henry6They 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.
When it comes to Jay Gould he knew early on what he wanted: To make money. He might have gone to college but did not do that to pursue his goal. He started working as a book keeper for a blacksmith and worked for free to learn book keeping. He moved to the leather industry where he was quite successful and either loved or hated. Then he moved to New York City, became a day trader and opened his own brokerage. Next he bought the Rutland Railroad to learn the business, sold it and came back to his brokerage, Gould and Belden. John Eldridge want to build the Boston Hartford and Erie; Gould became his underwriter and got a seat on the Board of Directors. Then in 1867 he parleyed that to a seat on the New York and Erie Board where Daniel Drew was Treasurer and Jim Fisk was another Director . He listened and learned. When Henry Workman, who represented Cornelius Vanderbilt, suggested a pool with the New York Central Gould and Fisk balked; they wanted to operate the railroad and compete. Vanderbilt was outraged when the Erie charged only $100 a carload to ship live cattle undercutting the NYC's price of $125 a carload. Ultimately the NYC reduced the tariff to $1 a carload. Gould and Fisk went to Chicago and brought up all of the live cattle they could and shipped then to New York City. On the New York Central. They made a bundle and began the Erie wars.
The Erie wars were one ting that caused Gould to have his reputation of robber baron. And yes, he did some things that we would see as underhanded. Bribing legislators, for example. He learned from Vanderbilt and Cornelius Vanderbilt was not exactly a paragon of virtue. Gould also is accused of trying to corner the gold market. He did invest in gold and drove the price up but could not have done so without the active cooperation of President Ulysses Grant. Charles Francis Adams thought Grant so corrupt he coined a new word: Grantism. And Gould was very secretive. Ultimately British investors drove him out of the Erie and he went on the Western railroads but it was with the Erie and the gold corner that he got his reputation as satanic. When he died he was the second richest man in the country.
You, Henry, suggest these men where human beings who were acting according to the rules of their age. You would have left my history teachers sputtering at your misunderstanding of what bad men they were. But I am inclined to think you are right.
John
henry6 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.
I agree with you Henry up to the point where, after creating Railpax, you believe the Congress and President expected to to "die a quiet death." D. Carlton, who after all writes a lot about railroads agrees with you and I suspect just about everyone else who posts here agrees with you. Except for me. I just can't bring myself to believe that anyone would create a whole new Federal agency in the belief that it is going to suddenly wither away and die. So there I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
henry6 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.
A couple of railroads held on to the passenger business but most turned it over to the Feds. But why would they have been reluctant to accept a subsidy for a business there believed was dying out anyway? Except, perhaps, because they really did not believe that and were really not in good faith?
John WR henry6 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. I agree with you Henry up to the point where, after creating Railpax, you believe the Congress and President expected to to "die a quiet death." D. Carlton, who after all writes a lot about railroads agrees with you and I suspect just about everyone else who posts here agrees with you. Except for me. I just can't bring myself to believe that anyone would create a whole new Federal agency in the belief that it is going to suddenly wither away and die. So there I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
I would like to interject a little of our history here. When one reads the industry periodicals of the mid-to-late 1960s there is a continuous call/desire on the part of the railroads for some sort of government welfare for the railroad industry. It was believed they were due some sort of relief due to the overt subsidizing of their competition. Then came Penn Central Black Sunday of June 21, 1970 and the government's hand was forced to do something; a corporation too big to fail had done just that. The original Railpax legislation had been kicking around since January of that year and now was kicked into high gear. Amtrak was at first a public/private partnership and the railroads went along. When the whole thing went belly-up the railroads could shrug their shoulders, smile and say, "well, we tried."
Then came 1973 and the realization that passenger trains were not going to be nice and just go away. But the big bomb came in 1976 with ConRail. The railroads wanted a handout but instead they were mortified when they saw all the major Northeast railroads stripped of their property at less than desirable financial compensation. At this point the railroads realized their salvation was not going to come from Washington and looked to right their own ship. The Rock Island was allowed to expire and its pieces picked over by the survivors. The Milwaukee Road was sold to the Soo. Needless to say they lost all interest in Amtrak at this point. ConRail followed the plan but continued to bleed red ink at the expense of the tax payer. It was because of ConRail that Washington finally got around to partial deregualtion of the industry in 1980.
To add insult to injury the Northeast Corridor was ceded to Amtrak. At this point the total culture at Amtrak began to change. Instead of being a partner with the railroads they became an independent entity with a bureaucracy that ebbs and flows with the political tides. Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Amtrak is like the Federal Reserve it is private but the people who run it are from the government.
Railroad to Freedom
D.Carleton Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise.
Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise.
Amtrak's budget is practically a rounding error in the Federal budget. Its not just too small to matter it...doesn't even register.
D.Carlton: a good summary of the genesis of Amtrak, Conrail, and today's railroading picture.
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.
D.CarletonTo add insult to injury the Northeast Corridor was ceded to Amtrak. At this point [during the 1970's?} the total culture at Amtrak began to change. Instead of being a partner with the railroads they became an independent entity with a bureaucracy that ebbs and flows with the political tides. Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise.
D. Carlton,
You offer a fascinating historical note with insightful analysis of Amtrak's early years, an evolution that I suspect continues. Even after reading your post three times I cannot grasp all of your implications. You may be assured I'll carefully follow your future posts.
Of course when the tide is at its ebb that doesn't mean it has gone away and we now stand on dry land; rather it means the tide is turning and it will come back.
NittanyLion D.Carleton Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise. Amtrak's budget is practically a rounding error in the Federal budget. Its not just too small to matter it...doesn't even register.
But if you listen to the politicians when it comes to Amtrak - they would have you believe it is higher than the World's debt, let alone our National debt and will cause the end of the world as we know it if Amtrak gets $1 more.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDBut if you listen to the politicians when it comes to Amtrak - they would have you believe it is higher than the World's debt, let alone our National debt and will cause the end of the world as we know it if Amtrak gets $1 more.
Yes. But then there are other politicians who are more favorably disposed toward Amtrak.
John WR D.CarletonTo add insult to injury the Northeast Corridor was ceded to Amtrak. At this point [during the 1970's?} the total culture at Amtrak began to change. Instead of being a partner with the railroads they became an independent entity with a bureaucracy that ebbs and flows with the political tides. Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise. D. Carlton, You offer a fascinating historical note with insightful analysis of Amtrak's early years, an evolution that I suspect continues. Even after reading your post three times I cannot grasp all of your implications. You may be assured I'll carefully follow your future posts. Of course when the tide is at its ebb that doesn't mean it has gone away and we now stand on dry land; rather it means the tide is turning and it will come back. John
Yes the ebb and flow of politics is well documented. But there is also the shifting ethos of the nation to take into consideration. When NRPC was conceived the public thought we were within a decade of vacationing on the moon. It was a time of plenty and the answer to all questions was "more."
Today these are very different times.
The national paradigm has shifted almost 180 degrees. The common citizen no longer sees himself as rich or capable of attaining riches. The age of austerity is upon our collective psyche. Recently a mandated grouping of encompassing financial cuts befell the Federal Government. It received some press but now the national conversation is engrossed with marriage and guns (which in my neck of the woods is one in the same, but I digress...). Everyone feels they need to make cutbacks in their lives and this has been reflected in the highest halls of power.
This is where the irony of our transportation situation sets in. By 1971 the public had been leaving public transportation in droves for over two decades. Today the public is back and the demand is growing. But all of the largess spent to go to the moon and build the interstate highways is gone. People want trains to ride but there is no real money to make it happen.
Eventually the demand will reach the point where private monies see an opportunity for investment. This October the PRIIA section 209 conditions take effect and the private operators are circling like sharks. Within a few years our passenger rail system will look very different. How different and what order the dominoes will fall is still being sorted out... but it will be interesting.
BaltACD NittanyLion D.Carleton Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise. Amtrak's budget is practically a rounding error in the Federal budget. Its not just too small to matter it...doesn't even register. But if you listen to the politicians when it comes to Amtrak - they would have you believe it is higher than the World's debt, let alone our National debt and will cause the end of the world as we know it if Amtrak gets $1 more.
I'd wager that most don't care one way or another and I know that most don't say a word either way.
Its not that they hate Amtrak or anything. They're being smart. People have no concept of money beyond a few hundred thousand dollars. I mean, that's how much a house costs. A number like $300 million sounds like a giant mountain of money, because in day to day life that is a giant mountain of money. But in terms of a national government (that's not some mudhole third world country) that's literally a peanut.
Take that rover we just landed on Mars. It cost $2.65 billion, if you see what the news said. Well...it didn't. It costs $2.65b to research, design, build, operate, and staff. Over eight years. That's $330 million a year, averaged out (some years are more expensive than others). Seems like a huge pile of money. Except NASA's budget over that eight years exceeded $136 billion. Which also seems like a giant pile of money.
That's half a percent of the Federal budget (less, actually. Its more like 0.42%). The Federal government takes 47 minutes to expend $330 million.
But these numbers confuse people. And, honestly, when you live in that world where you work with them...you started to go the other way and think "$9 billion isn't that much." There's an awful lot of people that want spending reduced and I'm not going to argue one way or another there, or even deliver my opinion about that. Politicians are shrewd and crafty people. I wouldn't want some non-shrewd and crafty person anyhow. They'd just get taken by all the other politicians. They know that Regular Guy has no concept of huge sums of money. So he can stand there and say "I want to cut Amtrak by five percent over the next five years!" and guy back in...who knows, Wyoming or something goes "Yes, reduce the spending!"
Except Wyoming guy has no idea that that five percent is a mere $15 million and represents about two minutes of government spending. You could double the amount that Amtrak gets and it wouldn't even register. Hell, you could double what NASA gets (which is around 12 times the Amtrak budget) and still not have a significant impact on the debt and whatnot. But people don't get this because they're used to dealing with, at best, a couple thousand dollars at a time. No one, anywhere for any reason, seems to want to try to explain this to people. To cut the amount of money you'd need to cut to actually affect change to the debt issue, there'd be blood in the streets.
I'll end this with an example (because this thing got way out of hand on me here): let's say you make $45,000 a year, which I believe is the national average. You want to buy new car. Nothing expensive, something around $25,000. You have no savings, at all, so you're starting from scratch. Even for the down payment. Also you take the bus everywhere, so have no trade-in. You have no spare money. So you decide to cut back on spending to build up your money supplies. You reduce spending at the same percentage that cutting Amtrak would save the Federal government. This means you'd save $18 a year. In 111 years, you'd have the $2000 down for your new car. Is that even worth doing?
NittanyLionI'd wager that most don't care one way or another and I know that most don't say a word either way.
I agree. However, in the Republican Primary John Mica found himself up against Sandy Adams. She attacked him because he not only supported Florida's Sunrail program; he also had his picture taken with Barak Obama. He won the primary but he knew his politIcal wounds were still oozing and he needed to stop the bleeding. After all, 2 years (now less than 2 years) is not all that far off. He needs to restore his credibility with the tea partiers in his district. And Amtrack was handy.
There is a nice essay somewhere out in the ether (some of it here: http://www.trainweb.com/travel/stevelog/sg_tr_sw.htm ) that tells the story of how the sec. of DOT during the Nixon admin worked with Congress and pushed the Railpax bill through over the objections of most of the White House staff. It seems there were three sets of "common wisdom" at that time. 1. Don't do it. 2. It's just a pretext for failure 3. It can morph into something useful. (this one included the notion that Amtrak would further cut the LD network, develop corridors and come out covering operating costs)
Nobody expected what actually happened. Preservation of LD network. Little investment in corridors. Increasing levels of subsidy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Oh, good! Then you will surely support my plan!
(Point #6 should really appeal to you!)
oltmannd John WR henry6 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. I agree with you Henry up to the point where, after creating Railpax, you believe the Congress and President expected to to "die a quiet death." D. Carlton, who after all writes a lot about railroads agrees with you and I suspect just about everyone else who posts here agrees with you. Except for me. I just can't bring myself to believe that anyone would create a whole new Federal agency in the belief that it is going to suddenly wither away and die. So there I guess we just have to agree to disagree. There is a nice essay somewhere out in the ether (some of it here: http://www.trainweb.com/travel/stevelog/sg_tr_sw.htm ) that tells the story of how the sec. of DOT during the Nixon admin worked with Congress and pushed the Railpax bill through over the objections of most of the White House staff. It seems there were three sets of "common wisdom" at that time. 1. Don't do it. 2. It's just a pretext for failure 3. It can morph into something useful. (this one included the notion that Amtrak would further cut the LD network, develop corridors and come out covering operating costs) Nobody expected what actually happened. Preservation of LD network. Little investment in corridors. Increasing levels of subsidy.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd NittanyLion D.Carleton Simply put, today's Amtrak is too small to matter but just large enough to make some noise. Amtrak's budget is practically a rounding error in the Federal budget. Its not just too small to matter it...doesn't even register. Oh, good! Then you will surely support my plan! As you may be aware, many American cities have traffic issues. Atlanta is one of them. Some days, I drive to work on highly subsidized interstate highways. They are terribly congested when I go. I want to help fix the problem. Here's my solution. I'd like the Federal Gov't to collect an additional one cent tax (just a single penny!) from every income tax filer and pay it to me in exchange for a vow that I will never again use any highway during rush hour. I'll leave my car in the garage except during off-peak hours. Here are the benefits: reduced highway congestion Improved air quality Improved quality of life Reduced reliance on foreign oil Reduced need for fire/police/ambulance Reduced need for subsidized highway maintenance Selling points: The total cost is much much less than an Abrams main battle tank. I am a US citizen and deserving government benefits The per person tax burden is exceedingly tiny, compared to other things the government buys The government has many similar programs, like farmers being paid not to grow certain crops. I will use the money to create jobs. (only the "good" kind) The whole program would be less than the rounding error on many gov't programs (Point #6 should really appeal to you!) How could anybody possibly be against this! Lobby your congressman now! Meanwhile, I'm going to keep driving. It's up to you. Oh, and if you are not for this, I can only conclude you hate me!
What we do know is that Amtrak was created and it is still with us.
The essay is based on a biography of John Volpe by Kathleen Kilgore. Ms Kilgore has written a number of books. The ones that come up again and again are the Volpe biography, The Wolfman of Beacon Hill and The Ghost-Maker. The last two are novels for young readers.
It would be helpful to know her credentials for the Volpe biography.
D.CarletonWhy should the taxpayer be further encumbered for that which is already happening?
It's only a penny per taxpayer per year!
schlimmI think the only real disagreement is on the degree of intentionality: whether Amtrak was designed deliberately to fail or that it was assumed it would merely continue on with what appeared in 1970 to be an historical inevitability of ending passenger rail service within 5-10 years.
Apparently, that was true 40 years ago, too, among the main players, depending which one you asked.
NittanyLionI'll end this with an example (because this thing got way out of hand on me here): let's say you make $45,000 a year, which I believe is the national average. You want to buy new car. Nothing expensive, something around $25,000. You have no savings, at all, so you're starting from scratch. Even for the down payment. Also you take the bus everywhere, so have no trade-in. You have no spare money. So you decide to cut back on spending to build up your money supplies. You reduce spending at the same percentage that cutting Amtrak would save the Federal government. This means you'd save $18 a year. In 111 years, you'd have the $2000 down for your new car. Is that even worth doing?
We can look at this the other way around. Atlanta has about 5M people. 100,000 get on or off the Crescent each year. Assuming each is a one way trip, it would take 50 years for everyone for a train ride, assuming everyone only rode once. Cost per person = 18*50 = $900. Or, they could take the money and fly a round trip to Europe.
John WR What we do know is that Amtrak was created and it is still with us.
And is stuck somewhere between "lost cause" and "worthy cause", for a whole bunch of reasons, internal and external.
oltmanndAnd [Amtrak] is stuck somewhere between "lost cause" and "worthy cause", for a whole bunch of reasons, internal and external.
But so far Amtrak is still with us. Either the anti Amtrakers will prevail and we will loose our national passenger rail service or they will not prevail and we will keep it.
John WR oltmanndAnd [Amtrak] is stuck somewhere between "lost cause" and "worthy cause", for a whole bunch of reasons, internal and external. But so far Amtrak is still with us. Either the anti Amtrakers will prevail and we will loose our national passenger rail service or they will not prevail and we will keep it.
D.CarletonDoes Amtrak = all domestic passenger rail service? Are there really no alternatives? Amtrak would have all think so. But as we say down south "It ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so."
No, Amtrak is not the only provider of passenger rail service. There is extensive commuter rail service in the north east and other posters write about it in other parts of the country. But certainly there are large parts of Amtrak where there is no alternative rail service. For example, Amtrak service is suspended between Jacksonville, FL and New Orleans and there is no alternative rail service.
John WR D.CarletonDoes Amtrak = all domestic passenger rail service? Are there really no alternatives? Amtrak would have all think so. But as we say down south "It ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so." No, Amtrak is not the only provider of passenger rail service. There is extensive commuter rail service in the north east and other posters write about it in other parts of the country. But certainly there are large parts of Amtrak where there is no alternative rail service. For example, Amtrak service is suspended between Jacksonville, FL and New Orleans and there is no alternative rail service.
D.CarletonBut does Amtrak (and only Amtrak) have to operate all the services they operate? Passenger rail is a growth industry for the first time in almost seven decades. Does passenger rail have to be a ward of the state in perpetuity? Remember, it didn’t start off that way.
Yes, I remember when passenger rail was not operated by Amtrak. I remember it well. Those were the days when I would stand from Providence to New Haven. I do not want to return to those bad old days.
Of course passenger rail does not have to be a ward of the state. All that is needed is a private company willing to operate it. But I know of no such companies now or in the foreseeable future. Do you know of any? Never say never so I wouldn't rule it out. But I don't really expect it in my lifetime.
John WR D.CarletonBut does Amtrak (and only Amtrak) have to operate all the services they operate? Passenger rail is a growth industry for the first time in almost seven decades. Does passenger rail have to be a ward of the state in perpetuity? Remember, it didn’t start off that way. Yes, I remember when passenger rail was not operated by Amtrak. I remember it well. Those were the days when I would stand from Providence to New Haven. I do not want to return to those bad old days. Of course passenger rail does not have to be a ward of the state. All that is needed is a private company willing to operate it. But I know of no such companies now or in the foreseeable future. Do you know of any? Never say never so I wouldn't rule it out. But I don't really expect it in my lifetime.
D.Carleton John WR D.CarletonBut does Amtrak (and only Amtrak) have to operate all the services they operate? Passenger rail is a growth industry for the first time in almost seven decades. Does passenger rail have to be a ward of the state in perpetuity? Remember, it didn’t start off that way. Yes, I remember when passenger rail was not operated by Amtrak. I remember it well. Those were the days when I would stand from Providence to New Haven. I do not want to return to those bad old days. Of course passenger rail does not have to be a ward of the state. All that is needed is a private company willing to operate it. But I know of no such companies now or in the foreseeable future. Do you know of any? Never say never so I wouldn't rule it out. But I don't really expect it in my lifetime. A "private company"... or companies? (http://passengerrail.org/) Remember, PRIIA section 209 takes effect in October.
"Amtrak is a private corporation, not a federal agency and therefore does not have an Open Government Team."
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/547/386/ChiefFOIAOfficerReportRev.pdf
Seems pretty private to me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.