[quote user="Sir Madog"]
if you read between the lines, you´ll detect the pride those railroad men and women had in doing their duty. It was way more than just a job. Now transfer that to today´s Amtrak staff. How can you develop pride if you are constantly being told you contribute to the national debt?
quote]
Point taken. But that was yesterday,too, a day of one employer per lifetime,dedicated empoloyer and employee to the job at hand. Today's working world is different for both employer and employee. And Amtrak has nothing to do with our new company. We are outside of Amtrak, As if Amtrak doesn't or never existed. We are private enterprise; maybe a non profit, maybe a for profit. We are still in the talking stages.
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.
Sam1 henry6: I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights. Not always! Take a look at the engineering performance curves for a Boeing 737-700 compared to a B737-300. The 700 carries 189 passengers when it is configured for Southwest whilst the 300 carries fewer passengers. It is one of the reasons Southwest is phasing out the earlier models. Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways. Now there is no need to operate heavies between any city pairs in the United States. But if we get to a point where airport capacity and airways capacity is an issue, the aircraft and the airways capacity can be expanded. Moreover, by the time we get there the aircraft industry is likely to come up with a variety of larger, more fuel efficient birds that will be able to meet the traffic demands. Whether larger planes are costlier to operate depends on numerous variables. It is not a given. The seat mile cost of a Boeing 737-800 is considerably less than the seat mile cost of a 737-300, which is a smaller airplane. One of the weaknesses of the passenger train advocacy group is an implied assumption that the technologies of competing modes of transport are locked and will not advance. As I have said repeatedly, I would not count on it.
henry6: I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
I sense some faulty reasoning here. A larger plane needs a larger runway or airport and therefor puts more financial burden on local governements who own and operate the airports. A larger plane is costlier to operate which might lead to fewer flights, less service or abandonment of service and giving over to much smaller aircraft. These problems could even happen between larger market airports, especially the fewer flights.
Not always! Take a look at the engineering performance curves for a Boeing 737-700 compared to a B737-300. The 700 carries 189 passengers when it is configured for Southwest whilst the 300 carries fewer passengers. It is one of the reasons Southwest is phasing out the earlier models.
Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways.
Now there is no need to operate heavies between any city pairs in the United States. But if we get to a point where airport capacity and airways capacity is an issue, the aircraft and the airways capacity can be expanded. Moreover, by the time we get there the aircraft industry is likely to come up with a variety of larger, more fuel efficient birds that will be able to meet the traffic demands.
Whether larger planes are costlier to operate depends on numerous variables. It is not a given. The seat mile cost of a Boeing 737-800 is considerably less than the seat mile cost of a 737-300, which is a smaller airplane.
One of the weaknesses of the passenger train advocacy group is an implied assumption that the technologies of competing modes of transport are locked and will not advance. As I have said repeatedly, I would not count on it.
OK. I live in the area of Binghamton, NY, about 200 miles from NY, Buffalo. Philadlephia and Pittsburg about 150 from Rochester and ALbany, and 50 from Syracuse, Elmira, Ithaca and Scranton. No airline is going to get a big bus on and off the ground several times between a coastal city and a Great Lakes city so the will fly NY or Phila to Buffalo and or Syracuse leaving the airports in between with lesser services...smaller planes, airport hops and round about routes. I am not talking what will happen. I am talking what has happened. Another round of bigger planes will be a repeat of the past.
A real planned intermodal and or bi modal transportation system would be quite different...and in all honesty it has been laughed off to oblivion several times in the past. A single western NY an single central NY airport or a combined western upstate airport for international service and full size planes with [high speed] rail loops or spokes from the airport(s) to and from the above named cities. But this is thinking without being paid by any lobby group, so it won't happen.
sam1: First let me say I'm not entirely clear about the concept, but I believe there might be some advantages to having passenger rail run by a private nonprofit corporation that could address your concerns. These come to mind:
1. The route structure for services could be more removed from politicians' desires for pork and local favors.
2. Any Federal monies sought would have to come from grant applications to the DOT, not direct appropriations from Congress. As those of us who have sought grants know, it is a rigorous process. The nonprofit could raise capital from bond sales, as well.
3. If Congress wished to have routes similar in concept to those of the current the air EAS program (serving remote and poorly populated communities with routes where there is no chance to cover the expense), they would have to contract with the nonprofit for these. Thus truly subsidized routes, for whatever social reason, would have a "bright line" of demarcation from the rest of the rail structure. Depending on merits of the need, Congress could appropriate the funding or decline to do so, but the decision couldn't be "hidden" in the Amtrak budget as it is now.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE According to Amtrak’s September 2010 Monthly Operating Report, which includes the financial results for FY10, the average cost to carry a passenger in the NEC was $83.78 compared to $58.46 for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains (Corridor) and $263.67 for the long distance trains. These numbers represent average costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses. FY11 segment numbers have not been provided. Amtrak is re-working its accounting system. Amongst other things it will be able to allocate depreciation, interest, and other expenses by segment and route. Why Amtrak ceased segment reporting before the new accounting system is ready for prime time is a mystery. The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains. Assuming 80% of the depreciation, interest and other expenses is allocable to the NEC, with 10% being allocable equally to the other two segments, the average loss per passenger after considering these items was $48.67 for the NEC compared to $21.68 for the corridor trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Even if 100% of the depreciation, interest, and other expenses were charged to the NEC, which would be inappropriate accounting, the long distance trains would still lose considerably more money per passenger than the NEC and the corridor trains.
0 0 1 625 3564 Retired 29 8 4181 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
I wanted to back up to this earlier post by Sam1.
According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
EAS sees an average subsidy, meaning an average loss per passenger excluding Alaska of $74 with a Max of $801 in 2009. So roughly half on average the loss of an intercity passenger train assuming your numbers are reasonable.
this might suggest on it's face that EAS is a more effective means of providing this service, but of course we don't have the same amount of insight into the accounting for EAS on this forum nor have we aggregated the costs of the program with any other subsidies being provided by state and local governments to the airports in question.
My point being that as I said before, Intercity passenger trains are not the only transportation service being directly subsidized for the good of the nation. They are a more expensive service apparently, but given the scope of Amtrak vs. EAS, that is perhaps not surprising.
So, Here's a theory, what if the Government created an Essential Rail Services fund? Something like this has been proposed.
Also, just to make one comment on the Iowa pacific position. Their system works where they own the tracks. It is unclear to me how such a system could work where the track owners themselves aren't providing the service.
The example in the Southwest chief thread is the LA Junta sub.
Certainly somebody could buy the La Junta sub. BNSF wants out, but would the communities online support a service? Albuquerque would and...?
It might make more sense to keep the Southwest chief on La Junta then and find a carrier that would provide a runt service on the transcon which would then link up with the Southwest chief, but who provides that? BNSF? how do the financials change? Would the government force the acceptance of a passenger operator on these tracks if BNSF doesn't want to provide the service?
schlimm sam1: First let me say I'm not entirely clear about the concept, but I believe there might be some advantages to having passenger rail run by a private nonprofit corporation that could address your concerns. These come to mind: 1. The route structure for services could be more removed from politicians' desires for pork and local favors. 2. Any Federal monies sought would have to come from grant applications to the DOT, not direct appropriations from Congress. As those of us who have sought grants know, it is a rigorous process. The nonprofit could raise capital from bond sales, as well. 3. If Congress wished to have routes similar in concept to those of the current the air EAS program (serving remote and poorly populated communities with routes where there is no chance to cover the expense), they would have to contract with the nonprofit for these. Thus truly subsidized routes, for whatever social reason, would have a "bright line" of demarcation from the rest of the rail structure. Depending on merits of the need, Congress could appropriate the funding or decline to do so, but the decision couldn't be "hidden" in the Amtrak budget as it is now.
Yes, this is what I was saying before as well.
YoHo1975 http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf I can't provide anything more than that link, because that's all I know.
http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2012/Iowa%20Pacific%20Sandhouse%20Gang%20presentation.pdf
I can't provide anything more than that link, because that's all I know.
Ok. it is a plan. It is dealing with a tourist line and special applications. Does it have a plan for intercity or regional services...not running trains but providing a passenger rail service that is both useful and useable and not just lip service by running trains. I've looked on the idea of riding the Saratoga train as proposed here...but I'd have to drive to the northern terminus, stay over night, ride the next day, stay a second night and drive home on the third day. So this is designed as a tourist service rather than a public point to point service. In fact it brings up a question we've not discussed yet: identify the kinds of trains and services and applications then define each one.
I am not putting the Iowa program down because it is a great start with a lot of the right ideas needed for such a company. It's is what happens next that will tell the tale of being on the right track(s) or not.
Is it a tourist service? It provides essential connections to the national network and if you look at their boarding times, they aren't all tourist friendly,
https://www.sncrr.com/trips.html
The pricing is certainly on par with most regular corridor services.
I'll grant you they serve a tourist AREA, but they aren't in and of themselves a "tourist line" though most of Iowa PAcific's holdings are.
Sam1 . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
.
How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
4 times as many as your total time and over 3000 just on the shuttle. Aircraft L-188, DC-9, B727, A-300, L-1011 , CV-440 Winter and Summer all over NE.
Swwitchig to Dulles and JFK then makes Amtrak less time than flying. A B737 with 2 CFM-56s consumes 3200 # / hr / engine. A B-747 with CF6-80C2s consumes 8000# / hr / engine . This is crusing at 17,000 ft. A real fuel hog.
YoHo1975 Is it a tourist service? It provides essential connections to the national network and if you look at their boarding times, they aren't all tourist friendly, https://www.sncrr.com/trips.html The pricing is certainly on par with most regular corridor services. I'll grant you they serve a tourist AREA, but they aren't in and of themselves a "tourist line" though most of Iowa PAcific's holdings are.
Yes, it is a tourist oriented service. Similar to Maine Eastern and probably the Grand Canyon RR.. All are good examples of types of service and application. If they make money for the company, then good. I doubt not too many non tourists would ride the trains. But I bet there are a hundred more places such a service is viable. For the sake of arguement, lets say we don't involve our company in commuter services. Let's find more applications like this and find regional and intercity opportunities, too.
blue streak 1 Sam1: . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions? 4 times as many as your total time and over 3000 just on the shuttle. Aircraft L-188, DC-9, B727, A-300, L-1011 , CV-440 Winter and Summer all over NE. Swwitchig to Dulles and JFK then makes Amtrak less time than flying. A B737 with 2 CFM-56s consumes 3200 # / hr / engine. A B-747 with CF6-80C2s consumes 8000# / hr / engine . This is crusing at 17,000 ft. A real fuel hog.
Sam1: . How many hours as pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?
You still haven't told me why the airports or air traffic system could not be modified to handle larger aircraft in the NEC or numerous other locations around the country.
If I remember correctly, LGA was originally built to handle DC3s. I don't recall that the runways extended out over the water. The extensions were add ons. And if they could be added to once they can be added to again.
It does not matter how much total fuel is consumed by an airplane, except that it needs enough fuel to get to its designation. The key figure is the cost per seat mile and the price necessary to recover that cost whilst adding a return for the shareholders.
If Qantas has been successful using 767s between Melbourne and Sydney, admittedly a greater distance than New York to Washington, why should I believe that future technologies may not make larger airplanes viable in the NEC? I don't. Advocates who believe that air and highway technology is static,and only rail technology will move forward are making a mistake. What is the best option going forward. I happen to believe that it is rail in relatively short, high density corridors, but I am not unmindful of alternatives, including the expansion of the existing rail and highway system.
I flew professionally for several years. It bored me to tears, and I went on to a far more intellectually challenging career in business. But it gave me some chilling moments and some great insights into the art of flying. I had my own plane or ownership in a plane for many years.
I'm sorry, but the idea that someone who had experience flying planes years ago and then some more flying private planes can speak with as much authority about the various requirements of commercial jets as a (former) pilot of them is, on the face of it, utterly ridiculous. But then sam1 seems to be our resident polymath: accountancy, economics, finance, government, rail transportation, pilot, et al.
schlimm I'm sorry, but the idea that someone who had experience flying planes years ago and then some more flying private planes can speak with as much authority about the various requirements of commercial jets as a (former) pilot of them is, on the face of it, utterly ridiculous. But then sam1 seems to be our resident polymath: accountancy, economics, finance, government, rail transportation, pilot, et al.
How do you know when I flew? How do you know what airplanes I flew? How do you know what environment I flew in? What do you know about my licenses? What do you know about the differences of flying a private airplane into the New York TCA and flying a DC-9 into the same environment? What do you know about my business experiences? What do you know about me other than what I say about passenger rail in these forums?
What do your comments have to do with my point that air technology is evolving and one of the elements rolling forward would be the potential to add capacity to the existing system by increasing the capacity of the airplanes?
Bluestreak has more time than I have. So what? I was simply trying to show that I am not unfamiliar with commercial aviation and have some feel for whether the current system can be expanded without a massive expansion of the facilities. By the way, although I will leave it to Bluestreak to respond, it sounds to me like he was with Eastern Airlines. If that is true, he has been out of the cockpit for a long time unless he or she transitioned to another carrier.
Why do you feel compelled to resort to personal attacks?
YoHo1975 Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
There was no personal attack intended. just pointing out what was said. As to your experiences, you have recited them over and over on threads on this forum. Since you say you are retired, you were in the utility industry with a Fortune 500 company for many (30? 40?) years, when you say you left professional flying for business, it would seem reasonable to conclude that you've been out of whatever professional flying you were doing for 35-45 years. I don't know what you were flying, as you don't tell us that in the same way as Bluestreak reveals his with clarity. The reason I even mentioned your background was clearly stated in my post. You are the one who mentioned your flight experience as a way of challenging his credentials inquisitorily: "How many hours as a pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?" And then when called on it, you play your victim card.
Sam1 Take off and climb to altitude are a function of numerous variables. The thrust to weight ratio is a major factor. If a "heavy" (767, 777, etc.) is going oversea, i.e. LAX to Sydney, it needs a lot more runway because it is taking off with a maximum fuel load. On the other hand, if a heavy was being used between relatively close in cities, i.e. LAX to SFO or LGA to National, it could operate with a fraction of its normal fuel load, thereby reducing the amount of runway required to take-off and land, not to mention the load bearing capability of the runways.
Decreasing the weight of the aircraft also reduces take-off and landing speeds, with the former leading to a further reduction in take-off roll.
I wouldn't be surprised to see electric short haul airliners developed in my lifetime. I would think the batteries would be in underwing pods that could be swapped out at the terminal, thus allowing off-peak charging.
- Erik
This is a bit off-topic, but I'd like to see how anybody could shoehorn a widebody into Midway, even with a reduced fuel load. I have seen 757's use Midway on a regular basis in the past (ATA and National), but about all I see now is 737's, A320's and MD80's at the large end plus some regional airliners.
schlimm There was no personal attack intended. just pointing out what was said. As to your experiences, you have recited them over and over on threads on this forum. Since you say you are retired, you were in the utility industry with a Fortune 500 company for many (30? 40?) years, when you say you left professional flying for business, it would seem reasonable to conclude that you've been out of whatever professional flying you were doing for 35-45 years. I don't know what you were flying, as you don't tell us that in the same way as Bluestreak reveals his with clarity. The reason I even mentioned your background was clearly stated in my post. You are the one who mentioned your flight experience as a way of challenging his credentials inquisitorily: "How many hours as a pilot in command have you logged? And on what type of aircraft under what conditions?" And then when called on it, you play your victim card.
My reference to my aviation experience and licenses was posted, I believe, before Bluestreak listed his experience as a commercial airline pilot. It was shown only to establish the fact that I know a little bit about aviation, including the potential to expand airports and the air traffic control system. This was in response to the assertion that one of the justifications for Amtrak or intercity passenger rail is that the highways and airways in select areas of the country, i.e. NEC, etc., could not be expanded, or it would be costly to do so.
Every assumption that you have made about me has been essentially incorrect. I suggest that you stick to what I say about Trains and competing modes of transport and leave the personal stuff alone.
MidlandMike YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains. The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
I am working up the numbers, but it will take me a couple of days. I have other things on my to do list. On a per mile basis I believe the long distance trains numbers look better. Unfortunately, Amtrak does not show how much depreciation, interest, and other expenses are assigned to the long distance trains, so I have to iterate it.
sam1: Those numbers will be interesting. ,However, as you point out, the NEC is still the only component of ATK that shows net positives (even better for Acela) while the LD routes show enormous losses while serving far fewer passengers. The numbers clearly show what should be done; the tough part will be setting up a system that is rational.
Please show me where a 747 spends anytime crusing at 17,000 ft.....
From my notes for a 747-200:
For the 1st hour of cruise plan around 28,000lbs of fuel per hour, or 7000 lbs per engine.
As the plane gets lighter, at the end of cruise, fuel burn will reduce to around 23,000lbs per hour, or around 5800 lbs per engine.
Both of these figures are for cruise above 32,000, ft.
These are numbers for an aircraft that is over 20 years old, the 747-400, which is also no longer built gets better fuel burn numbers. The 747-8 which is Boeings newest 747 model and just now coming into service, should get even better numbers.
Disclaimer....I have my airline dispatcher license from Lewis University and was certified by the FAA, and worked as a dispatcher for a airline until the early 2000's.
An "expensive model collector"
gabeusmc EMD#1: I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service. Ditto. It makes sense.
EMD#1: I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching. Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards. By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
I say privatize the trains, train service employees and ticket agents. Let Amtrak stay in place as the owner of the Northeast Corridor tracks, keep up with the maintenance and provide dispatching.
Another suggestion would be to do away with long distance service and instead offer corridor service where private passenger train companies negotiate trackage rights with private freight train companies. Who knows...maybe a private freight train company might offer passenger service if federal, state and local governments would be willing to pay for trainsets, stations and upgrades to mainlines to high speed standards.
By doing away with the non-competitive bureaucratic government run Amtrak, service would greatly improve and the US could catch up with the rest of the world in passenger train service.
Ditto. It makes sense.
That is one of the many reasons I think that Amtrak should be privitized. Amtrak would be able to just focus on the high speed corridors rather than worry about government funding and severe budget cuts that could severly damage the system.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad, the Route of the Black Diamond Express, John Wilkes and Maple Leaf.
-Jake, modeling the Barclay, Towanda & Susquehanna.
I'm going to keep saying this until they chloroform me: Amtrak will not survive if any pieces, especially long-distance trains, which this room full of "railfans" hates, are eliminated. There will be no political support. No Congressman whose state would become train-less would vote any more monies for a rump Amtrak. Period.
Amtrak is a political creature as much as anything else.
There will be no NEC without support from Congressmen from places like Ohio, Nebraska, Montana, etc. So anyone here who proposes a trimmed, privatized Amtrak is simply joining the chorus of those who would kill it. There will be no new Amtrak and no passenger trains other than commuter trains.
Is this what you guys really want? With "friends" such as Amtrak has here, I fear for passenger trains. And when there are no passenger trains (except commuters), how much will anyone care about trains at all?
NKP
You are right of course. I say shut the thing down and give the NEC to a consortium of the states and let them figure out what to do with it. Ohio, Nebraska and Montana dont know, dont care.
Mac McCulloch
Mac, you either write the drollest satire or I didn't make my point well.
My point: Don't shut Amtrak down. Give it MORE money and expand the system. Increase taxes on millionaires and me (I'm proudly part of the 99%) to pay for it.
People in Ohio don't give a hoot about the NEC, but if Amtrak had more frequent, more convenient service, we'd ride it. And support it more.
NKP,
I got your point perfectly and my suggestion is not satire. The NEC is the one bit of ATK that comes close to making sense, but even it it far from generating enough cash to pay for capital projects, that is normal "maintenance of the business" capital, lt alone improvements.
Give it to the states involved and let them figure it out. The NEC is a regional asset, not a national one. Let the people who know the area, and should care what happens there, deal with it.
The rest of ATK is a joke, a black hole, a tar baby, a money pit, an employment project, welfare for the rich, and a drain on the freight railroad network. Kill the Beast!
Mac
Amtrak is 100% politcal. The arguements are whether it should take a dump or get out of the potty room, and there never is any agreement. Even when other alternatives are put forth, the arguement falls back to the politics of Amtrak. But no one really seems to have any clear vision of what should be done, too much of what shoulda been done, though.
oltmannd Lehigh Valley 2089: After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil? It didn't work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won't work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers. You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that's not really privatizing....
Lehigh Valley 2089: After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
It didn't work with Conrail until they changed the game (Staggers Act). It won't work with Amtrak unless they change the game there, too. But the change would have to be really drastic. REALLY drastic. Amtrak loses nearly 50 cents on the dollar. Conrail was much closer to breaking even, even before Staggers.
You could privatize in the sense that you bid out the operation in parts with the guy who needed the least subsidy winning. But that's not really privatizing....
There might be a different set of rules for passenger railroads, but I still feel it might be possible for Amtrak to make it should it be privitized (though I'm not counting on it one bit).
NKP guy Is this what you guys really want? With "friends" such as Amtrak has here, I fear for passenger trains. And when there are no passenger trains (except commuters), how much will anyone care about trains at all?
This board is the opposite of a place where the friends of passenger trains congregate; for whatever reason there is a far higher percentage of conservative/libertarian types here, far more than in the general population, and so fear not for the passenger train. Should Obama win a second term you can expect increased funding for Amtrak, including hopefully a guaranteed revenue source, perhaps derived from that part of fuel tax revenue paid by the railroads. And I doubt that Romney would be able to end it either. The fuel tax already is too low to pay for highway maintenance (because people are driving less as the overall price went up and taxes remained roughly the same) and will need to be raised anyway, and a portion of that can be earmarked for Amtrak. And that is the problem with Amtrak: insufficient funding and lack of a network (and the economies of scale that comes with it) discourages people form riding. And were they to quadruple funding on national rail passenger transportation it would still be a fraction of what we spend on highways (roughly $91 billion throughout the US). BTW I am with you, trying to kill the national network and keep the NEC, or give it to the states (who acted like it was a dead raccoon when offered it by Bush II, why would they sign on to hundreds of billions in repairs?) is a dead end, a feint meant to kill all national public rail transportation, which they object to for ideological reasons, not due to its practicality of efficiency.
There are actually two questions everyone sees as one: Question 1 is should we discuss saving Amtrak. Question 2 is should we discuss and save passenger trains. They really are two different questions and should be dealt with seperately.
Uhhhhh, no. That's my point exactly, henry6. In the USA Amtrak = passenger trains. Passenger trains = Amtrak. Anything else is pure conjecture.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.