Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSFAmtrak is technically a private corporation I wonder could it be sued for antitrust? It is a monopoly and should be treated as such. The government would probably rule in favor of Amtrak but I think it is an interesting idea.
Railroads are not covered by antitrust laws. They are regulated by the STB instead. The STB is the functional remnant of the old ICC.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Who is the offended railroad who wants to run passenger service but is being squeezed out by Amtrak?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Any entity can be sued by anyone for any thing at any time. Most lawyers like to have a client and a case. I can imagine neither.
Mac McCulloch
I don't believe Amtrak can be sued for anti trust. First, it was formed by the Federal Government with the consent and aid of private railroads who had the option of not joining but carrying on their own passenger service instead (Southern and Rio Grande both opted for their own services). Second, the Amtrak law has been amended to allow other inter city services to exist but, I think, with the aid or under the auspices or permission of Amtrak and or state agencies (several exist today including Maine Eastern services, Lake George to North Creek, NY for example). Third, as has been pointed out, freight railroads really don't want passenger timetables interfering with their unscheduled freight nor do they want the cost of operating and insuring, And fourth, there are fewer rail lines between markets so that a competing route may not exist; i.e. Amtrak doesn't have any real competition in the passenger train market. Fifth, competition is automobile, bus and airplanes which are also provided for by government funded rights of way and traffic control (i.e., same owner). The concept of Amtrak being sued for anti trust or monopolistic practices is at least not practical.
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.
Do you know of any railroad or other corporation that wants to run service in competition with Amtrak and cannot now do so?
I don't believe so. All new passenger services are on lines and routes without Amtrak services and not necessarily on Class I or II common carrier railroad companies. And for the most part, since there are fewer rail line routes between same cities, there aren't competitive routes either. So, in effect, it is a moot question. However, Amtrak can work with any group, private or public, for new routes and services..
All Aboard Florida and those two Las Vegas casino trains seem to be moving forward as private ventures and I don't see them complaining about Amtrak trying to protect a monopoly on intercity passenger rail service. The recently failed Atlantic City Express was a private venture that contracted with NJTransit without Amtrak putting up a fuss about it. I guess if Amtrak is a monopoly, then commuter rail authorities must be considered regional monopolies that prevent private corporations from starting their own commuter passenger lines.
Yes, the NJT Casino trains were the result of the Casinos' contracting with NJT...And why not? It was NJT equipment riding solely on NJT authorized rail routes. Besides, Amtrak had already given up their rights to the traffic by pulling out of Atlantic City. Amtrak knows that it cannot furnish all the services and routes that may want a train because they don't have the crews or the equipment. So, they will work with or allow private and public agencies to operate trains and services but usually where there would be no conflict with current Amtrak operations. So, no could say they wanted to run a passenger train on the Corridor, for instance, between NYP and Washington, DC. And it is doubtful CSX would accept the traffic as their lines are full.
My experance with CSX in trying to start a new passenger route was that it has to go to Amtrak first and then Amtrak has to reject the proposal. The Class ones who are part of Amtrak can not run there own service in compitition from Amtrak. Otherwise railroads could cherry pick routes like service to florida that make money and take away revenue from Amtrak..The Auto Train as one example did make a profit as a independent corp for a while untill it started its Chicago-Florida route.
Yes,,,Amtrak has the right of first refusal on any route of those railroads who participated in its creation. But I don't think there is any "cherry picking" of routes anymore. What there are, however, are opportunities in some and between some markets and special services.
The Amtrak reauthorization of 1996 removed the monopoly status of Amtrak. Anyone may negotiate with any railroad to operate a passenger train over their route. If your bag-o-money is large enough the railroad will allow it. When the representative of one of the Las Vegas ventures was speaking to a group of us I leaned over to the UP rep sitting next to me an said "looks like you're getting a passenger train." He said, "No, we're getting a customer." This is a business, we do this to make money.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.Carleton The Amtrak reauthorization of 1996 removed the monopoly status of Amtrak. Anyone may negotiate with any railroad to operate a passenger train over their route. If your bag-o-money is large enough the railroad will allow it. When the representative of one of the Las Vegas ventures was speaking to a group of us I leaned over to the UP rep sitting next to me an said "looks like you're getting a passenger train." He said, "No, we're getting a customer." This is a business, we do this to make money.
This is a revelation...that a railroader looked at a passenger train as a potential customer instead of a pain in the operating butt. However, it should be noted that the railroad in this case will only provide the right of way and crew and not the equipment nor marketing.
henry6 D.Carleton The Amtrak reauthorization of 1996 removed the monopoly status of Amtrak. Anyone may negotiate with any railroad to operate a passenger train over their route. If your bag-o-money is large enough the railroad will allow it. When the representative of one of the Las Vegas ventures was speaking to a group of us I leaned over to the UP rep sitting next to me an said "looks like you're getting a passenger train." He said, "No, we're getting a customer." This is a business, we do this to make money. This is a revelation...that a railroader looked at a passenger train as a potential customer instead of a pain in the operating butt. However, it should be noted that the railroad in this case will only provide the right of way and crew and not the equipment nor marketing.
It comes as no surprise to learn that the Union Pacific is in business to make money and they are willing to rent track usage to a passenger carrier.
If the passenger train service mentioned by the UP representative is the Las Vegas "X-Train" then read this story
OCRegister X-Train
I hope Michael Barron succeeds.
I want amtrak broken up similar to How standard oil was broken up. Standard oil has 60% market share Amtrak has nearly 100%. Standard oil was formed voluntarily as well. The idea came to me when I realize much of what the government does is corporatized.
right now the class 1s are anti trust exempt.. I wonder if AMTRAK can be included as well ??
ontheBNSF I want amtrak broken up similar to How standard oil was broken up. Standard oil has 60% market share Amtrak has nearly 100%. Standard oil was formed voluntarily as well. The idea came to me when I realize much of what the government does is corporatized.
What would a breakup of Amtrak accomplish? Amtrak may have virtually all of the intercity rail passenger market but I don't see a lot of potential competitors beating down the doors to get into that market, which is really quite small.
CSSHEGEWISCH ontheBNSF I want amtrak broken up similar to How standard oil was broken up. Standard oil has 60% market share Amtrak has nearly 100%. Standard oil was formed voluntarily as well. The idea came to me when I realize much of what the government does is corporatized. What would a breakup of Amtrak accomplish? Amtrak may have virtually all of the intercity rail passenger market but I don't see a lot of potential competitors beating down the doors to get into that market, which is really quite small.
Lest we forget - Standard Oil was a monopoly formed by a private citizen through the use of predatory business practices to put competing businesses out of business.
Amtrak - was formed as a near monopoly (certain carriers opted out) formed by the government to relieve carriers of the financial burden of continuing passenger service and was expected to vaporize at the sunset of it's enabling legislation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I disagree labeling Standard Oil and J.D. Rockefeller with monopolizing the oil industry. J.D. purchased many companies when the were producing an inferior product (not white, burned dirty and smokey, not safe or healthy) of kerosene but left other "quality" producers alone. In the process he would hire the entire staffs of the purchased company and fold them into his companies. He was not afraid of competition as long as the competition was as good as his. He got into problems when shaving wood barrels to 3/8 of an inch to save tare weight when shipping and later going to thin steel barrels for both better tare weight and less space or larger barrel content; thus wood barrel makers made all kinds of claims against him. J.D. was shrewd, smart, practical with his money and prosperous: all attributes which attract criticism and attacks in our society.
BaltACDAmtrak - was formed as a near monopoly (certain carriers opted out) formed by the government to relieve carriers of the financial burden of continuing passenger service and was expected to vaporize at the sunset of it's enabling legislation.
Balt,
I hate to be disagreeable, especially with a guy as thoughtful has you are. But here I have to add my own thoughts. I just cannot believe that anyone in Congress or the Executive branches of our national government would make a law creating an agency without realizing that they are also creating a whole host of people who have a vested interest in that agency continuing and will bitterly oppose any effort to shut it down. Amtrak was proposed to the Congress by President Nixon. Whatever Nixon was he was not stupid and he was not naïve. Certainly our law makers had to realize that Amtrak would fight in every way possible to survive and continue and they had to realize that when they created it.
John
henry6I disagree labeling Standard Oil and J.D. Rockefeller with monopolizing the oil industry.
You have a very interesting perspective here, Henry. I never thought of you as a historical revisionist. When I was in college my history professor (who I do not particularly admire) did believe John D. was one of the prime examples of a monopolist.
John WR BaltACDAmtrak - was formed as a near monopoly (certain carriers opted out) formed by the government to relieve carriers of the financial burden of continuing passenger service and was expected to vaporize at the sunset of it's enabling legislation. Balt, I hate to be disagreeable, especially with a guy as thoughtful has you are. But here I have to add my own thoughts. I just cannot believe that anyone in Congress or the Executive branches of our national government would make a law creating an agency without realizing that they are also creating a whole host of people who have a vested interest in that agency continuing and will bitterly oppose any effort to shut it down. Amtrak was proposed to the Congress by President Nixon. Whatever Nixon was he was not stupid and he was not naïve. Certainly our law makers had to realize that Amtrak would fight in every way possible to survive and continue and they had to realize that when they created it. John
That is not my revisionist thinking...but one I read in a biography about 15 years ago. It was the daughter of a cooper who started the anti Rockefeller movement when he abandoned her father's barrels in favor of steel. He was not lily white by any means...but he was shrewd and knew how to spend or not spend in order to make money. He believed his product, kerosene, was a good product but would lose not only market share but also credibility if poor quality was marketed for less money...his nickle for the good stuff vs. 3 cents for poor quality. If the products were so bad everyone, he feared, would stop buying all products because of the danger of explosion or flaming up and putting a dirty smoke into a room. One day he had to borrow a nickle from a coworker and paid it back the very next day...His coworker was surprised and said so but J.D. explained the value of that nickle was the interest earnings on a dollar for a year. (How much is in your savings account today? How much does it earn you in a year?) He was a Scotsman and knew the value of everything plus the value of the return. Not only was the tare weight important to the cost of shipping 50 gallons of crude or kerosene, but also in the ability to keep the price at a nickle a quart despite other factors Yes, there were things he didn't want to know about as well as things he didn't know about which caused him problems or dictated the way he dealt with them. But his business acumen cannot be denied nor dismissed.
henry6But his business acumen cannot be denied nor dismissed.
No doubt John D. Rockerfeller worked hard and worked smart. But so did all of the robber barons. They were focused and strongly goal directed and worked and worked until the job was done. Many of them had been poor boys with little or no education and very little behind them. Some years ago I read Maury Klein's biography of Jay Gould, a man who was widely hated in his own lifetime. He, too, worked compulsively to make his money.
But history has not judged Rockerfeller or Gould or many who made fortunes after the Civil War kindly.
We assume greed was the driving force for the Robber Barons. But there also is a good argument that either with or without greed as a driving force they were traveling in areas no businesses, industry or government had ever been before...it was ll new and no one really understood (nor probably cared) what they were doing or how they were going to do it. They saw opportunities and ways to build railroads or factories so they went ahead and did it not knowing or understanding fully the consequences of their actions. One railroad to one town was perceived a monopoly, two or more, cutthroat competition or collusion. Steel, railroads, banks, and anything new that came along had the same growing pains. Money was power. J.P. Morgan wielded more power than Trust Buster Teddy Roosevelt. But even Teddy couldn't fight J.P. when the banker told him that the steel industry and the country were about to fall if one Ohio steel company failed and that the President would not condemn or shut down the division of the company to various other companies under anti trust laws or of his own Presidential Powers. In the long run I believe the Robber Barons did more good for our country, its industry and economy, than what we learned in school. These guys were not the same as today's investors and bankers in that they built businesses and industry and thus towns and cities and products for our country and others to consume. Today their ilk have taken manufacturing off shore, closed factories and made ghost towns of industrial cities. Railroads today are put together and operated solely for the purpose of moving products for the benefit of manufacturers and exporters rather than for the benefit of our consumers.
D.CarletonYou have to put yourself into the context of the age.
Having lived through the 60's and 70's it is really hard for me to think of that time as an "age." But if it was I think it must have been the age of the Vietnam war. That is what everyone I knew was talking about and had on their minds. And the guys were almost all afraid of the war. I lucked out. I enlisted in the Army as it began to heat up but was never sent to Vietnam. But that was rare.
Flying cars? That isn't my experience but perhaps we traveled in different circles. However, accepting your experience (which is certainly as valid as mine is), why then did Nixon and the Congress create Railpax in the first place? Why not just subsidize Conrail and the private roads to continue the passenger service they had and make it easier for them to abandon service that was too costly? There was no reason to create a whole new Federal agency unless you believed it was important to preserve passenger rail.
The railroads wanted out of the passenger business but knew it was not a popular thing to do...so they talked the Nixon Administration into taking the passenger trains off their hands. The railroads would "sell" the equipment to the government which in turn would "operate" the services with scheduling, crewing the train for handling passengers, maintain the equipment, do the advertising and the marketing, and pay the railroads to allow the trains to run on their tracks. It was expected to fail because the freight railroads and politicians believed and wanted us to believe that people either wanted to drive their own cars or fly on jet planes to wherever they wanted or needed to go. Railpax would die a quiet death and nobody would be the wiser. The problem was, of course, that the people were the wiser and them damned passengers kept buyint tikets to ride trains. Subsidizing was out of the question because that would mean the railroads were still in the passenger business and they didn't want to be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.