak Reform Council,but I don't I have many questions and some skepticism. As far as the newly upgraded NEC does it really make sense to rip all the catenary down(especially the new plant between New Haven and Boston) and sell it to the freight railroads? I find it hard to believe that NS and CSX,especially in these tough times,would pay fair market value(i.e reimbursement for the billions in recent improvements,rolling stock,etc.) I would like to see a fully developed,high speed passenger link in place,either privatized or in some sort of public-private partnership. CSX uses the former Conrail Boston & Albany line for New England freight service and I can't see them shifting lots of traffic to tne NEC which,after all,would probably need more work to become a heavy freight line(doublestack friendly clearances,etc.). I have to wonder if some of the people posting on this are doing so because they enjoy trainspotting freight more than Amtrak(by the way,I enjoy freight equipment more,but this doesn't skew my view on transportation policy).
Also,keep in mind that these overseas passenger operations run by U.S based operators are in counties with underdeveloped regional air service,or where the government actively impedes private car usage for long distance travel by high gasoline taxes or other regulation(and I don't think any of us would like that here).
Anyway,I agree that the Federal government,without private sector involvement, is not going to be successful in the railroad business,so we need to look at alternatives. But I do think that commuter operations and the development of high speed regional rail corridors are important to improving the transportation system in the Northeast and nationwide.
Sincerely,
Jon Carney

[BRAKIE]

Do you know what is so funny about all of this? When Amtrak was formed in 1971,People knew Amtrack would fail.No one listen.They did listen to the BIG LIE that Amtrak could make money in passenger trains where railroads failed.Since 1971,Amtrak has been loosing money hand over fist.Our very own goverment has spent untold Billions of our tax dollars on a system that was bound to fail! Yes,something had to be done.Enter the Amtrak reformed bill that stated Amtrak must be self sufficient by FY 2003.People knew then that it was a impracical task.In 2001,Amtrak hock Penn Station for 300 million to remain operating untill FY 2002.Was this a smart business move knowing that the loan must be repaid? How,when Congress cut the Amtrak buget? Yes,it is time for Amtrak to go.Sell the NEC to NS and CSX.Now,America needs passenger trains.But,How do we do it on a profitable bases?

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is to reply to both Gregg and James.
First of all the airlines didn't receive a $15 billion bailout, they were offered $15 billion in loan guarantees, which so far only oneairline has applied for. They did receive a $5 billion payment for the days they were grounded.

I agree, we need some intercity passenger rail service, but not the long trains. Since FY 91 the trend has been for ridership to increase in the short to medium distance trip sector, including the Northeast Corridor and West Coast, while the trend has been a decrease or a level ridership of the long distance trains.

What is needed is a short term and a long term solution for passenger rail service. In the short term the short/medium haul passenger trains can largely be funded by their individual states since many of them are on intrstate runs, and were 403(b) trains run by Amtrak but supported by the states. The states therefore would have to find contractors who are willing to run the trains, and as James and others have suggested there may be contractors who would be interested in running the trains.

In the long term some high speed rail corridors might be developed. For a corridor to be viable there must be a high potential for enough ridership to make it pay. The corridors should range between 200-400 miles, the AVERAGE speed should be around 125 mph, and stopsshould be few, short, and widely spaced. A DOT study was performed some time ago which identified certain corridors, however many of them are not viable for one or more reasons. High speed rail as I have sort of defined it won't be cheap. In most cases dedicated lines, such as the French TGV lines,will be needed. So the question arises who will pay for it?

Under no circumstances should any successor passenger rail entity have the statutory right of access to the freight railroads nor should the freight railroads be required to give their passenger trains priority dispatching.

[jsanchez]

Some of the large American shortline comglamorates like Rail America, Genessee and Wyoming, and Wisonsin Central run efficient passenger operations in foreign countries sometimes at a profit or with a goverment contract subsidy. Has anybody on the Amtrak reform council or in Washington talked to these companies about running passenger rail in the USA. Some of these companies have done a great job turning bureacratic, over unionized, goverment ran basket cases into productive services that people want to use.The shortline entreprneurs have a proven track record of turning money loosing freight operations in the U.S.A around lets give them a try at passenger trains. I think we could be pleasantly surprised.

[thirdrail1]

Until today, I had alway been a reluctant backer of the National Rail Passenger Corp., or Amtrak, simply because I enjoy riding trains and feel we need a national rail passenger network. But Amtrak made an appointment today that has convinced me it is so far from reality and so engrossed in inside the beltway politics that it roundly deserves execution as soon as possible. As most of you know, George Warrington, Amtrak's President, used to run the Northeast Corridor and was not replaced when he took on the whole operation. Today, with the change in administrations in New Jersey, its former Transportation Commissioner, James Weinstein, was out of a job, so he was put in charge of the Northeast Corridor. Just what was needed, yet ANOTHER political hack or bureaucrat. What really irks me is that Amtrak took over the Washington-Boston corridor from Penn Central and now the so-called Amtrak Reform Council wants to take it away from Amtrak and give it to the USDOT. Hell no, sell it back to the freight railroads, NS south of New York and CSXT north of there! The UTU has it right, Amtrak management are all from commuter operations, which are truly governmental entities in that competition is not allowed, and understand absolutely nothing about competing for the discretionary transportation dollar. Modal choice, what's that?? P&L responsibility, what's that? Income statement - can't read it, don't understand it, why do I need it? Let's really level the playing field, end Amtrak subsidies, but make the airlines take over the full payment and responsibility for the air traffic control system, the airport security system, and the airports themselves, which would put all that acreage back on the tax rolls. Mak'em pay back the 15 billion bailout they got this fall too!