Amen to that!!
Also this talk of "fixing Amtrak" is bogus. Amtrak was designed to fail it was broken from the the off set. There is nothing to fix. Amtrak was designed to gradually end passenger service its original equipment was meant to be converted for freight usage. The water gate scandal trial revealed Nixon has received contributions from airlines such as american airlines. If Nixon really wanted to help passenger rail he should have reduced regulations and done away with the ICC but he did not. How is something that is not only heavily regulated supposed to compete with entities that are not only subsidized but have less regulations. Either it is the government's role to run transportation or it isn't. IF passenger rail's competitors aren't expected to pay for themselves then neither should passenger rail. my .02
Railroad to Freedom
You introduced the magic word "defense" twice, I believe, which has nothing to do with Amtrak, not even tangentially.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Jeffery,
I have no desire to violate your guidelines but to be frank I don't always know what they are. Here I seem to be pushing against the boundary if I haven't actually broken through it.
I do think Balt makes a very good point. Given that Amtrak is a government entity any meaningful discussion of it really has to be political. But how, on a forum about trains, can we not discuss the main passenger train system in the country?
I could clarify my own position to both Don and Overmod but I suspect you might find that transgresses your guidelines so I will reserve my comments until (I hope) I may get some further clarification from you.
John
OvermodCan we please keep it on the facts?
Geez, just facts? What fun is that?
Getting back to the "privatize the NEC" thing. John suggests that some sort of robber baron might appear and milk the operation dry for his own benefit and then get out. For that to work, there have to be assets worth something to milk. If you are just the "train runner" who purchased some middle-aged to old train sets, what's to milk?
Is this what Sir Richard is doing with Virgin Rail in the UK?
Privatizing the operations puts at least part of the game into the profit motive world. Maybe a private operator could figure out how to deliver a hamburger to a traveler for less than $15 and a can of Coke for less than $4?
Still, at best, its not much more than a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Some arrangements may be better than others for a short while, but the boat will still sink. If you subsidize the ROW so the rents are low enough for the operator to turn a profit, the ROW owner takes a bath. If you raise the rents to cover the ROW costs (including capital), the operators take a bath. This is the quandary France finds itself in. (and Germany, of late?)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I do have to side with the Wim-meister on this one. When he says 'getting heavy into politics' he didn't mean Amtrak politics.
Discussing Amtrak politics -- even vituperatively -- is one thing. But this is starting to get into mocking 'defense' spending, or making cheap shots about highway money. Can we please keep it on the facts?
RME
jeffrey-wimberly OK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
OK guys, you're getting heavy into politics here. Bring the conversation back to the subject of the thread without going into politics.
When discussing a entity that was created by political action and continues to be funded in major part by political sources, how can any discussion of it not be political. Railroads and politics have been entwined since the 2nd day after the decision was made in 1827 to build the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad - as opposed to the more politically desired canal system from Baltimore West. ANY thread that discusses any aspect of the operation of ANY passenger service is by definition - POLITICAL. By having a forum category devoted to PASSENGER, Trains is seeking political discussions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
John WR ontheBNSFI say those benefits out weigh the cost of making money out of thin air or a small increase in taxes, I hate to repeat myself but the secret word is "defense." If you can link "defense" to a new rail system all of the people in the Congress who now say we can't afford it will suddenly start just shoveling money at it. And we will have it.
ontheBNSFI say those benefits out weigh the cost of making money out of thin air or a small increase in taxes,
I hate to repeat myself but the secret word is "defense." If you can link "defense" to a new rail system all of the people in the Congress who now say we can't afford it will suddenly start just shoveling money at it. And we will have it.
You are right if you say something is for defense you can pretty much get away with spending as much money as you want.
ontheBNSFIf the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people
Just as when the government wanted to it built an interstate highway system and employed hundreds of thousands. To get the government to do that you have to say the secret word: "defense."
oltmannd don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners. Think there would be any takers?
don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners.
Think there would be any takers?
If the price were right I think there could be some interest. Railroad history includes lines that were financially shaky or even bankrupt while the managers personally did well for themselves.
ontheBNSF If the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people.
At the expense of something else. The US workers can only produce so much stuff. If you have them make railways, what is the trade off?
We could have everyone dig ditches and fill them in, too.
John WR oltmanndBut the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned. Don, This is a very good point. Amtrak's most successful venture is Acela. Acela actually makes a profit. And, as you say, when it comes to discussing Acela in Congress the subject is turned. However, Amtrak's critics argue that the government has no place in a profit making venture and Acela should be sold off to a private company. Do you think it should be? John
oltmanndBut the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned.
Don,
This is a very good point. Amtrak's most successful venture is Acela. Acela actually makes a profit. And, as you say, when it comes to discussing Acela in Congress the subject is turned. However, Amtrak's critics argue that the government has no place in a profit making venture and Acela should be sold off to a private company.
Do you think it should be?
I don't think it matters. I also don't think anybody would consider "sell off" just Acela. You'd have to take the whole Amtrak NEC operations and pay rent to the infrastructure owners.
Folks the government is not going bankrupt any time soon. The money process works like this the government needs money so they issue bonds, the federal reserve calls up the treasury who prints money and buys the bonds and loans us the money at interest, this money is put into the government's bank account which then in turn makes into the hand of government employees, and finally this money eventually makes into commercial banks who then through the magic of fractional reserve banking loan it out 10 times multiplying it, and because you don't want to be a bad citizen and go to prison all this money is paid in income taxes which doesn't actually go toward paying for government services but rather the taxes give the government money value and pay the interest on the debt. If the government really wanted to they could build a state of the art rail system and employ thousands of people. Money is not an issue at all since it as all fake to begin with.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies This is leading to what I call the "just give (me/us) the money" school of passenger train advocacy. Trains receive public money, but every other form of transportation receives public money, so one cannot seek that trains be cost effective, or if trains are expensive to try to better understand the cost structure or the underlying technical or cultural reasons, or if trains are expensive, to apply them where they do the most public good? Or are you going to talk about how "this government program wastes money" and "this other government program wastes money" so "how dare anyone complain but the efficient use of money by Amtrak?" Is that the gist of it? And if all forms of transportation receive public money, does this end any discussion of how much money? Whether highways, say, receive more money in absolute terms but receive less money per passenger mile or other unit of work product? Or is this a sibling rivalry version of fairness, that if highways get 40 billion, trains deserve 40 billion, end of any further discussion?
BaltACD There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
This is leading to what I call the "just give (me/us) the money" school of passenger train advocacy. Trains receive public money, but every other form of transportation receives public money, so one cannot seek that trains be cost effective, or if trains are expensive to try to better understand the cost structure or the underlying technical or cultural reasons, or if trains are expensive, to apply them where they do the most public good?
Or are you going to talk about how "this government program wastes money" and "this other government program wastes money" so "how dare anyone complain but the efficient use of money by Amtrak?" Is that the gist of it?
And if all forms of transportation receive public money, does this end any discussion of how much money? Whether highways, say, receive more money in absolute terms but receive less money per passenger mile or other unit of work product?
Or is this a sibling rivalry version of fairness, that if highways get 40 billion, trains deserve 40 billion, end of any further discussion?
No - I am going to say government money is a red herring. Government sees fit to spend money on the services that it believes it's populace needs. Fighting for those funds is a free for all - always has been and always will be and each mode will advance the arguments they believe will get them the funds at the expense of all the other competing modes.
John WRWell Don, If you are going to attribute to me the whole cost of Amtrak for one year might I attribute to you the $50 billion that was appropriated from the general fund for costs of the interstate highway system over 3 years?
Okay. You have the numerator (once you back out fuel tax collected for fuel burned on those roads) of cost/benefit. How about the denominator? (I'd try passenger miles...)
John WR Paul MilenkovicAre you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train? Yes I am, Paul. Quite serious. John
Paul MilenkovicAre you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train?
Yes I am, Paul. Quite serious.
But you have been paid to ride a train, paid not in cash but in the on-train amenities that make a train more pleasant than an intercity bus ride, expensive amenities of low seating density, baggage, lounge and on-train food service, not to mention sleeping cars if you had patronized them, amenities that draw ridership, amenities that are supported by the high rate of subsidy.
You were paid to ride a train as much as the Cash for Clunkers program paid people to trade in a car, or people purchasing qualifying hybrid or all-electric cars are being paid to make those purchases. The train ride, the Clunkers and hybrid vehicles, all beneficial social purposes, but they involve transfers of money to induce persons to use certain modes of transportation.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Well, at least this is a discussion about Amtrak so no one can say it is not about trains. But I hope we may find a way to discuss Amtrak without personalizing it.
oltmanndNo, not directly. But, the $1B or so a year isn't coming out of thin air. I take that back..."quantitative easing" is getting money out of thin air...for a while, anyway.
Well Don, If you are going to attribute to me the whole cost of Amtrak for one year might I attribute to you the $50 billion that was appropriated from the general fund for costs of the interstate highway system over 4 years?
(I understand total government spending for Amtrak in 2011 was $1.4 billion. You are giving me more credit than I deserve.)
Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming. What if given the population patterns in the U.S., that dollar-for-dollar that the tax subsidy for electric or hybrid electric cars is multiple more cost effective in preparing for the coming oil shock than trains?
ontheBNSF On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming.
On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming.
What if given the population patterns in the U.S., that dollar-for-dollar that the tax subsidy for electric or hybrid electric cars is multiple more cost effective in preparing for the coming oil shock than trains?
But electric cars and hybrids are only reliable for shorter distances. Automobiles requires tar bade roads. HSR makes sense for replacing air travel in many parts of the US mostly shorter flights and some long distance ones like Chicago to NY or Chicago to New Orleans. Electrifying railroads as well as building HSR makes sense for several reasons because you can use them for the purpose of an electrical grid (the current one which is woefully out of date and crumbling) and freight trains can transport the energy needed to power our electricity. The lifestyle created by the auto which is referred to as suburbia is incredibly wasteful and resources intensive. Oil is one problem suburbia is a bigger one. Trains provide more transportation per KWH than do autos or trucks.
oltmannd ontheBNSFAmtraks problems are the result of old technology and sharing track with other railroads a fundamentally flawed paradigm. There are reasons it is flawed....just saying it is flawed isn't a reason by itself. Some of the reasons it is flawed can fixed, at least partially. The main flaws I point out are flaws of sharing tracks with freight which leads to poor service and old equipment. So your are right those can be fixed. ontheBNSF Saying because Amtrak is money looser thus HSR will be a money looser is like saying a creek isn't efficient at moving barges thus a canal wouldn't work. But the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned. They are running efficiently they greatly have reduced their costs and funding has been reduced as well. How do you expect Amtrak to cover they cover 85%? The faa gets about 20-40% from general fund appropriations and highways with all funds allocated towards them only cover 65% of their own costs. ontheBNSFMost HSR routes do cover their operating costs. Some do cover capital costs as well such as Asian or European trains. The covering capital costs thing is a bit tenuous.....You can't really tell about any of the Chinese projects. The French and Germans put the ROW and operations in different companies and the operators pay "rent" but the infrastructure companies lose money, so who can tell? But, if Amtrak were "fixed", it might be easier to get HSR capital from the Feds. But Amtrak has significantly reduced its costs. IT covers 85% of its own costs. In the case of the separate like I said operating costs aren't issue. The subsidies are for the building of the system not the running. The subsidized services lower speed local services which do have money diverted from HSR to help pay for them. Some TGV lines have indeed exceeded capital costs as well as the some JR lines
ontheBNSFAmtraks problems are the result of old technology and sharing track with other railroads a fundamentally flawed paradigm.
There are reasons it is flawed....just saying it is flawed isn't a reason by itself. Some of the reasons it is flawed can fixed, at least partially.
The main flaws I point out are flaws of sharing tracks with freight which leads to poor service and old equipment. So your are right those can be fixed.
ontheBNSF Saying because Amtrak is money looser thus HSR will be a money looser is like saying a creek isn't efficient at moving barges thus a canal wouldn't work.
But the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned.
They are running efficiently they greatly have reduced their costs and funding has been reduced as well. How do you expect Amtrak to cover they cover 85%? The faa gets about 20-40% from general fund appropriations and highways with all funds allocated towards them only cover 65% of their own costs.
ontheBNSFMost HSR routes do cover their operating costs. Some do cover capital costs as well such as Asian or European trains.
The covering capital costs thing is a bit tenuous.....You can't really tell about any of the Chinese projects. The French and Germans put the ROW and operations in different companies and the operators pay "rent" but the infrastructure companies lose money, so who can tell? But, if Amtrak were "fixed", it might be easier to get HSR capital from the Feds.
John WR Paul Milenkovic If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains. Paul, The single most popular train in the country is the Acela. It earns a profit. And I have to add that I have been riding trains for many years but no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train. John
Paul Milenkovic If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains.
If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains.
Paul,
The single most popular train in the country is the Acela. It earns a profit. And I have to add that I have been riding trains for many years but no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train.
Are you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train?
You, me, and everyone else on this forum know that people riding trains are not receiving direct cash payments, vouchers or rebates. But we all know that Amtrak is subsidized at a rate that amounts from 10's to 100's of dollars per train ride depending on the route.
I also think that everyone on this forum is in agreement that in the absence of the Amtrak subsidy that the fare would have to be at least double to recover the costs, which would result in a "death spiral" of fewer people riding the train, a need for higher fares yet, fewer passengers, until there was no train left? Leaving aside the "yes, but every other mode is getting subsidy" line of reasoning, is everyone here in agreement that if we had left passenger railroading in the hands of the host railroads pre-Amtrak, that we would have no more intercity trains, say, apart from extended commuter runs subsidized by state or regional agencies or tourist trains?
So John, you had made an assertion that the people in 1970 said that "passenger trains are finished" and that Amtrak has proven them wrong. I posted my claim that you were wrong and that the people who predicted the end of passenger trains in the U.S. were indeed right because the only thing Amtrak proved is that with a billion plus in constant-dollar subsidy, trains have stayed about the same and increased with the pace of population growth.
But in a way, giving people cash to ride trains or giving the cash to Amtrak to reduce the fares to the point that people will ride the trains is a distinction without a difference. So saying "no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train" is either being naive or is being coy. Or in some other frame of mind that someone has to explain to me.
The government does indeed pay people to purchase automobiles. The "Cash for Clunkers" program payed cash grants towards the purchase of fuel-efficient car models, both to stimulate the economy and to promote fuel efficiency. There are multi-thousand-dollar tax credits payed to persons buying certain types of electric or hybrid-electric cars on the belief that in the absence of those subsidies, electric cars would be too expensive and an electric car industry will never get off the ground.
The thing is, by the way, that the Cash for Clunkers was a one-time stimulus in time of economic emergency; the electric car tax credit gets phased out as a particular car model reaches a mandated sales level. Was/is the Amtrak subsidy ever considered as a way of getting trains going and then over time it would be phased out?
With respect to the Acela, the Acela is able to cover its above-the-contact-patch costs and then some, which is quite an achievement (for Amtrak). It is one train that runs in a narrow geographical area of the country where most experts would argue is the one place in America where passenger trains make sense, owing to population density, congestion on competing modes, and a feeder infrastructure of rail and bus mass transit, an intensity of which is not found anywhere else in the U.S.
Owing to large capital expenditures on track upgrades and electrification, it achieves travel times that compete with the alternative modes, a service feature that is generally not achieved elsewhere on the Amtrak network. Owing to the level of service -- frequency and speed of trains, the market supports something like 2-4 times the per mile coach fare of anywhere else on Amtrak. Furthermore, it is a day train with "rapid turns", which greatly reduces the crew costs, and there is no crew dorm, no lounge car, baggage car, full sit-down dining car, and yes, no labor and capital-intensive sleeping cars.
And that the Acela charges the fares that it does to exceed direct operating cost break-even also suggests to me that trains are for whatever technical reason a high cost method of supplying passenger miles and that they only make economic sense in certain narrow markets, with conditions that will take considerable time and considerable capital expenditure, not only on the train but on the feeder infrastructure, to reproduce elsewhere.
It all comes down to choosing between two basic approaches:
One, calls for a thorough re-examination of where passenger rail service makes sense from several criteria and working toward that goal.
Two, continuing to patch up the rail network of Amtrak (outside the NEC and several other developing or connecting corridors). This amounts to maintaining a second-rate system using outmoded technology (low speeds, sleepers and baggage cars) to provide a a dozen "Nostalgia Expresses" that dilute current resources and discredit the brand.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.