Bucyrus BaltACD jpwoodruff Let me offer an outsiders' view that tries to look to the future.My suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now. My reasoning is that electroniccommunication - real presence on a screen - will obviate most trips.Business travel? Not necessary - you can have any meeting you like byturning on the communications.What travellers will be left? Tourists to National Parks, grandparentvisits, scouting out a job somewhere, probably others. My projection:those travelers won't ever be numerous enough to repay the capital therailroad would need.There is no call to covet China, in my opinion. They have built afine solution to an old-time problem.This brings me no joy to predict. I'm going to ride train 5 in acouple weeks.John Video conferencing may convey information between parties in different locations - but business meetings are about much more than just then interchange of information - they are about building working relationships and trust between the parties involved in 'up close & personal' interaction. Interactions where you see who you are dealing with as a person - not as a image on a video screen. East of the Mississippi airlines and roadways are approaching gridlock during normal high traffic periods - and the non-high traffic periods grow closer to gridlock each passing year. Since I put 25 to 30K miles on the Interstate System East of the Mississippi - it is a accurate observation. There is a need for increased transportation options. How about just building some more of the most preferred option?
BaltACD jpwoodruff Let me offer an outsiders' view that tries to look to the future.My suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now. My reasoning is that electroniccommunication - real presence on a screen - will obviate most trips.Business travel? Not necessary - you can have any meeting you like byturning on the communications.What travellers will be left? Tourists to National Parks, grandparentvisits, scouting out a job somewhere, probably others. My projection:those travelers won't ever be numerous enough to repay the capital therailroad would need.There is no call to covet China, in my opinion. They have built afine solution to an old-time problem.This brings me no joy to predict. I'm going to ride train 5 in acouple weeks.John Video conferencing may convey information between parties in different locations - but business meetings are about much more than just then interchange of information - they are about building working relationships and trust between the parties involved in 'up close & personal' interaction. Interactions where you see who you are dealing with as a person - not as a image on a video screen. East of the Mississippi airlines and roadways are approaching gridlock during normal high traffic periods - and the non-high traffic periods grow closer to gridlock each passing year. Since I put 25 to 30K miles on the Interstate System East of the Mississippi - it is a accurate observation. There is a need for increased transportation options.
jpwoodruff Let me offer an outsiders' view that tries to look to the future.My suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now. My reasoning is that electroniccommunication - real presence on a screen - will obviate most trips.Business travel? Not necessary - you can have any meeting you like byturning on the communications.What travellers will be left? Tourists to National Parks, grandparentvisits, scouting out a job somewhere, probably others. My projection:those travelers won't ever be numerous enough to repay the capital therailroad would need.There is no call to covet China, in my opinion. They have built afine solution to an old-time problem.This brings me no joy to predict. I'm going to ride train 5 in acouple weeks.John
Let me offer an outsiders' view that tries to look to the future.My suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now. My reasoning is that electroniccommunication - real presence on a screen - will obviate most trips.Business travel? Not necessary - you can have any meeting you like byturning on the communications.What travellers will be left? Tourists to National Parks, grandparentvisits, scouting out a job somewhere, probably others. My projection:those travelers won't ever be numerous enough to repay the capital therailroad would need.There is no call to covet China, in my opinion. They have built afine solution to an old-time problem.This brings me no joy to predict. I'm going to ride train 5 in acouple weeks.John
Video conferencing may convey information between parties in different locations - but business meetings are about much more than just then interchange of information - they are about building working relationships and trust between the parties involved in 'up close & personal' interaction. Interactions where you see who you are dealing with as a person - not as a image on a video screen.
East of the Mississippi airlines and roadways are approaching gridlock during normal high traffic periods - and the non-high traffic periods grow closer to gridlock each passing year. Since I put 25 to 30K miles on the Interstate System East of the Mississippi - it is a accurate observation. There is a need for increased transportation options.
How about just building some more of the most preferred option?
HS Rail is cheaper than more highways for the same mileages and besides Amtrak won't haul my race car and trailer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
John WR Murphy Siding I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking if the train that hauls freight off the highway is doing more for the infrastructure and petroleum issues than the passenger train that is running now in that spot. But were Amtrak trains suddenly to be abolished what evidence to show that their places would be taken by freight trains?
Murphy Siding I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking if the train that hauls freight off the highway is doing more for the infrastructure and petroleum issues than the passenger train that is running now in that spot.
But were Amtrak trains suddenly to be abolished what evidence to show that their places would be taken by freight trains?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingHowever, for the past 40 years, host railroads have had to accomodate and allow for Amtrak to use their rail capacity without any profit margin to the host railroads. Had that not been the case, would not the past 40 years of railroad freight operations and operating costs been different?
Well yes. Had not Amtrak been available for the last 40 years things would have been different. The difference would be that Federal Law would have required the railroads to operate their own passenger service. Do you believe host railroads made a mistake when they agreed to accept Amtrak trains in return for being able to stop running their own passenger service?
There is also another intangible issue. Although railroads seem to be very powerful organizations for most of the 20th century they lost at the Federal level when public opinion opposed them. This is true even when the public issues were not directly anti railroad but had an impact on railroads such as the highway building legislation in the 1930's and again in the 1950's. Private railroads ran passenger service as long as they could even when it lost money because they believed in the public relations value of the service. Was this a mistake? And do freight railroads get no public relations value from Amtrak?
John WR ....... Had not Amtrak been available for the last 40 years things would have been different. The difference would be that Federal Law would have required the railroads to operate their own passenger service. Do you believe host railroads made a mistake when they agreed to accept Amtrak trains in return for being able to stop running their own passenger service? There is also another intangible issue. Although railroads seem to be very powerful organizations for most of the 20th century they lost at the Federal level when public opinion opposed them. This is true even when the public issues were not directly anti railroad but had an impact on railroads such as the highway building legislation in the 1930's and again in the 1950's. Private railroads ran passenger service as long as they could even when it lost money because they believed in the public relations value of the service. Was this a mistake? And do freight railroads get no public relations value from Amtrak?
....... Had not Amtrak been available for the last 40 years things would have been different. The difference would be that Federal Law would have required the railroads to operate their own passenger service. Do you believe host railroads made a mistake when they agreed to accept Amtrak trains in return for being able to stop running their own passenger service?
Murphy Siding The railroads weren't running passenger service long after it was unprofitable juft for the public relations value, they were doing it because they were being forced by the government. There's a big difference.
Can you show a single instance where a railroad was compelled by government to add a passenger train? I don't know of any. However, railroads did start running passenger trains believing it was in their best interest. It was when railroads wanted to discontinue passenger service that the government intervened to refuse to allow them to discontinue the service to the degree that they wanted to.
Railroads, from their earliest days, always operated within the legal framework of the United States. Believing as you do that they were "forced by the government" to provide passenger service do you think that it is likely the government would have stopped forcing them to provide it in the absence of Amtrak?
I do recognize there is a lot of truth in what you say especially when it comes to commuter service. However, it is also true that railroads did believe their most famous trains had public relations value and they did operate them with that value in mind.
But my real point here is that in my opinion railroads were right to consider the public relations value in operating certain trains and that I think there is still pr value for freight railroads in Amtrak trains. The closest that many of us will ever get to seeing freight railroads operating conditions is in riding an Amtrak train. By riding Amtrak we see first hand that a railroad is about a lot of individual human beings, both the ones we see and those behind the scenes, who are working to provide something we need whether it is our own transportation or the passing trains carrying wheat, automobiles or containers of consumer goods. That knowledge can never hurt the freight railroads.
Freight railroads contribute to our high standard of living and they contribute a lot. What we need to do is to get even more people to see that. Amtrak doesn't reach enough people but it reaches some people and that is important for the freight railroads and for all of us.
Railroads started running passenger trains from the very beginning, and often it was at least as important to the bottom line as the freight service. They had an effective monopoly on transportation, charged accordingly, and passenger trains turned a handsome profit. Fast forward a hundred years and that monopoly had vanished entirely. The regulatory regime, however, was still stuck in the past. The old fare structure, indexed for inflation, would have meant completely empty trains so the railroads had to judge the price point at which their losses were minimized.
A few specific trains probably came close to covering their direct out-of-pocket costs but only because the infrastructure such as mainlines and coach yards were covered by the rest of the network. A few roads were willing to absorb modest losses for the public relations and advertising value. That value, while real, is also very intangible. The bean counters can't measure it, therefore it doesn't exist for them.
cx500They had an effective monopoly on transportation, charged accordingly, and passenger trains turned a handsome profit. Fast forward a hundred years and that monopoly had vanished entirely.
What railroads really had a monopoly on and still do is the transportation of coal. Coal provided the power to run our factories until it was replaced by fractional horsepower electric motors. Coal provided the power to send our ships all over the world until it was replaced by diesel fuel. Coal heated our homes until it was replaced by oil. Coal even cooked our food until it was replaced by gas and electricity. Gas and oil are transported by pipelines and electricity is transported by wires.
Coal is still around and what we move we still move by train but we don't burn nearly as much as we used to and as we left coal behind we left a lot of trains behind too.
Quoting John WR: "Can you show a single instance where a railroad was compelled by government to add a passenger train?
Yes, I can. When the unions struck the FEC in 1963, the railroad ceased running any passenger service–until the state of Florida forced it to run a passenger train between Miami and Jacksonville. When I rode from West Palm Beach to Jacksonville in the fall of 1967, there were no more than two other passengers on board.
Johnny
DeggestyWhen the unions struck the FEC in 1963, the railroad ceased running any passenger service–until the state of Florida forced it to run a passenger train between Miami and Jacksonville.
This is an example of the Florida government requiring a railroad to continue service it started rather than creating new passenger service. I don't suggest that the requirements to continue service were rational of that they should have happened. But it was a case of railroad companies being denied the right to abandon passenger service rather than being compelled to create new service.
Another example, perhaps even more illustrative, is the requirement that LV maintain the Hazleton accommodation RDC after all other passenger service to which it might connect was terminated.
Most of the discussions in earlier years didn't involve 'new' service of any kind: they either came out of perceived common-carrier or charter obligations to provide service, or involved 'maintaining the franchise' via retention of service where it had been historically been provided. (I won't get into government-vs.-management issues, of which there are certainly a large number...)
I don't think this part of the discussion hinges at all on whether governments or any other agencies 'mandated' new service, or even non-reduction of historical levels of service on particular corridors. The exception would probably be in wartime... and that's a whole different kettle of fish...
OvermodI don't think this part of the discussion hinges at all on whether governments or any other agencies 'mandated' new service, or even non-reduction of historical levels of service on particular corridors.
This whole issue went on for a very long time. Some railroads became very embittered by government reluctance to let them discontinue passenger service and neglected the service itself to the point where people were driven away. There was a point where the government was ordering the New Haven Railroad to continue its commuter service when the railroad, which had been bankrupt for many years, was unable to buy diesel fuel because, due to payments in arears, suppliers would not provide it.
John WR Murphy Siding The railroads weren't running passenger service long after it was unprofitable juft for the public relations value, they were doing it because they were being forced by the government. There's a big difference. Can you show a single instance where a railroad was compelled by government to add a passenger train? I don't know of any. However, railroads did start running passenger trains believing it was in their best interest. It was when railroads wanted to discontinue passenger service that the government intervened to refuse to allow them to discontinue the service to the degree that they wanted to. Railroads, from their earliest days, always operated within the legal framework of the United States. Believing as you do that they were "forced by the government" to provide passenger service do you think that it is likely the government would have stopped forcing them to provide it in the absence of Amtrak? I do recognize there is a lot of truth in what you say especially when it comes to commuter service. However, it is also true that railroads did believe their most famous trains had public relations value and they did operate them with that value in mind. But my real point here is that in my opinion railroads were right to consider the public relations value in operating certain trains and that I think there is still pr value for freight railroads in Amtrak trains. The closest that many of us will ever get to seeing freight railroads operating conditions is in riding an Amtrak train. By riding Amtrak we see first hand that a railroad is about a lot of individual human beings, both the ones we see and those behind the scenes, who are working to provide something we need whether it is our own transportation or the passing trains carrying wheat, automobiles or containers of consumer goods. That knowledge can never hurt the freight railroads. Freight railroads contribute to our high standard of living and they contribute a lot. What we need to do is to get even more people to see that. Amtrak doesn't reach enough people but it reaches some people and that is important for the freight railroads and for all of us.
Both the ICC and Congress repeatedly recognized the the passenger train problem and the burden it was imposing on the railroads from the mid 1950's on. But they didn't effectively deal with it, probably because there was no political imperative to do so. True, there were some half-hearted regulatory measures taken to address it (particularly the Transportation Act of 1958, which gave the ICC the authority to authorize paasenger train-offs not approved by state regulatory authorities), but these were small bandages on a gaping wound.
What brought matters to a head was the Penn Central bankruptcy. Penn Central, at the time, was probably the the single largest provider of intercity and commuter rail passenger services in the U.S. An end to PC's passenger service would have destroyed any semblence of a national intercity rail passenger system, as well as destroyed some very important commuter servies in the northeast. The bankruptcy meant that federal and state governments no longer had the option of simply forcing PC to continue these services by government fiat as they had in the past. That's because government could not consitutionally require a bankrupt PC to continue providing money losing services. The government had to either take over or pay for these services or they would have been lost. That's the choice the government faced , and it's what led to the current system of Amtrak providing intercity services and state or local agencies providing (or paying for) commuter services. It was never a choice between Amtrak and the old system of compelling railroads to provide passenger services. It was a choice between Amtrak and the end of these services.
Murphy Siding The United States need a national passenger rail system?
The United States need a national passenger rail system?
Only if somebody else besides me has to pay for it.
You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Regardless if you plan to ride it or not. Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country.
I guess it's a "what's in it for ME"? mindset.
The only thing I'm sure of, is even if I did end up paying a sizable share into some rail mass transportation program, somebody else would decide that it's THEIR position to control the farebox and charge me for the privilege of riding the very train I paid to create in the first place, and ever after I'd have to listen to them bawl about how THEY are being driven to the poor house over my "benefit".
So, why don't we try something different? Let me keep my own transportation money, forget the sure fire money loser, save the person controlling the fare box the grief, and let them instead find a job they'll be happy with...and it's a win/win scenario.
Falcon48What brought matters to a head was the Penn Central bankruptcy. Penn Central, at the time, was probably the the single largest provider of intercity and commuter rail passenger services in the U.S. An end to PC's passenger service would have destroyed any semblence of a national intercity rail passenger system, as well as destroyed some very important commuter servies in the northeast. The bankruptcy meant that federal and state governments no longer had the option of simply forcing PC to continue these services by government fiat as they had in the past. That's because government could not consitutionally require a bankrupt PC to continue providing money losing services. The government had to either take over or pay for these services or they would have been lost. That's the choice the government faced , and it's what led to the current system of Amtrak providing intercity services and state or local agencies providing (or paying for) commuter services. It was never a choice between Amtrak and the old system of compelling railroads to provide passenger services. It was a choice between Amtrak and the end of these services.
All I would add is that we also came close to losing much of our freight service too.
John WR Falcon48What brought matters to a head was the Penn Central bankruptcy. Penn Central, at the time, was probably the the single largest provider of intercity and commuter rail passenger services in the U.S. An end to PC's passenger service would have destroyed any semblence of a national intercity rail passenger system, as well as destroyed some very important commuter servies in the northeast. The bankruptcy meant that federal and state governments no longer had the option of simply forcing PC to continue these services by government fiat as they had in the past. That's because government could not consitutionally require a bankrupt PC to continue providing money losing services. The government had to either take over or pay for these services or they would have been lost. That's the choice the government faced , and it's what led to the current system of Amtrak providing intercity services and state or local agencies providing (or paying for) commuter services. It was never a choice between Amtrak and the old system of compelling railroads to provide passenger services. It was a choice between Amtrak and the end of these services. All I would add is that we also came close to losing much of our freight service too.
Convicted One Murphy Siding The United States need a national passenger rail system? Only if somebody else besides me has to pay for it. You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country. I guess it's a "what's in it for ME"? mindset.
You know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense.
Many of these same people see the deployment of the O'bamaphone as symbolic of everything wrong with this country.
If somebody else has to pay for it, we don't need it.
Does or does not? Well the question caught my eye and you suckered me into this discussion.
I'ma not sure how my own ideas would be best implemented. But here's my two cents, anyways.
I would like to see the National Passenger service namely Amtrak, move from using those difficult to deal with freight lines, to operating on their own tracks. This could be accomplished by a network of high speed rails, on elevated track, if necessary. Complete privatization would be my goal.
That should tell you what I think politically but I'd rather not go there in this discussion.
RickH
BarstowRick.com Model Railroading How To's
Do you remember? Southern, the Rio Grande, and the Rock Island remained independent of Amtrak at the outset. As a result, they were forced to continue operating their passenger trains. As I recall, Southern didn't want the government messing with its operations. I think Rio Grande was of the same view. Rock Island didn't have enough of the required assets (equipment) to ante-in to the NPRC.
Also IIRC, Central of Georgia(?) didn't have to pay state real estate tax as long as it continued a modicum of passenger service (mixed train service).
Regarding the necessity/inevitability of freight trains, I don't believe that for a minute. There is always an alternative just waiting for an opportunity. And wise railroad people are only going to seek traffic that's profitable. The rest will be left to those who can work to their own advantage or don't know their costs.
It was the Georgia Railroad which had a special dispensation concerning taxes as long as it operated the mixed trains, so it continued operating them until some point in the consolidation of the roads that the L&N had an interest in. I do not remember the details, just which road it was.
I regret that I ws unable to ride the Georgia except between Decatur and Atlanta, making several trips over this section. Once, when I boarded in Decatur in the time period 1960-62, I shocked the conductor because it had been many years since he had picked a passenger up there. Even though I had to walk a little over a mile to reach the station in Decautr, it was quite convenient to ride in to Union Station when I wanted to spend an evening watching trains there and at the Terminal Station.
jclass Do you remember? Southern, the Rio Grande, and the Rock Island remained independent of Amtrak at the outset. As a result, they were forced to continue operating their passenger trains. As I recall, Southern didn't want the government messing with its operations. I think Rio Grande was of the same view. Rock Island didn't have enough of the required assets (equipment) to ante-in to the NPRC. Also IIRC, Central of Georgia(?) didn't have to pay state real estate tax as long as it continued a modicum of passenger service (mixed train service). Regarding the necessity/inevitability of freight trains, I don't believe that for a minute. There is always an alternative just waiting for an opportunity. And wise railroad people are only going to seek traffic that's profitable. The rest will be left to those who can work to their own advantage or don't know their costs.
Central of Georgia and the Georgia Railroad are two separate companies.
As I recall, under the Amtrak Act, railroads that didn't join Amtrak had to keep operating their existing passenger trains for 5 years. I believe your statement of the reasons that CRIP, SOU and DRGW didn't initially join Amtrak is essentially correct. I would add, however, that these three roads were very minor players in intercity passenger rail at the time of Amtrak's formation, so the intercity passenger services they offered were not nearly as big a burden to these roads as they were to railroads with more substantial passenger operations. Because of this, they probably concluded that the disadvantages of joining Amtrak at its inception outweighed the advantages. That's most clearly the case with CRIP which didn't have the equipment or cash required to join Amtrak.
All three roads ultimately got rid of their intercity passenger services. CRIP completely discontinued its services, while DRGW and SOU joined Amtrak at a later date.
Tax law did not directly force the Georgia RR to keep its mixed trains. The state courts had previously ruled that the tax break did not mandate the operation of passenger service. However, the railroad's management felt that any attempt to discontinue passenger service would precipitate another attempt to remove the tax break.
BucyrusYou know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense.
Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states have extensive passenger rail systems both intra state and inter state at their own expense. For example, my own state, New Jersey, not only provides rail transportation to New Jersey riders but also overlaps into New York and Pennsylvania.
Is there anyone who suggests that New Jersey Transit or New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority or South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority or any state authority that operates passenger service should be taken over by the Federal government? I know of none.
But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
Correction: The original statement was made by Convicted One, not Bucyrus.
Interesting point. The same could be said for the airlines.
John WR But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
Ahhhhh, but don't you see?
Just because we've had our virginity stolen by the highwaymen, does not mean that we MUST allow the trainmen to have their way with us, as well.
Convicted OneJust because we've had our virginity stolen by the highwaymen, does not mean that we MUST allow the trainmen to have their way with us, as well.
You sure have an amusing way of expressing yourself. But excuse me if I'm reluctant to go down that road.
Well, no offense intended. I've just witnessed, over the years, a substantial amount of opportune reasoning here, generally following the form of "since the government subsidizes passenger airlines, then the taxpayer OWES the same opportunity to passenger rail"
And that is just not the case. two wrongs don't make a right,
John WR BucyrusYou know, it's funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense. Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states... But highway enthusiasts have no qualms at all not only proposing but also enforcing a Federal highway system at EVERYONE's expense.
Actually, that statement is incorrect. A number of states...
Actually, for the record, that statement you attibute to me was made by Convicted One on page 3.
I never said, "You know, its funny because, rail enthusiasts have no qualms at all proposing taxpayer funded passenger rail at EVERYONE's expense."
Convicted OneWell, no offense intended.
And no offense is taken, Convicted One. Actually I thought what you said was pretty funny. I started imagining all sorts of things.
I do apologize for incorrectly attributing your statement to Bucyrus. I went back and added a correction.
Beyond that, perhaps we can take a train ride together some day and continue our conversation.
I apologize for my error, Bucyrus. I went back to my original post and added a correction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.