#1 Once again you avoid the point that Menk was an insider, not just some fringe player.. I cited the reference. Check the article for yourself at a library. Of course, you tend to dismiss articles that you don't like, all the while you trumpet your experience as expertise in almost every post. Secure individuals have no need to pull out their work experience, credentials, majors, places of residence, etc. in an attempt to bolster their argument.
#2 I'll repeat: "It is naive [especially if you spent time in DC] to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library."
#3 Perhaps you didn't read my words carefully? "...as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements" is quite a different statement than your statement: "If I disagree with you or anyone else, I am devaluing you or your point of view" My statement was a comment on your methods of argument. Yours has a different meaning.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm #1 Once again you avoid the point that Menk was an insider, not just some fringe player.. I cited the reference. Check the article for yourself at a library. Of course, you tend to dismiss articles that you don't like, all the while you trumpet your experience as expertise in almost every post. Secure individuals have no need to pull out their work experience, credentials, majors, places of residence, etc. in an attempt to bolster their argument. #2 I'll repeat: "It is naive [especially if you spent time in DC] to believe that only congressmen and the Nixon Administration had input into the beginnings of Amtrak. Powerful interests and their lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress. There have been volumes written on the topic, easily available at your library." #3 Perhaps you didn't read my words carefully? "...as usual you devalue anyone who disputes your pronouncements" is quite a different statement than your statement: "If I disagree with you or anyone else, I am devaluing you or your point of view" My statement was a comment on your methods of argument. Yours has a different meaning.
It is really simple. Just point me to the prima fecie evidence. One solid piece of evidence that shows that the framers of Amtrak intended it to fail.
Stating my experience in our legislative office in Washington was intended to counter your assertion, which was without any evidence, that I am naive regarding legislative processes. How in the world could you know anything about my experiences and what I have or have not learning as a result?
Schlimm,
You are having a hard time with the facts here. Menk was not an insider, he was President of Burlington Northern. You have to have a position of influence in the government to be an insider. Menk certainly did not pull any strings. If Menk had his way the railroads would have been allowed to abandon their money loosing passenger trains. Period, end of story.
Volpe, as Sec Transportation, was an insider. According to the material on Volpe that another poster on this thread kindly provided, it was Volpe that convinced Nixon that the Feds should be in the passenger railroad business. Volpe even convinced himself that passenger trains would be profitable if only he cut them enough. Fourty consecutive years have proved him wrong.
I am still searching for an explanation of how claiming that Nixon conspired to design ATK to fail advances the cause of passenger train advocates.
Mac
Mac: You think only cabinet members and members of Congress are in the loop? Insider here = someone not in government, yet with influence and/or inside knowledge regarding the legislative and/or decision process in a specific area of concern. I have no idea of how examining the origins of Amtrak advances passenger train advocacy. Not the issue.
schlimm
If we accept your definition that an insider is an outsider that knows something relevant, then what do you call the real insiders? We all, as citizens, have the right to petition the government. If a citizen who happens to know something of the facts petitions his government then he is an insider by your definition. Sorry, ain't buying that one.
More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK" going in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing.
PNWRMNM schlimm If we accept your definition that an insider is an outsider that knows something relevant, then what do you call the real insiders? We all, as citizens, have the right to petition the government. If a citizen who happens to know something of the facts petitions his government then he is an insider by your definition. Sorry, ain't buying that one. More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK going" in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing. Mac
More to the point you are the one that got this "origins of ATK going" in this thread, see page 4 item 3 where you introduced a Trains article that made that claim. Now, after a page and a half of arguement, you say it does not make any difference. Nice dancing.
Go Mac!
Mac: Try reading with more accuracy next time before you attack others:
on page 4, item 1
from sam1: "Several people who post to these forums claim that the sponsors of Amtrak designed it to fail. To know that they would have to have access to the minds of the individuals involved. Which means they would need access to the individuals thoughts, which could only be captured by a personal interview or on written documents, i.e. diaries, letters, Congressional Record, etc. "
My post came in response to hers. She got it going, not me.
And your citation of my definition of insider is not what I said. Not at all. In this case, an insider would be someone like Menk, who had unofficial knowledge and influence on the setting up of Amtrak behind closed doors, not someone outside government (like you or me) who simply read the official publications of the proceedings. And I hope you do not believe that if it wasn't published in the Cong. Digest (especially back then, but still true today with either party), it didn't happen. If I can get hold of the original Fortune article where Menk was first quoted, I'll try to scan and post (not available online). perhaps Menk was just blowing smoke, but I doubt it, given his position as well as a lack of motivation for him to do so.
schlimm,
True, Sam1 said that there are folks out there who push this Nixon conspircay theory. You are the one who jumped on it and tried to make a big deal out of it. That is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.
If Menk was an insider, that what are Nixon and Volpe? There is no way Menk had the influence that Volpe did. Volpe was an insider, Menk was not. Menk may have tried to influence the legislation, but that does not make him an insider. The fact that ATK exists means to me that Menk was ignored and that he failed.
If words mean anything we all have to be careful about what they mean. The same term can not be reasoably attached to Volpe and Menk.
I would like to see what Fortune claims Menk said. Remember, Fortune is no more a complete record than the Congression Digest.
The only "conspiracy" I see is that Menk assumed Congress would soon come to its senses and quit funding ATK. Clearly he was as wrong about that as Volpe was about passenger trains being self supporting in the era of Interstate highways and the jet airplane.
This topic and this part of the topic has been discussed many, many times here the the general consensus before and after Rush Loving was that Amtrak was a bone thrown to Class one Freight Railroads to relieve them of the burden of operating passenger trains and eventually remove the term from the American landscape, the concept from the technological and service manuals of railroads, and the cars and services from the rails entirely with the hopes that out of sight would be out of mind as far as the public knew and that freight railroads would be free to make huge sums of money moving freight. This was a feeling most railfans, professional railroaders, and politicians had at the time. Menk was a high official of a Class One railroad and had a hand in determining what the Amtrak plan would be. He therefore would have had to be an insider as much as anyone from the President of the US down to the scribe who copied notes at the meetings during the process. This is the accepted history of Amtrak's beginning and continuous problems at being successful in anyway.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry,
You have quuite a talent for slinging what you perceive as perjoritave terms about the freight carriers. I will comment on only a few.
"General consensus" - Is that like the general consensus on global warming?
"ATK was a bone to freight railroads" - If so, a position that does not stand up to close scrutny, it is a poison bone that is still stuck in their throat. Sounds yummy! Rational public policy would have been to let the carriers discontine their money loosing trains OR directly subsidize whatever service the government decided it wanted to buy. I could make as compelling a case that ATK was a make work project for the rail unions, except that it is not worth the effort.
"free to make huge sums of money" The carriers were then on the brink of bankruptcy. PennCentral and a herd of others in the Northeast were already over it. Rock Island would be soon as would the MILW. Since they could not make any money in railroads virtually all managements were trying to live up the their fiduciary duties to their stockholders and diversifying out of railroading. Illinois Central and CNW did the best jobs. Most of the carriers are still not revenue adequate, which means they are not making enough to attract new capital to the business. Even after Staggers partially deregulated freight rates and services in 1980, a decade after ATK, the carriers are not making huge sums even today. If they were making huge sums, more power to them I say.
Calling Menk an insider in terms of crafting ATK legislation is as laughable as calling a steno clerk in some meeting about ATK is laughable.
The reason ATK is not successful is the same reason that the railroads were not in the 1960's. They can not sell enough tickets at a high enough price to cover their capital and operating costs. Basic economics, not complicated and nothing to do with Lou Menk, Ben Biagianni or Bill Brosnan.
I agree that the passenger rail business model is broken. It was first broken in the 1920's when model T cars on dirt roads wiped out the local passenger business in the course of that decade. It was broken for long haul trains with the interstate highway system and jet airplanes flying everywhere. This is the same fundamental problem that the stagecoaches had when the railroads came along. The competition is some combination of cheaper, better, faster.
The only reason I occasionally comment on a few of your posts, and a few others, is to try to expose the kids on this forum to the notion that just because a story is often repeated does not make it true.
PNWRMNM Henry, You have quuite a talent for slinging what you perceive as perjoritave terms about the freight carriers. I will comment on only a few.
Mac, you have quite a talent for making assumptions and accusations about a person whose background you know nothing about. I will comment: I was around at the time and conversant with politicians, railroaders, and railfans and the consensus I stated was that which I witnessed and heard. Amtrak is not successful because it was designed then...and this is my experience not Rush Loving's...to relieve freight railroads of the burden of carrying passengers and not as a favor to rail passengers. If you didn't live in the 50's, 60's and 70's with the people I did, then don't make accusations or other disparaging remarks to me or about me. If you don't like what I said or don't believe what I said, say so, but don't attack me
Mac: So you don't believe the freight lines wanted Amtrak to fail? OK, that is your belief and it may or may not be true. Others believe to the contrary. Neither side has a lock on the truth or evidence, as is common in these matters.
Unlike henry6, I don't think that is the primary reason for Amtrak's failure. On the whole, I agree with your analysis, with the addendum that far too much of Amtrak's route structure was determined by log-rolling congressmen, like Staggers and others, with trains that served almost nobody. And I have been in agreement with sam1 going back many threads that LD routes should be discontinued.
ATK got some of the passenger burden off the carriers back but it is still an important hidden tax on the railroads as it pays no where near the market rate for the train slots it consumes. If the government played fair and ATK paid a market rate, my only complaint would be as a taxpayer over throwing money down a rat hole. My real complaint is ATK's virtual stealing from the freight carriers. Obviously I have two complaints.
I will ask you the same question I asked schlimm, what is the point of the claims you are making?How does do these claims advance your obviously pro passenger train agenda today? I honestly do not get it.
As for your politicians, railroaders, and railfans (all unnamed) why should we think any of the railrans knew anything. Were they insiders too, along with the steno? Why should we think that the politicians had any knowledge of what they were doing. Sec Trans Volpe obviously did not.
The railroad's position was simple, "We can not afford to keep supporting thim money loosing service. If we do not get relief we will shut down." That was the simple truth of the matter. What is illegal immoral or fattening about the carrier's position?
I do not think the railroads wanted ATK at all. Period. As usual they did not get what they wanted.
I think many railroad presidents, probably including Lou Menk, thought Congress would grow tired of funding ever money loosing passenger trains within a few years. They were wrong.
The question for you on the advocay side is what to do today. I would be willing to bet that the freight carriers would happily support a program of ATK trying to run and upgrade the NEC along with discontinuance of all LD trains with no one having any basis to demand less than market rates for passenger train slots. The fact that this would be reasonable and rational public policy is a side benefit.
IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL). When Amtrak took over, the political and other factors involved in the selection of routes stretched its limited resources, so that in most cases, no real service (as henry says, with fast, comfortable, convenient and frequent trains) could be developed.
schlimm IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL).
IMO, one of the problems the US has had with passenger service was the steady and sharp decline of decent service in the 1960's on routes that were short enough to have the potential to be reasonably competitive with air. I'm thinking of the northeast (not only the NEC, but also other routes from PC) and routes between the east coast and midwest (also PC) and within the midwest (ICG, BN). Also, the west coast routes of the SP. The railroads that were running a pretty good service up to the end were largely on LD routes that geographically could never be air-competitive (SR, BN, AT&SF, SCL).
You may be correct. The RRs began charging for checked baggage, requiring earlier train bag checking, reservation fees, cancellation fees, serving only peanuts, etc ( that really gets passengeers agitated; sound famaliar on todays airlines ?? )
My claims are that Amtrak was a political device to rid the freight railroads of the passenger train with the idea that the passenger train could be eliminated entirely freeing freight railroads to pursue purely freight products. As time progressed freight railroads realized that there might be value in passenger rail in that some got some major track improvements which allowed for higher speeds and efficiencies for freight. And Amtrak paying a "fair" share of their track use is another manipulation of numbers for one's own benefit. Passenger rail is expensive to produce but will give greater fuel and environmental efficienciesl and can carry more passengers per mile than highways. I maintain that if passenger rail received the comperable funding to highway and air from say, 1920 we would not be having this conversation. Hell, when it comes to moving people buses are also losing money as well as air companies who could not survive without huge amounts of government aid.
henry6 My claims are that Amtrak was a political device to rid the freight railroads of the passenger train with the idea that the passenger train could be eliminated entirely freeing freight railroads to pursue purely freight products. As time progressed freight railroads realized that there might be value in passenger rail in that some got some major track improvements which allowed for higher speeds and efficiencies for freight. And Amtrak paying a "fair" share of their track use is another manipulation of numbers for one's own benefit. Passenger rail is expensive to produce but will give greater fuel and environmental efficienciesl and can carry more passengers per mile than highways. I maintain that if passenger rail received the comperable funding to highway and air from say, 1920 we would not be having this conversation. Hell, when it comes to moving people buses are also losing money as well as air companies who could not survive without huge amounts of government aid.
In FY10 the federal operating subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak was 21.13 cents. The comparable federal subsidy for the airlines and highways, which includes bus operators, was less than a penny a mile. How this translates into huge amounts of government aid for the airlines and bus companies is challenging to understand. The numbers can be found in the FAA, DOT, and Homeland Security budgets and performance reports.
In FY10 the nation's major commercial airlines had a combined operating profit of $6.6 billion and net income of $2.2 billion. They were profitable in 2007 but lost money in 2008 and 2009 in large part because of the recession. These numbers can be found in DOT Transportation statistics. I have not looked at the financials for the few intercity bus operators, but they have to cover their costs or go out of business.
Prior to retiring in 2005 I too thought Amtrak was under funded. I would have agreed that it had been treated unfairly. After retirement I had the time to look at the numbers closely. I came to the conclusion, based on reviewing the relevant federal budget and performance reports, as well as historical documents, that Amtrak is not under funded.
People who don't understand statistics or don't want to under stand them or don't like the outcomes of statistical analysis claim that liars figure and figures lie. However, they seldom offer contrary statistics to disprove the presenting statistics.
The federal government has invested heavily in transportation infrastructure. Those who complain about federal government investment in highways and airways, most of which has been paid back by the users, fail to remember that federal and state governments were heavily involved in helping to underwrite the cost of the nation's rail system.
Whatever the government has or has not done to promote highways, airways, and railways is history. The monies are sunk costs. Moreover, whatever the government spends on highways, airways, railways, education, etc. is irrelevant to this key question: what investment should be made in passenger rail?
But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done.
henry6 But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics?
But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics?
But we have tested your assumption by dealing equally with rail, air, water, and whighway, and that experiment is called the E.U.. And we would have the same conversation regarding the high rate of subsidy required for the rail mode.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US?
henry6 But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done.
I'm not so sure what "dealt equally" means. But, maybe we shouldn't have tried to separate the modes. What would things look like if the railroads had owned the airlines, bus, barge and trucking companies? That would be very different than the current US and EU, perhaps. Perhaps there would be several geographically overlapping, horizontally integrated companies where mode development was base solely on market and cost.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US?
The question is not what useful role for passenger rail but what useful role for the passenger rail advocacy community.
What I propose is to advocate for the most effective use of the available subsidy dollar so one can build on that success and advocate for increased levels in funding.
I think this goes back to Don Oltmann's remarks about the 8 billion or so that came Amtrak's way with the Stimulus -- this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to "do something", that there would be a lot more than the 8 billion anytime soon was dreaming, and that the advocacy community, based on our experience with riding trains and our interest in Amtrak and our observations, could contribute by looking at how the 8 billion was being spent. Also, once something was done with the 8 billion, there would have to be a narrative developed on "look an what this 8 billion was able to accomplish" for some unspecified time down the road coming back for more.
To borrow a worn phrase, maybe we can kick the can down the road whether there is a future for long-distance trains or not. But I think Don Oltmann's idea of prioritizing new train car purchases for new-and-improved corridor services and modding hand-me-down Amfleet cars for diners and baggage cars on long-distance trains that transit the NEC and other speed-accelerated corridors is a good idea, and to the extent that this idea is rejected or dismissed, I think that reflects some unrealistic ideas regarding how much money Amtrak is going to get anytime soon.
I also think there is a thread in the advocacy community "If only Amtrak were fully funded", "If only we had HSR", "If only there wasn't a conservative political party that wasn't skeptical of trains", "If only we could get 1 cent per gallon of gas tax money." I think there is another thread in train advocacy to insist on a national network of corridor and long-distance trains and to oppose any changes perceived as retrenchment, even if it is a shifting of priorities within Amtrak to discontinue some trains and put the available resources somewhere else. That is, there is a refusal to pick winners and losers and say, "Yes, let us increase train frequency over here" and "No, this train over there no longer makes sense in light of the available resources." We have been following those two threads since the inception of Amtrak, and I think a change in direction would be in order.
oltmannd henry6: But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done. I'm not so sure what "dealt equally" means. But, maybe we shouldn't have tried to separate the modes. What would things look like if the railroads had owned the airlines, bus, barge and trucking companies? That would be very different than the current US and EU, perhaps. Perhaps there would be several geographically overlapping, horizontally integrated companies where mode development was base solely on market and cost.
henry6: But Sam, you are denying my assumption that if we started at say, 1920, and dealt equally with rail, air, water and highway, would we be having the same conversation today with the same statistics? I maintain that the statistics you quote, which I don't deny are accurate and make your case, would be different and possibly more equal in relation to each other...yes, even water transport! As for history and the present, I also claim that we must start from zero, all modes even, in planning and spending for the future because of land availability, fuel availability, evironmental concerns, and whatever other concerns are thrown into the pot. We are at a point where it can and has to be done.
Don,
I am sure you know it but most do not know that "the evil railroads" were prohibited from owning other modes of transportation for decades. IIRC it started with the Panama Canal Act in the TR Administration, was repeated with the Motor Carrier Act, and with the law that established the FAA.
Yes a few railroads established affiliated motor carrier operations before 1935, which were grandfathered but so restricted in scope as to never be much more than substituted service or trailer pickup and delivery. Rails had to divest of their airline holdings about the same time.
While it is interesting to speculate "what if" my personal opinion is it would not have made much difference. There seem to be few, if any, cross modal synergies that would make the multimodal carrier more effecient or effective than the single mode carriers we have today.
Further on historical matters. The rail carriers passenger problem after 1920 was not that it was jointly produced with freight. The problem was that even with the freight business paying for all of the jointly used fixed plant, the passenger business could not support itself. That would not have been a problem had the railroads been treated like any other business and simply been allowed to cut off the loosing trains. The passenger problem would have been gone by 1970 had that been the case.
Mac: I have no data to support my thoughts here, but you are saying after 1920, the passenger train business was not self-supporting? Seems to me some railroads had a profit on passenger operations until the mid-50's that contributed to their bottom line. This was the case, according to some writers (Morgan?) in the past, even with ICC accounting methods that charged an excessive amount of fixed costs and track maintenance off to passenger operations.
I should have been more clear. If you look at passenger mile statistics there is a big fall off in the 1920's. That is due to model T cars and dirt roads capturing a huge chunk of the local passenger traffic.
As an example the W-O branch between Wenatchee and Oroville Washington had a 5 car train complete with parlor car in 1920. In 1929, before the crash, the passenger service was being operated with a motor car. I seriously doubt that this particular service was break even in 1929/30 or ever after. GN finally managed to pull it off in 1953, suffering 20-25 years of losses in the process.
Main line trains of course did better as train speeds were higher and longer road trips were relatively less attractive than short ones. I think Morgan and others are correct in claiming that some long haul trains covered their direct costs until the mid 1950's.
There are two logical issues with the ICC formula. First is how to allocate joint costs. Consider the president's salary which is a corporate fixed cost so long as the company is in business. How much of this cost should be allocated to passenger trains? None on the basis that if the train goes away the costs go on, which is the definition of fixed? Or some proportion since the object of the formula is to allocate joint and common costs? If you choose the second option, then on what basis do you allocate, gross revenue, percentage of train starts, etc. I do not know how the ICC formula actually dealt with these costs. The economically correct answer is None. These costs would not be effected by the presence or absence of passenger trains.
There are lots of other costs that clearly should be allocated. Take Superintendence and payroll clerks. Clearly these costs would fall if the trains came off. These are semivariable costs and the railroad is full of them.
Fixed plant maintenance is the most difficult and the arguement goes on to this day. Here is why.
Immagine that I have a perfectly good 40 MPH freight railroad and you want to run 100 MPH passenger trains over it. what is the cost you are imposing on me strictly for your passenger trains? Rail, tie, and ballast life is mostly a function of Gross Ton Miles. Your trains are light and on that basis your costs should be light. We could probably both agree to prorate on the basis of gross ton miles.
The higher track class your trains demand is a whole different story and the big end of the issue. First it requires more frequent track inspections. more guys, more trucks, more stuff, more track time, less time to run revenue trains, yours and mine.
More importantly you require much higher standards of line and surface than I do. Lets assume that it is wood tie track, that I do a tie program every six years, and surface behind the tie program. Further assume that after the tie and surfacing program all that is needed is spot surfacing here and there as needed and just to make the math easy lets assume this adds up to the equavalent of one intermediate surfacing over the entire line between tie programs, or two surfacings every 6 years. There are places where this is a reasonable base case.
Now lets figure that since your passenger trains require such a high standard of line and surface that it will take a surfacing program over the entire line every six months to maintain the standards you want. Lets assume that each surfacing costs $500,000, including cost of freight train delay, but excluding cost of ballast which is highly variable. Now in 6 years I do 12 surfacing projects instead of the two I would otherwise do. You owe me $5,000,000 over the six years. Oh no, you say. My passenger trains are light, they are not beating your track into the ground, it is your freight trains. I should not have to pay!
The economics are pretty clear. The passenger train is generating the extra cost due to its demand for speed. If you want to run your passenger trains at 60, same track class as 40 freight, then your marginal cost imposed on the freight system is relatively small and we would be back to gross ton mile prorate.
This issue is why the ATK law says to the freight carriers who had their own passenger trains in 1971 that if ATK wants to use that line you have to maintain it to whatever speed standard you did in 1971 AT YOUR COST if you operate ANY freight trains over the line. This means that the freight carriers are maintaining their tracks to passenger train standards FOR FREE.
The "any freight clause" gives the carriers a way out from the excess cost ATK imposes by pulling all the freight off the line. Think Raton Pass today. Ever wonder why the old ATSF line across Kansas still has jointed rail? The reason is that it sees next to no freight service so BN has no need for good rail, but has to surface the **** out of it for that pair of passenger trains.
If job 1 get done better with utility A and job 2 with utility B, and 3 with C, and 4 with D, etc., then what's the problem with putting money down for each one. We are mostly railfains here, yes, so what do we really know about economics, planning, environment, business, statistics, brass hat railroading and bare kncukles railroading? Politics is what we discuss and not railroading. Politics is something we all know nothing about but have opinions of and both sides of that change constantly.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm: So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US? The question is not what useful role for passenger rail but what useful role for the passenger rail advocacy community.
schlimm: So Paul, what, if any, useful role do you envision for passenger rail in the US?
Given the diversity of the passenger rail advocacy community, it is unlikely to speak with one voice. My views differ from many if not most of the people who post to Trains forums or who belong to NARP and TXARP. But I carry my advocacy beyond these forums.
Every six months, at minimum, I share my views, which are reasonably well know to the folks who follow my posts, with my Washington and Austin representatives. Sometimes it is a letter, sometimes it is a phone call, sometimes it is participating in a meet and greet. In any case, I let them know what I think about passenger rail.
Groups are likely to have more influence than an individual, but if individuals go about it the right way, they can make an impact. It takes time and effort, but it can be done. Over the years I have been successful in getting two laws (not rail related) in Texas changed. It was an exhausting battle, and it led me to understand why so many people are cynical about the political process, but it can be done.
One thing is sure. Just posting to forums without following it up with the decision makes may be a great exercise in rhetoric, but it will sway no votes.
Ya got it Sam! Emotion, politics, and views without expressed application to a particular need...but advocacy groups often are the ones who politicos will pay attention to or the one's who get the politicans attention...so let's not throw the advocacy groups out with the bath water. Yet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.