OK...never mind!
Trainman Barrett I agree that safety is very important. Other countries have something similar from the looks of some of the links attached to other entries. Safety issues can be addressed. In thinking about who drives their cars to Florida, it's families looking to save money. Well-off families fly there and rent a car. The majority probably drive straight through, or stop in a hotel for a night or two. They might be interested in "bare-bones" Auto Racks. They could be modified with some windows, solid floors, carbon monoxide detectors, ventilation fans.....the technology is there to pull it off. I was just trying to look at a way to make it desirable to the average midwesterner. You could have passenger cars/diners, and sleeping berths too for people with bigger budgets. Just sayin....
I agree that safety is very important. Other countries have something similar from the looks of some of the links attached to other entries. Safety issues can be addressed. In thinking about who drives their cars to Florida, it's families looking to save money. Well-off families fly there and rent a car. The majority probably drive straight through, or stop in a hotel for a night or two. They might be interested in "bare-bones" Auto Racks. They could be modified with some windows, solid floors, carbon monoxide detectors, ventilation fans.....the technology is there to pull it off. I was just trying to look at a way to make it desirable to the average midwesterner. You could have passenger cars/diners, and sleeping berths too for people with bigger budgets.
Just sayin....
There is absolutely no way an insurance company would ever underwrite a "ride in your car" scheme in the US. FRA/DOT crash safety regulations would prevent it as well..It'll happen about the same time as when the airlines install subway style hanger straps for standing-room-only passengers in their Boeings and Airbusses...
However,back in the day (when the Autotrain concept was first proposed) the idea was considered. There is an old edition of TRAINS from the late 60's or early 70's that has drawings of people traveling with their vehicles in semi-open two level autocarriers..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I cannot imagine that many people would prefer sitting up in their cars all night to sitting in a reclining coach seat with legrests and footrests or sleeping in a berth. Also, would the auto carriers have windows so that the people sitting in their cars could see what is going on outside the train?
I agree with Paul that safety is overlooked in the idea.
Johnny
Trainman Barrett Can the owners ride in their automobiles on the auto rack cars? If so, you get rid of expensive passenger cars and the employees to staff them. Just modify the auto racks with a port-o-let and vending machines on each level. Might not be as comfy a ride but could lower costs to attract more users. Just trying to think out of the box.
Can the owners ride in their automobiles on the auto rack cars? If so, you get rid of expensive passenger cars and the employees to staff them. Just modify the auto racks with a port-o-let and vending machines on each level. Might not be as comfy a ride but could lower costs to attract more users. Just trying to think out of the box.
This sounds like a bare-bones version of Auto-Train that was described in a Q&A format in an article in TRAINS in 1962 or so. As mentioned in other posts, a version like this overlooks a lot of safety and other issues.
schlimm oltmannd A short trip, but something like this? http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/car-bike/smart-combinations/autoverlad-simplon.html Surprised you didn't recall this service, Don. More comparable, look at all the Autozug (Auto train) services (overnight) that are offered by DB within Germany and onward.http://www.dbautozug.de/autozug-en/Transport_and_travelling/
oltmannd A short trip, but something like this? http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/car-bike/smart-combinations/autoverlad-simplon.html
A short trip, but something like this?
http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/car-bike/smart-combinations/autoverlad-simplon.html
Surprised you didn't recall this service, Don. More comparable, look at all the Autozug (Auto train) services (overnight) that are offered by DB within Germany and onward.http://www.dbautozug.de/autozug-en/Transport_and_travelling/
I thought of it, but it's quite a bit like our AutoTrain. I was looking for the Swiss RoRo example.
A hybrid might be something like the enclosed "unilevels" with some sort of glazing to provide a view for self-contained RVs. Lots of issues to be concerned with - propane tanks, ventilation for generators, whether to provide 120 VAC 50A "shore power", wheel chocks or not, how to keep the people from wandering around (to relight the pilot on their water heater, for example.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Actually thinking inside the box, as for protection of the vehicles from vandals - enclosed auto racks would be required - aluminium sheeting is a great view for 1K miles, as well as heating the vehicles during winter and cooling them during the summer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It's roll-on, roll-off by the driver. People ride in their cars.
Union Pacific in connection with a motor carrier was handling single auto's a few years again, I don't know if they are still doing it.
The exisitng Lorton-Sanford Auto-Train operates on a 17 hour overnight schedule, which is pretty convenient. One of several problems with the Auto-Train Louisville-Sanford service was that the trip was too long. A Chicago-Florida routing would be even worse. I doubt that there would be much of a market for it.
The original Auto-Train: Despite popularity of the service on its primary route, which paralleled I 95 along much of the eastern coast of the United States in 5 states, the company failed financially after operating almost 10 years. Lack of success from the failed Louisville expansion, high crew costs and several accidents put Auto-Train into bankruptcy.
jclass How might the financing of Amtrak relate to the way city and regional bus/commuter rail systems are financed? "Profits" are few and far between there, also, yet for the most part, they are viewed as essential as transportation choices.
How might the financing of Amtrak relate to the way city and regional bus/commuter rail systems are financed? "Profits" are few and far between there, also, yet for the most part, they are viewed as essential as transportation choices.
Until the end of WWII many of America's transit systems were for profit entities. For a variety of reasons they were forced to exit the business. Municipal governments concluded, rightly in my opinion, that transit is akin to a public service that cannot cover its costs through the fare box. Its mission is to provide essential transport services to everyone in the community irrespective of their ability to pay for it.
Most transit systems, including commuter rail systems, have been created as municipal departments or as separate authorities. As a rule they follow fund accounting principles, which means they are not expected to generate a distributable profit. They may be controlled by more than one government. Sometimes they cross state lines. The users are not expected to cover their costs. They depend on government support to sustain operations. In Texas, the last time I looked, the average fare box recovery rate was 18 per cent.
To come back to the question, Would you support a Chicago-Miami Autotrain that is not government supported, my answer is yes if it could cover its costs without government support. If it requires government support, my answer would be no. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a market for the service. Amtrak's Auto Train from the populous northeast to Florida lost $36.2 million in FY11 before interest, depreciation, and ancillary charges. Its experience does not offer much hope for a private operator.
Sam1 CSSHEGEWISCH The Rail Passenger Service Act was written the way it was because Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and would provide a somewhat graceful exit from the passenger business for the various railroads still operating passenger service. The "for profit" clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 1, 1971. Question: Is there a similar "for profit" clause in the statute which established that bastion of socialism known as the Tennessee Valley Authority? What is the authoritative source for saying that Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and claiming that the for profit clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up in operations in a few years after May 2, 1971? What we have is the organizational format that says otherwise. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. Amtrak has never come close to covering its costs. The TVA was established as a not-for-profit commercial enterprise. It was expected to cover its costs through its rate structure. It has done that on a consistent basis, thanks in no small part to the fact that it is able to tap into tax free funding. In other words, the taxpayers are underwriting the TVA's ability to offer its customers lower than competitive market rates.
CSSHEGEWISCH The Rail Passenger Service Act was written the way it was because Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and would provide a somewhat graceful exit from the passenger business for the various railroads still operating passenger service. The "for profit" clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 1, 1971. Question: Is there a similar "for profit" clause in the statute which established that bastion of socialism known as the Tennessee Valley Authority?
The Rail Passenger Service Act was written the way it was because Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and would provide a somewhat graceful exit from the passenger business for the various railroads still operating passenger service. The "for profit" clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 1, 1971.
Question: Is there a similar "for profit" clause in the statute which established that bastion of socialism known as the Tennessee Valley Authority?
What is the authoritative source for saying that Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and claiming that the for profit clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up in operations in a few years after May 2, 1971?
What we have is the organizational format that says otherwise. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. Amtrak has never come close to covering its costs.
The TVA was established as a not-for-profit commercial enterprise. It was expected to cover its costs through its rate structure. It has done that on a consistent basis, thanks in no small part to the fact that it is able to tap into tax free funding. In other words, the taxpayers are underwriting the TVA's ability to offer its customers lower than competitive market rates.
While a organizational format was designed for perpetual operation - the political aura at the time Amtrak was created was 'give the railroads a bone' and in 5 years all this will go away. The fact that Amtrak still exists today after 40+ years is a testament to it's employees and it's leaders abilities in charting a course through the continual political headwinds.
What is the authoritative source for saying that Amtrak wasn't expected to last for more than a few years and claiming that the for profit clause existed as an escape hatch for winding up operations in a few years after May 2, 1971? If that is true, then the sponsors committed an accounting fraud.
We have an organizational format that says otherwise. At the end of the day, however, it does not matter. Amtrak has never come close to covering its costs; it has racked up loses in excess of $28 billion. Add in the opportunity costs for that money, i.e. options, and the cost to the taxpayers is significantly higher.
schlimm Sam1mtrak is a government sponsored commercial enterprise. It has issued stock (preferred and common), and was formed with the stated intention to covered its costs out of the fare box. A reading of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 does not state that the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is to cover its costs out of the fare box. What it does say are two somewhat contradictory statements. I am providing the link: http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf On page 4: "The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation, the purpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service." On page 7: "At the time of its annual report, the corporation shall submit such legislative recommendations as it deems desirable, including the amount of financial assistance needed for operations and for capital improvements" IMO, there was a recognition that although ideally Amtrak should turn a profit, realistically it could not fulfill its clearly stated purpose without financial assistance from Congress annually.
Sam1mtrak is a government sponsored commercial enterprise. It has issued stock (preferred and common), and was formed with the stated intention to covered its costs out of the fare box.
A reading of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 does not state that the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is to cover its costs out of the fare box. What it does say are two somewhat contradictory statements.
I am providing the link: http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-518/00005088.pdf
On page 4: "The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation, the purpose of which shall be to provide intercity rail passenger service."
On page 7: "At the time of its annual report, the corporation shall submit such legislative recommendations as it deems desirable, including the amount of financial assistance needed for operations and for capital improvements"
IMO, there was a recognition that although ideally Amtrak should turn a profit, realistically it could not fulfill its clearly stated purpose without financial assistance from Congress annually.
A stock company is expected to earn a positive return, i.e. net income that closes to retained earnings as profit. That is the way Amtrak was set-up as you have noted. It is governed by GAAP as opposed to GAAS. Had the sponsors expected Amtrak to be a permanent ward of the state, they probably would have set it up as a government sponsored entity like the FDIC, Federal Home Loan Bank, etc. and subjected its accounting to GAAS.
The annual financial statements of the company look like those for a stock company; not like those for a government agency. Moreover, this statement from the auditors report lends credence to the notion that Amtrak was expected to function like a commercial enterprise: "The Company accounts for its income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes. Had the intent been for the company not to cover its expenses and earn a profit, there would be no need for a provision for income taxes.
Based on my readings Amtrak's supporters recognized that it would need some financial assistance during the transition years, i.e. the first three to five years of operations. Eventually it was expected to be self sustaining. Whether that was a realistic expectation is another matter.
Amtrak does not have to cover all its costs through the fare box; it could and does get some return from support activities, i.e. management services, managed operations, subsidiary corporations, etc. However, its primary mission is to carry passengers, which means that it is expected to realize most of its revenues from ticket sales.
Amtrak has failed as an on-going commercial enterprise. Whether it has been a successful social and political experiment is debatable. If one believes that passenger rail is a public good, it has been a modest success. If one believes that the government has no business calling winners and losers in transportation, it has not been a success. It has lost more than $28 billion since its inception. However, as noted in my post, the FDIC, FCIC, etc. have achieved their objectives, i.e. covered their costs through premiums and fees.
At the end of the day it does not matter. We have what we have. The key question is what is the best way forward? History should have no impact in defining the problem and developing workable solutions, although it may shed some light on what to stay away from.
The primary intent of my response was to refute the argument that no other government sponsored commercial activities earn a profit or cover their expenses through fees, premiums, etc.
Rail Pundit Your - and my - tax dollars routinely go to support the federal-aid highway system and the airport-airway system. So why do you apply a different standard to passenger trains? The total subsidy since Amtrak was begun in 1971, now 41+ years - is less than the annual subsidy we provide for highways. While we're at it, how about detailing the list of government-sponsored activities that operate at a profit with no taxpayer subsidies. My copy of the Constitution is silent on the issue of requiring that government must break even or better yet, generate a profit on anything it does. I don't think you can find anything.
Your - and my - tax dollars routinely go to support the federal-aid highway system and the airport-airway system. So why do you apply a different standard to passenger trains? The total subsidy since Amtrak was begun in 1971, now 41+ years - is less than the annual subsidy we provide for highways. While we're at it, how about detailing the list of government-sponsored activities that operate at a profit with no taxpayer subsidies. My copy of the Constitution is silent on the issue of requiring that government must break even or better yet, generate a profit on anything it does. I don't think you can find anything.
Profit is a term that applies to investor owned businesses and government sponsored commercial enterprises. Amtrak is a government sponsored commercial enterprise. It has issued stock (preferred and common), and was formed with the stated intention to covered its costs out of the fare box. It is subject to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and it is audited annually by an independent auditor. In FY11 it was BDO, which is a high caliber international accounting firm one tier down from the big four.
Federal, state, and local governments sponsor a variety of commercial activities. They are governed usually by Government Accepted Accounting Standards (GAAP). At the federal level they are usually audited by the GAO, although not always.
At the federal level the government sponsored agencies and/or corporations include amongst many the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Farm Credit Insurance Corporation (FCIC), etc. These organizations do not produce a profit in the sense that a private enterprise generates a profit and distributes some of it in the form of dividends. But they are expected to cover their operating expenses through fees, investment income, assessments, etc. so as to maintain a surplus in their general funds.
The FDIC and FCIC have covered their expenses over time as indicated by the surpluses in their general funds. The FDIC had to levy a special assessment during the recession to stay solvent, but it has been able to do so. In some respects the general fund surplus is analogous to a private commercial activities retained earnings. If they were a private business, they could use the surplus to pay dividends.
The FDIC and FCIC get no direct funding from the federal government. Inasmuch as they operate like insurance companies, their funding comes from premiums, investments, etc. In the case of the FDIC the premiums are paid by the member banks; in the case of the FCIC they are paid by the state farm credit banks. Actually, in the case of the FDIC, the premiums are paid by the bank's customers. Thus, if you have an account with an FDIC insured institution, you are paying the insurance premium through a slightly reduced interest rate on your deposits or slightly higher transaction fees.
The key question is not how much money governments have plowed into Amtrak, highways, airways, waterways, railroads, etc. The key question is how much per passenger mile, seat mile, vehicle mile traveled, etc. These are the basis for comparison. I have tried to make this point too many times to repeat it here.
Deggesty CSSHEGEWISCH If I recall correctly, Chicago-Florida via Atlanta ended as a through route somewhere between 1965 and 1968. I, also, do not remember just when the Dixie Flyer died north of Atlanta, but I do know that when I rode what was left of it in the spring of 1966, it was an Atlanta-Jacksonville train. The Southern was out of the Midwest-Florida business several years before Amtrak began operation, and the South Wind became a Louisville-Florida train in early 1970. Amtrak's attempt to preserve a Chicago-Florida train certainly did not attract much traffic, and Amtrak had great difficulty in keeping a route out of/ into Chicago (how many routings were used north of Nashville? I did not keep up with them).
CSSHEGEWISCH If I recall correctly, Chicago-Florida via Atlanta ended as a through route somewhere between 1965 and 1968.
If I recall correctly, Chicago-Florida via Atlanta ended as a through route somewhere between 1965 and 1968.
The Southern was out of the Midwest-Florida business several years before Amtrak began operation, and the South Wind became a Louisville-Florida train in early 1970.
Amtrak's attempt to preserve a Chicago-Florida train certainly did not attract much traffic, and Amtrak had great difficulty in keeping a route out of/ into Chicago (how many routings were used north of Nashville? I did not keep up with them).
At present the carriers with Southbound routes that could be used for a Mid-West Auto Train do not have the track capacity to permit the timely handling of such a train in addition to the present level of freight that those lines are currently handling.
DavidBriel Amtrak should consider a CHICAGO to MIAMI route via ATLANTA for a regular passenger train similar to the trains that ran on L&N (CSX) and Southern Railway (NS) before AMTRAK DAY on May 1.1971.
Amtrak should consider a CHICAGO to MIAMI route via ATLANTA for a regular passenger train similar to the trains that ran on L&N (CSX) and Southern Railway (NS) before AMTRAK DAY on May 1.1971.
I've always wanted an Atlantic to Pacific Auto-Train. San Diego to Lorton sounds good to me.
As I recall, a Trains article maybe three or four years back about Amtrak's auto-train pointed out that the train was regularly attracting four or five distinct types of passengers, not just snowbirds.
Chris30 I'm not so sure that this would work. I don't see daily service. Maybe once a week service until there's a greater demand for this service. Leave the northern terminal (Louisville, Cincy, Indy) on a Thursday afternoon / evening, overnight to Sanford, FL arriving sometime Friday afternoon if possible. Return trip north could be on Sunday afternoon / evening arriving at the northern terminal on a Monday afternoon. Unless they are spending a majority of the winter down south, people tend to go on vacation for about a week at a time. Also, once a week service would allow for that 1 - 50 car train. CC
I'm not so sure that this would work. I don't see daily service. Maybe once a week service until there's a greater demand for this service.
Leave the northern terminal (Louisville, Cincy, Indy) on a Thursday afternoon / evening, overnight to Sanford, FL arriving sometime Friday afternoon if possible. Return trip north could be on Sunday afternoon / evening arriving at the northern terminal on a Monday afternoon.
Unless they are spending a majority of the winter down south, people tend to go on vacation for about a week at a time. Also, once a week service would allow for that 1 - 50 car train.
CC
True Florida 'Snowbirds', spend most of the Winter in Florida. The Summer Florida visitors are those that spend a week or two.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.