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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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!
For nearly 30 years now, we are discussing how to employ information technology to rid us of the need to be physically available at our place of work, yet all attempts have utterly failed. All business finally is people business. A quality issue you may have with your manufacturing resource in China will not be solved by a bunch of emails or a series of video conferences - you will have to go there.
For a number of reasons, the modes of transport we currently use start failing to meet our transportation needs. These reasons may be safety, comfort, cost, time, ecology and even political reasons. Rail transport will be the only answer to that, be it light rail for commuting purposes or fast trains for intercity transport.
Are we now seeing a contraction in transportation?
John WR BucyrusI think there will be a contraction of transportation forced upon us by its rising cost against a falling wage base. Transportation will soon become a luxury that is best avoided. Perhaps you are right. However, clairvoyance is not one of my skills. We shall have to wait and see.
BucyrusI think there will be a contraction of transportation forced upon us by its rising cost against a falling wage base. Transportation will soon become a luxury that is best avoided.
Perhaps you are right. However, clairvoyance is not one of my skills. We shall have to wait and see.
John WR jpwoodruffMy suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now. There are two groups you don't mention but who are a significant proportion of travelers: People in the military and college students. Do you see video conferencing as influencing these groups?
jpwoodruffMy suspicion is that in a few decades, the market for passenger travelwill be substantially less than now.
There are two groups you don't mention but who are a significant proportion of travelers: People in the military and college students. Do you see video conferencing as influencing these groups?
I think there will be a contraction of transportation forced upon us by its rising cost against a falling wage base. Transportation will soon become a luxury that is best avoided. Video conferencing can work for the face to face stuff. Individuals working as a service corporations will offer the same productivity as a direct employee with no other strings attached. Everyone engaged in independently performing some vital function in the whole endeavor, will remove a lot of the need to commute into a big central corporate hub.
It is about time! What a waste to just roll into town every day to gather under a big tent so the boss can keep an eye on you. We are technologically beyond that. Every player is responsible for adding to the output, and we have the technical means to monitor exactly that. It is absurd for an employee to spend one quarter of his or her production in just transporting their bodies to and from the big tent.
John WR Murphy SidingCould a case be made, that if those same trains were hauling freight off the highway instead, it would help out the infrastructure cost and fuel use situation even more? I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. Do you propose to convert the passenger cars to freight cars of some kind?
Murphy SidingCould a case be made, that if those same trains were hauling freight off the highway instead, it would help out the infrastructure cost and fuel use situation even more?
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. Do you propose to convert the passenger cars to freight cars of some kind?
PNWRMNMshut down ATK outside of the NEC and require that if anyone, ATK or independent, wanted to run passenger trains anywhere they have to negotiate with the host railroad on a market basis. The practical effect of this would be to free up the capacity ATK effectvely steals.
1. This arguent presupposes that every single host railroad operates at maximum capacity and, were Amtrak to leave, could immediately replace it with a freight train. Is there evidence to support that contention?
2. Host railroads had a choice. They could continue independently to operate their own passenger service or they could stop their own passenger service and allow Amtrak trains on their tracks. The Southern Rail Road continued the Southern Crescent for several years. Shouldn't we respect the decision that the host railroads themselves made?
3. Realistically it would be impossible to maintain the Northeast Corridor as a national passenger railroad if all of the rest of Amtrak were abandoned. Is there support in Congress to abandon even the western long distance trains?
CSX already makes such a case in their advertisements.
23 17 46 11
Murphy,
Yes, and it would be true.
Mac
In a Trailer Trains thread, which is no longer with us, it was suggested that moving vehicles south on the train helped out on the cost of infrastructure, and reduced the amount of petroleum products required to get Ma, Pa, the SUV and the family to Disney World. Could a case be made, that if those same trains were hauling freight off the highway instead, it would help out the infrastructure cost and fuel use situation even more?
This country does NOT have a national rail passenger system. We have a national skeleton system, that pays its "host" carriers a pittance for the use of its ifrastructure.
Rational public policy, now there is an oxymoron for you, would shut down ATK outside of the NEC and require that if anyone, ATK or independent, wanted to run passenger trains anywhere they have to negotiate with the host railroad on a market basis. The practical effect of this would be to free up the capacity ATK effectvely steals. The freight carriers would market that restored capacity which would divert freight off the highway and making a real reduction in fuel use and pollution. ATK is a missallocation of resources, not the worst by far, but among the clearest.
I believe that a case can be made that the Northeast Corridor provides enough service in a very congested area that its subsidy needs are considerably less than the public costs/subsidy needs of road and air alternatives in the markets it serves. Passenger rail advocates should fight where they have a case, the NEC.
One day, obviously not this administration, we will have to get serious about spending or the Chinese will quit buying our debt. When either of those events happen your iron stagecoaches will be gone.
Mac McCulloch
jeffrey-wimberlyLast time I had to travel to another state was in 2004. I went by plane. NEVER AGAIN!! Next time I'll go by bus or train.
These days it is easy to find horror stories about flying. For example, people denied entry to their flight because they have implanted medical devices. And a lot of people just don't like the intrusiveness of TSA officers. But I have to wonder if these problems will persist. Over time most likely the TSA will become better at its job. And for the foreseeable future planes will simply be faster than trains for many destinations even allowing for extra waiting time at the airport for security.
Of course we have such a spare passenger railroad systems trains are often not an option. And our airline system is also becoming increasingly spare so often planes are not an option either.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.