Passenger Trains

[Anonymous]

If it's routed right, an Omaha-Chicago corridor could work. It won't be the magnitude of the NEC or I-5, but it would be healthy. What kills Amtrak right now on its Omaha-Chicago run is that it runs south of all the major cities in Iowa (Des Moines, Davenport, all 3 college towns) since it runs on the BNSF line. It is possible that they could run some service through the center of the state on the Iowa Interstate (former Rock Island) single main, or possibly even on the UP east-west double main through Ames and Cedar Rapids. In terms of driving distance, Ames is closer to the capital city than Osceola, and the depot is still there.

Even if it only ran every other day, that would be enough to take care of all the Chitown freaks (me included) who populate this great state of mine.

[Mookie]

Alexander: I have really no thoughts either way on how to solve the problem, but you are right - as long as trains and cars/trucks travel on the same ground - there will always be problems. I know in some high traffic areas, they practically put up walls to keep the cars back - but this was a rural area and it had only crossbucks - no signals. They said it was early morning, very clear and no obstructions to his line of sight. Just probably had his head elsewhere and never gave a thought to a real train being on train tracks. But how will we ever help Amtrak if the basic human error isn't first corrected. You don't hear of many freight accidents - and I live in the heart of coal train country - but Amtrak is constantly hunting up the # of their insurance agent. Am I being too simplistic - or completely off the subject?

[Anonymous]

Jenny:

Do you mean, grade seperationg/singalization? Or are you referring to actually transfering road traffic to rail?

If the first, then, yes, I totally agree. And, BTW, I see nothing wrong with using 100% tax dollars to do this.

What is real crazy is we have a situation locally where a commuter rail system may be going on atop an existing, rapidly growing shortline freight route. And the city I live in wants to plunk two additional grade crossings in...... Singalized or not I think they're nuts.

As for the second option? In short run corridors, maybe you can get some cars transfered over, but you'll never get more than a minority percentage. In long run corridors, you probably could get a significant dent in trucking... but that's another topic.

Amtrak has such a high profile very time it wrecks into something because it wrecks into things all the time. This is mostly the function of higher train speeds. That trucker was probably used to pulling in front of trains all the time.... 30 mph or less freights... and misjudged the faster Amtrak train.

Sadly, even if every crossing were signalized, hitting vehisles will always be a fact of life for RRs.

[Mookie]

Gentlemen: Without getting too far into your discussion - I need to throw something very basic into your mix.

Amtrak lost another engine yesterday when the eastbound California Zephyr collided with a gravel truck (no serious injuries)just west of Omaha.

Another example of cars/trucks needing to get on the railroad track with the trains! Should this be a basic price of doing business?

[Anonymous]

James:

You might be right there. Passenger trains were often run as an example of what the road could do for freight routing, and as advertising, and also, as you say, for LCL/Mail/Express.

I don't know that it is necessery to REDUCE airline and road dollars to get Amtrak to parity.... unless you are just suggesting to keep overall USDOT spending the same, but re-allocate it.

Here is one of the benefits of privatization: Like airlines, you'd have a lobby group of insutrialists pushing against the truck.auto lobby and the air lobby, hopefully balancing out the distribution of funds. Whereas Amtrak has little or no pull, as the money they would theoretically throw around comes directly from those who it would be thrown at- Congress.

However i do not claim privatiziaton is the magic bullet. only that it might result in better rail lobbying.

Mm.. politcally oriented trains? Never! However, it is MY understanding that the Short corridors were more profitable.... speaking not of the NE corridor, but of Cascades and of CalTrans. (Course it's all realative... who really has the deinitive numbers, anyway? Probably not even Amtrak!)

While you may like a break from your car, you must admit that, because of it's unfixed route, it is more flexible, and therefore will remain the primary choice for most corridors, and for most vacationers on a budget.

Regards to the Professional Dilettante,
From an Amateur Troublemaker,

Alexander Craghead

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Love your last paragraph. Free market indeed! It seems strange that this country can produce some of the finest stuff on earth with the free market system, but can't run a decent train.

I think recently that Trains ran a story about Intermodal not making as much money per car as carload, since it's time sensitive, but was the fastest growing segment. To make money, you had to be both fast and run as high a volume as you can.

The estimate was a revenue of $8000 per "car" (well doulbe stacked.)

Now take a coach full of, what, 100 seats on a Superliner? that's make a ticket $80 per seat. Not too bad, huh? And on sleepers, with about 30 passengers, what? $300 per? Heck these prices are TOO low, for the most part. And service costs go down the more coaches you run. Seems to me service at least comparable to Airline travel is available at break even.

We just need to get these defeatists out of the Amtrak managment.

[Anonymous]

In the first place, even though the transportation system that is more energy-efficient than steel wheels on steel rails has yet to be invented, transporting passengers by rail has rarely been a profitable enterprise, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. There are, of course, exceptions. Japan's passenger trains, I'm told, are exceptionally profitable, and those in some European countries are marginally so. But Japan has a far higher population density than most of the U.S., and for the most part, its rail corridors and its population centers coincide.

So if passenger trains lose money, why did the railroads not only provide it, but compete with each other to see who could provide the fastest, most luxurious trains for the lowest fares?

Two words. Freight revenue. The passenger trains were directly subsidized by express and mail that ran in them, and indirectly subsidized by the fact that they were the railroads' principal means of selling freight service.

What changed?

Scheduled airlines and interstate trucking.
Suddenly, the railroads weren't competing so much with each other as with other forms of long-distance transportation that didn't have to bear the full cost of owning, building and maintaining their own right-of-way.

In the second place, from what I've heard, the long-distance routes are better-off financially than the shorter ones, but it's the shorter ones that are the sacred cows with Congress. Moreover, breaking long-distance routes into shorter-distance ones is a fool's pastime: long-distance trains can stop wherever it's convenient to build a station (staffed or otherwise), and many do a certain amount of enroute switching. So in effect, every long-distance train already IS the series of short-distance trains it could be broken down into.

Could Amtrak ever achieve a financial break-even? Maybe. Someday. Given better management, a completely healthy infrastructure, and less subsidies for air and highway transporation. But a self-sufficient Amtrak was never the goal of the Amtrak Deform Council.

So how would I reform Amtrak?

I'd recognize just how much federal subsidy goes into airlines and interstate trucking, and base any definitions of "self sufficiency" on that.

I'd renegotiate agreements for use of railroad-owned trackage, to create strong financial incentives for the railroads to send Amtrak trains through without unnecessary delay.

And I'd take a long, hard look at short-distance routes that appear to exist purely for the gratification of certain members of Congress, and either extend them so they have connections at both ends, or get rid of them.

As to people using railroads as their principal means of long-distance travel, I do. As far as I'm concerned, "vacationing by automobile" is an oxymoron; I vacation FROM my automobile. And unless I simply don't have the time to take the train, AND there'd actually be a time savings from flying (which now requires a somewhat longer distance than it did before the atrocities of last September), I really don't care to fly: the seats are tiny; the windows are tinier, the security checkpoints are a pain in the fundament, and the food barely qualifies as food, let alone coming close to what even the worst dining cars serve.

--
James H. H. Lampert
Professional Dilettante

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I'm not sure we disagree on point one but maybe. I just believe that the lack of people who want to get into the railroad market is evidence that it is not likely to be possibly to make a profit. I agree completely that anyone who would go into competition with the Federal Govenrment is plain nuts.

I would be in favor of a passenger rail company getting tax dollars to build track if the taxes were collected from the users. There is the rub. Nobody wants to bear the cost of the track, either building or maintaining. Highway users pay gas taxes to build and maintain the highways. Rail users should bear the cost of the entire system; construction, maintanence and operations. My whole problem is that these jokers want me and everyone else to subsidize the train for their use.

As another aside, I read the article under the News forum on this site and a fellow said, "Passenger rail is priceless." Well, the next time he wants to travel on a passenger train they should ask him to pay $40,000 per mile for the trip. He should be grateful to pay this tiny sum to enjoy a 'priceless' experience. If Amtrak could only find these guys who think rail travel is priceless and charge them what they are willing to pay (can you say 'free market'?) they wouldn't need any tax dollars.

Later - Ed

[Anonymous]

Steve:

Can those corridors support enough traffic to work, tho? In the PNW, the Cascades Corridor (mostly) works, but look at the populations of the stops of just the Portland-Seattle Trains:
Portland (metro) 1,000,000+
Vancouver, WA, 150,000+
Longview, WA, 60k
Olympia, WA, 100k
Tacoma, WA, 500k+
Seattle, WA, 1,500,000+
All this in less than 200 miles of track.

Can say Omaha-Chicago provide similar numbers?

[Anonymous]

I'd like to chime in here with an opinion from a taxpayer and a fan:

Amtrak is pretty well down the toilet right now, but it is still an essential piece to our transportation system. I even put it on a higher level than the airlines (when was the last time you saw a train grounded by a terrorist attack or weather?).

Since it has been proven that cross-country trains are not economically feasible, I say that Amtrak (or whoever does the rails in the future) should break the routes down into segments. For example, the Zephyr could go Chicago-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, and Denver-Emeryville. The Chief could go Chicago-KC, KC-Albuquerque, Albu-LA. I also think that the Trak needs to get more involved with high speed rails. I for one would love to have a train running from downtown Des Moines straight into Union Station, instead of having to drive an hour to the nearest station.

Since we've brought up the subject of bringing back the old passenger trains, I wouldn't mind seeing the old C&NW Executive F running again.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

So we agree on most points but the first.

I would say, what business in their right mind would go into the passenger business in the 1970s, when not only passenger traisn looked antiquated, but rail itself seemed doomed as a free-enterprise feild? None, so Amtrak was formed to serve VERY political ends.

And later, even today, no third party company in their right mind would run trains for passengers as long as a government funded monopoly is around. Heck, how would they get trackage? Station service? FRA cooperation? Amtrak could just freeze them out of their assets and the big RRs would just laugh in their face w/o government backing.

There is only one other entity that could take on this project; the original railroads. This is something they haven't done basically because they have enough problems as it is getting back to where they used to be for freight.

If Amtrak goes away, things could radically alter... government contracted third parties, for example, could come in.....

As for subsidies? Yeah, I get you. I'd like a Jaguar XK8, doesn't mean that Congress ought to buy me one. And we don't fund aisling ships with government money either.

I DON'T have a problem with rail infrastructure getting tax dollars... it's just another road or terminal, different mode. But I don't like operational money going to these things. it is, however, a fact of life in all "alternate" forms of transport, from city buses to light rail to subways.

There is, of course, one more possiblity..... advertising, and the visibility that a passenger train brought to pre Amtrak railroads, is now on the minds of the Brass Hats at last..... maybe a certain four-letter carrier might take it under advisement that a few green and orange "streamliners" would make their companies a lot more visible...... and show off just how fast their service can be.....

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I have been discussing this issue every time somebody puts it up and seldom do I get any answers.

In response to your first question; Can passenger rail make money in the US? My answer is 'Doesn't appear so.' If any serious investors thought so they would have built a passenger system to make the money. The absence of a private system tells me that no serious investors find any merit in the idea. And as others pointed out, the big railroads gave it up.

Your second question ... I agree. The economics of transportation in other countries is different from our own. That's why we should solve our problems with our own ingenuity. As an aside, it is partially because we have such cheap transportation that we enjoy a higher standard of living here.

I don't follow the ARC so I have no opinion on #3.

On #4, I suspect that if the government were to tax us enough then trains could become attractive again, but why would I want to be taxed so severly to make that happen. I am very sad that so many of my countrymen want others to give them a free ride.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Mike:

Yes. And many Amtrak defenders I see out there say "but train travel is priceless" etc. etc. but they forget that our wallets aren't priceless.

I think, again, volume is the cause. A jet plane MUST cost more to operate than an equivelant passenger train (or am I wrong????? Any pilots out there???). But Airlines can and do make OPERATIONAL money... enough that they can justify issuing stocks and bonds....

Course, goin from Mpls to Maryland would entail, what? three trains with two transfers?

Up here in the NW, the short distance corridors are much better- about $35 for Portland-Seattle. Portland-Vancouver BC was $75 or so... but again volume cuts in: there's only ONE TRAIN between Seattle and Vancouver, so anyone commin from Portland can't make a connection; they have to stay overnight, raising the trip costs by about $100 or more.

This distance could be driven in a day, even in bad traffic!

[sooblue]

I wanted to take my family on the train from Mpls to fredrick Maryland two years ago and Amtrak quoated me a price of 2600.00 round trip!
than last year I thought it would be nice to auto train it from maryland to orlando fl. 2400.00 one way!
long distance passenger travel or even intermediate passenger travel will never make a come back with pricing like that. There is no value to it that justifies the price.

[Anonymous]

I think for sleeper class, yeah. On a long distance. I wouldn't be surprised.... From Portland to Oakland fro two people it's $750.

[Anonymous]

It costs double to take the train?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Mike:

Part of why it used to be cheaper was because of ICC regs.... in other words by price fixing the market, the railroads couldn't make money at it, so they asked for a bailout.

However, another reason fares used to be lower was volume and competition. If you wanted to take that trip today, all you'd get would be one train daily, (if that!) via Amtrak.

In 1967 you probably could've taken ATSF, UP, RI/SP, CBQ/WP/ATSF, etc etc and there were probably more than one train per company per day! (e.g. 2nd class trains as well as limiteds)

IF there was enough volume fares would go down. IF IF IF.....

[sooblue]

I think you answered your own questions.
however! If long distance passenger trains could only survive with some kind of subsidy, from the government or from the host railroads, I think they still should be running. The fare should be cheap enough so that average family would be able to travel. Every one should travel by rail even if just once. I traveled from Mpls. to LA. in 1967. I WANT TO GO AGAIN but I won't pay 2000.00. I can get tickets for my family from the airlines for 1000.00 and I could drive out for less than 500.00.
AMTRAK, STOP TRYING TO MAKE MONEY!!
We have to start over and do it right so that we can take OUR kids on a train through this wonderfull country we call home.

[Anonymous]

Okay, in all this Amtrak mess, there have been a few thing IMHO that have been left out. Any opinions on the following would be most welcome, and I respect dissenters so i won't flame you if you think I'm nuts!

1.) Everyone says passenger systems can't make money.

But how do they know? We haven't had an unfettered passneger system since, what, prior to ICC regulation? So before TR was president, the 19th century. How do we know it can't be done when it hasn't been tried in over a century?

2.) "Everyone else's system is subsidized...."

So what? Why do I care what Japan or France do with their systems? What do they know about making money anyway?

(Has anyone seen the Nikkei index lately? They can't even handle bank reform! And europe doesn't even have a mortgage system, much less a fair taxation policy.)

We are a different country; should we not find our own solutions?

3.) What's so wrong about the ARC?

is there something wrong with wanting accountability? Is there someone out there who's going to tell me with a straight face that Gil Carmicheal is anti-passenger rail?

4.) Regardless of the outcome, does anyone SERIOUSLY think that people will ever use passenger rail as their primary long distance method of travel?

Sure, it's a nice idea, but we have airports and interstates now.... that car and the airplane, no matter how annoying they can be, aren't going to ever go away. The first is too flexible and the second is too fast.

FINITO: that's all, just those three to keep you busy and make your face go red. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I just think that some common sense has been missing from this dialog for a long time.

Oops! It started in Congress. No wonder!

Alexander in Oregon