ACYAmtrak can NEVER be as profitable as a UPS train that doesn't need to cook food, or to provide snacks or liquor, or to provide a dry place to sleep, or warmth in the winter, or A/C in the summer, or toilets, or the human contact that is unique to the passenger train experience. But should that mean rail passengers are always going to be at the very bottom of the pecking order?
The profit I am refering to is not Amtrak's - it is the host carriers. If Amtrak makes it more profitable for the host carrier to operate Amtrak On Time than other host carrier traffic, then Amtrak get's priority.
When you pay bargin basement prices to host carriers, you get bargin basement priority.
The on board ammenties to passenger is Amtrak's work product - not the host carriers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PNWRMNM ACYAmtrak can NEVER be as profitable as a UPS train that doesn't need to cook food, or to provide snacks or liquor, or to provide a dry place to sleep, or warmth in the winter, or A/C in the summer, or toilets, or the human contact that is unique to the passenger train experience. But should that mean rail passengers are always going to be at the very bottom of the pecking order? ACY ATK gets a basically free ride on the freight carriers due to the way the statute is written. If ATK made the same contribution per train mile as the typical freight trainm then ATK would be a valued customer to the carriers instead of a pain in the posterior. Think of it this way, how much respect do you have for the armed robber who just stuck you up? Mac
ACY
ATK gets a basically free ride on the freight carriers due to the way the statute is written. If ATK made the same contribution per train mile as the typical freight trainm then ATK would be a valued customer to the carriers instead of a pain in the posterior.
Think of it this way, how much respect do you have for the armed robber who just stuck you up?
Mac
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Outside of a few corridors, the vast majority of Americans do not ride Amtrak. In order for improved rail passenger service to become a priority, that vast majority would have to show an interest which they clearly do not have at present. I do not see anything on the horizon that is going to change this fact. That being the case, it will get little attention from either party in Washington.
John Timm
aricat Outside the NEC,Amtrak trains operate on trackage owned by someone else. They own the tracks, the signals and do the dispatching. They serve their own best interests first and have done so since day one of Amtrak. What can induce the railroads to provide priority to passenger trains over their profitable freights. I really don't the answer and sometimes I feel nobody does either. The railroads are in business to make money; not let operators like Amtrak clog their rails with passenger trains unless they receive enough financial inducements to do so. Any operator, Amtrak, Commuter entities or anyone else is at the mercy of the one who owns the track.
Outside the NEC,Amtrak trains operate on trackage owned by someone else. They own the tracks, the signals and do the dispatching. They serve their own best interests first and have done so since day one of Amtrak. What can induce the railroads to provide priority to passenger trains over their profitable freights. I really don't the answer and sometimes I feel nobody does either. The railroads are in business to make money; not let operators like Amtrak clog their rails with passenger trains unless they receive enough financial inducements to do so. Any operator, Amtrak, Commuter entities or anyone else is at the mercy of the one who owns the track.
When Amtrak makes their On Time operation profitable enough for the freight carriers to give more priority to Amtrak than the carriers own trains, Amtrak will get the priority. Priority does not come as cheaply as Amtrak is currently paying.
I don't care who operates the trains; the focus or course has to be who owns the tracks.One of the failures of privatization in Britain was the creation of Railtrack, a private enterprise motivated solely by profit, that took over the maintenance of the right of way and signaling among others and immediately had the traveling public up in arms about the cost for the public to travel on the new private operators trains. The British Government re-nationalized the track and infrastructure from Railtrack and left the operation of the trains in the hands of private operators through franchising. What the British did won't work in America, or will it?
Thank you, Paul.
And, it is possible to disagree without being discourteous. It is discourteous for a person who disagrees with someone else to call the one with whom he disagrees a demeaning name. In the short time (about seven years) that I have been enjoying participation in the forums I have appreciated the courtesy that is generally shown to other participators. May practice continue.
Johnny
dakotafred Contractors would need too much money. Let taxpayers continue their modest subsidy of decent rail service as it is. The subsidy is a drop in the bucket compared to the public money spent on competing forms of passenger transportation, let alone on "entitlements."
Contractors would need too much money. Let taxpayers continue their modest subsidy of decent rail service as it is. The subsidy is a drop in the bucket compared to the public money spent on competing forms of passenger transportation, let alone on "entitlements."
OK, let's "deconstruct" politics. The contractors "would need too much money", that is, that we would end up spending more (public) money if we subcontracted Amtrak is an opinion, a person's "two cents", a point that we can at least reason and discuss.
"The subsidy is a drop in the bucket" is a widely held, mainstream opinion among participants, but it is blatently political. Drop in the bucket, says who and compared to what, and then we waltz off the political cliff. The discretionary Federal budget is made up of many small items, many drops in the bucket, each the most important drop in the eyes of the beneficiaries.
Then, the subsidy is deemed small in relation to "public money spent on competing forms of passenger transportation." We have been over this point before, that the subsidy to Amtrak is small, but the work product is also small, and hence the total expenditure on Amtrak is small but the expenditure per unit of work product (passenger mile) is rather visible and rather large, and then we get into arguments about not-visible subsidy to other modes along with difficult-to-put-a-dollar figure benefits of trains and "how dare you put a dollar figure" benefits of trains, and the discussion also slides off the political cliff.
Finally, the comparison is made to "entitlements" (in "scare quotes" -- don't know if the person is critical of the non-discretionary portion of the Federal budget or supports it and uses scare quotes because perhaps "entitlements" is a politically loaded word used by the Libertarian/right).
Entitlements are things like Social Security and Medicare. To suggest that maybe seniors are getting too much of their lifetime payroll tax payments (and yes, the pay-it-forward contribution from the current generation of wage earners) back in the form of medical expense reimbursement and a cash pension instead of in the form of passenger trains is as political as you can get.
Do I get to use exclamation points, and how many? I can understand that trains are so important and everything else the government spends much more money on is so wasteful that it is at least arguable (and had been fashionable, say, a few years ago) to compare expenditures on trains to the U.S. expenditures in treasure on foreign expeditionary wars.
But we are benchmarking the worthiness of trains against -- entitlement benefits to seniors? I once offered that comparison as a reductio-ad-absurdum to people who were beating on the comparison to Defense, but are we here taking such an argument seriously? That passenger trains are a higher priority than seniors? I guess people take such an argument seriously, people are so wedded to trains that no one around here regards such an argument as blatantly political let alone bats an eye?
Political is in the eye of the beholder, including that of our esteemed hosts at Kalmbach. I am old enough to remember Trains Editor David P Morgan who was quite thoroughly political in a way that would be unpopular here on this forum, not to mention his "Professional Iconoclast" Mr. Kneiling. The current Trains is quite political in a way different from Mr. Morgan's politics, but I guess that is free enterprise because Trains is not a non-profit think tank, it is a business that needs to make its expensesl plus a small return for its owners. The current Trains doesn't seem political because it is well aligned with its readership as opposed to David P Morgan who was vigorously swimming upstream.
The strength of this place is the strength of the David P Morgan Trains magazine. Morgan saw "trains going away that there will be none left for enthusiasts to enjoy", and his opinion soapbox was meant to nudge the industry in a direction so it would stay around. The Staggers Act pretty much saved a freight railroad industry whereas the NPRC Act kinda saved passenger service in the form of Amtrak but Amtrak is constantly and continually in peril. I want to see all points of view represented so there will remain a passenger network for us to be enthusiasts about.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm PNWRMNMYou also see many obviously political comments on other threads. Once is in while the statist/government/we know better than thee crowd screams politics when someone puts forth the opposite view. Come off it!! I would point out that several frequent posters [you, greyhounds, to name just two] regularly interject their anti-regulation views, some on almost every post, without any complaints from those of us who do not agree.
PNWRMNMYou also see many obviously political comments on other threads. Once is in while the statist/government/we know better than thee crowd screams politics when someone puts forth the opposite view.
Come off it!! I would point out that several frequent posters [you, greyhounds, to name just two] regularly interject their anti-regulation views, some on almost every post, without any complaints from those of us who do not agree.
If a person disagrees with an anti-regulation viewpoint, a person can disagree and list reasons why regulation is effective in the context of a particular discussion, that is, instead of making blanket remarks about "talk radio" in one instance" or "right-wing think tanks and anti-train people" in others. If a person objects to outsourcing functions of Amtrak, say that one disagrees on the basis of supporting unions -- in the context of Amtrak or whatever the discussion -- rather than accusing everyone who wants to consider, to even consider any other incentive structure than the status quo as engaged in "sly . . . union busting."
Yes, supporting Amtrak and by extension supporting passenger trains is expressing a certain political viewpoint, that viewpoint may be regarded as middle-of-the-road, mainstream, reasonable, obvious, and so on. But Amtrak cannot function without government subsidy, and many reason that passenger trains with their long list of arguable and sometimes unquantifiable benefits cannot function without government support.
Given that a pro-regulation pro-subsidy view is pretty much the default political orientation among persons supporting passenger trains, I once had the temerity to suggest, not to support, but to suggest that maybe participants who indeed have anti-regulation views to be given "some space" to say what they have to say without yelling "politics! politics!" For my troubles, I was branded a troublemaker and ordered to leave this place and express my views on "right-wing/Libertarian Web sites."
What happens is that, dunno, an industry insider who indeed supports passenger trains along with the regulations and subsidies needed to make them happen, such a person offers suggestions about how Amtrak could be more effective with certain changes, or perhaps offers comparisons between the staffing of Beech Grove and a major railroad central shop. The mere breath of such suggests brings cries of "anti-labor" and "union busting", which is blatantly political by any objective criterion, especially in the way those accusations are made. This in turn brings some of the more Libertarian-leaning Forum followers who usually just read the proceedings off the sidelines, and of course, we can't have any of such remarks because they are anti-government, anti-train, and anti-common sense.
V.PayneThen management and the unions have a joint interest in increasing efficiency as they will only get more compensation if they generate more revenue at less costs.
The freight railroaders on here in positions in management high enough to know seem to indicate that there are fewer lines available now than 45 years ago, the routes are near-capacity and they really see passenger trains as a burden. I don't see how your reimbursement scheme would alter that picture, creative as it is, and certainly not with 6 or more faster passenger trains added to the mix.
Keep the unions, but tie Amtrak's subsidy to a per passenger mile value (that is less than the interstates cost after fuel taxes are applied). The value would be different depending upon ownership of infrastructure.
There is plenty of financial upside potential on the conventional network in running trains with at least a capacity of 400-500 passengers and in actually having a network, say out of Atlanta, Cincinnati, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Memphis with departures three times a day in multiple directions.
Then management and the unions have a joint interest in increasing efficiency as they will only get more compensation if they generate more revenue at less costs.
Kalmbach's written policy, if implemented to the letter, would preclude virtually any discussion of ATK, since as you correctly point out the entire subject is political.
You also see many obviously political comments on other threads. Once is in while the statist/government/we know better than thee crowd screams politics when someone puts forth the opposite view.
The good news is that the moderators tread very lightly on political speach here. It would be nice to see Kalbmach revise their policy to reflect reality but I see no hope of that happening.
Paul Milenkovic By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority? Once, just once, could people who advocate for passenger trains admit that maybe the advocacy community has an unrealistic expectation of the on-time service that could be provided for an occasional service on a heavily used network, that making the trains run on time would require a large amount of money to provide the traffic capacity for thinly used trains, and it is all not the "railroads fault"?
By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority?
Once, just once, could people who advocate for passenger trains admit that maybe the advocacy community has an unrealistic expectation of the on-time service that could be provided for an occasional service on a heavily used network, that making the trains run on time would require a large amount of money to provide the traffic capacity for thinly used trains, and it is all not the "railroads fault"?
Agree. Running once-a-day long distance trains on congested freight lines is not providing passenger rail service. Running on time or running multiple (5-10 or more each way) trains is simply neither compatible with the host railroad's priorities nor the priorities of a rational, focused Amtrak. For those reasons, ending the fiction of LD passenger service by Amtrak in favor of competitive corridor services on dedicated RoWs, is, I believe, what "advocates" [whoever they are] should make the goal. Private cruise rail lines can operate nostalgia trains on schedules that fit with traffic flow on LD routes for the extremely limited market that might patronize them.
Two things. 1) I don't believe my remarks are politcal as I am not taking sides but rather reporting history as it has happened. and 2) it doesn't make any difference if I did simply because you cannot talk government outsourcing without being political.
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.
Paul Milenkovic henry6 Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported. You are expressing an arguable point of view from the standpoint of politics -- the relationship between government and business and unions, the arguable but not universally agreed-upon benefits of unions, a political interpretation of actions Ronald Reagan took (with respect to an illegal strike by a public-employee union). Explain to me why these remarks are not overtly political and hence not appropriate for this forum? Those of you who object to anyone's political remarks around here, tell me how these remarks are not political?
henry6 Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported.
Ronald Reagan threw the air traffic controllers out of their towers, their jobs, and broke the unions. Government and business took that as their cue to do the same. Most attempts at privatizing are of the same action and attitude. There are those who feel that business and services are the purview of private enterprise without understanding the roles of government and business or they do it just to rid the country of unions based on old concepts of unionism. Today's unions work to save the employer money, shapen work rules and regulations, and increase individual productivity in order to save both jobs and the business. No doubt there are pockets of 19th and 20th Century unionisms, but for the most part they are more likely to have moved beyond that. Damning and condemning unions based on the past is wrong and unenlightened political thinking (except as being used as a tool to bend minds and spin concepts). Privatizing a service or job groups may not be as efficient nor as economical as purported.
You are expressing an arguable point of view from the standpoint of politics -- the relationship between government and business and unions, the arguable but not universally agreed-upon benefits of unions, a political interpretation of actions Ronald Reagan took (with respect to an illegal strike by a public-employee union).
Explain to me why these remarks are not overtly political and hence not appropriate for this forum? Those of you who object to anyone's political remarks around here, tell me how these remarks are not political?
One concept of railroad operation that many people cannot comprehend is that line segments can be FULL in the traffic they are handling - both single track and multiple track line segments.
Every train occupys space. Space that only it can occupy. In movement, a 9000 foot freight train and a 800 foot passenger train operationally have the same space requirement, until such time as trains 'close up' under restricted speed at Stop signals or in occupied sidings. To move at track speed in signaled territory trains require a minimum of two blocks between them for the following train to have a Clear signal (under some signal systems that may be three blocks).
With the changes to the signal systems required to implement PTC the carriers in many cases are respacing their Intermediate signals to allow proper braking distances for the freight trains that are being operated in today's railroad world, not the train sizes of 40-50 years ago when a lot of track and signal changes were made with the decrease in passenger train importance to the carriers. In many cases the space between Intermediate signals is being increased from 1.5 or 2 miles to 3 miles. So for a train to receive a Clear signal, the preceeding train must now be from 6 to 9 miles ahead of the train expecting the Clear signal. Longer, heavier, faster freight trains are the facts of todays railroads and will be the reality of tomorrows.
ACYThanks, Henry & others. The other thread re. Amtrak cuts is covering much the same territory. If I, as a Union member, violate Company policy, or steal from the Company, or fail/refuse to do my job, or take undue advantage of the Company, then the Union can't protect me. The Union guarantees me two major things: 1. The right & opportunity to redress grievances; 2. Reasonable wages and benefits. If I give away free wine or newspapers to passengers, it is because the Company, through my Supervisors, has provided that wine and has told me to do so. I get very tired of front-line employees being blamed for the decisions of Management. In this case, it's not just Management, but the freight railroads that can't keep trains on time, and Congress with their naïve and ignorant expectations, and contractors who provide a second-rate product that we are expected to use to provide first-rate service. If we let down our guard and let the public see our discouragement or weariness, then we end up taking the heat. That's reality.
I am not blaming hard working "line employees", union or otherwise for anything.
But am I to understand that the position of passenger train advocacy is "just give me (Amtrak) money", that if Congress just wrote a big enough check, everything would be fine?
There are design trades in everything. By running once-a-day long-distance trains on congested freight networks that are an important part of the overall economy in delivering that freight whereas passenger trains are carrying a tenth a a percent of total U.S. passenger miles, that it is all the fault of Congress for not allocating enough subsidy money? Of the freight railroads for not putting their trains in sidings to give Amtrak priority?
oltmannd Is Amtrak management trying to bring us the most and best passenger rail service at the least cost or are they just trying to protect their own fiefdoms? How do we get them to more of the former and less of the latter? Generally, the way this has worked best in out economy it to bring free market forces (not always the same as a free market) to bear. This does not have to happen outside of government, although it seems much harder to make happen inside government.
Is Amtrak management trying to bring us the most and best passenger rail service at the least cost or are they just trying to protect their own fiefdoms? How do we get them to more of the former and less of the latter?
Generally, the way this has worked best in out economy it to bring free market forces (not always the same as a free market) to bear. This does not have to happen outside of government, although it seems much harder to make happen inside government.
Which is why I sought to introduce a totally different approach, to step away from ideology and the usual unproductive conflictual discussions, especially pro or anti government or unions. The non-profit model may be inapplicable or not, but might be worth consideration.
I also want to agree with what ACY said and draw the obvious conclusion. We are not going to have any sort of decent passenger rail transportation service system in the US as long as we are dependent on private freight railroads as hosts outside the NEC and a few other places. The objectives are incompatible.
Paul of Covington I have to control myself to keep this brief. Nothing is absolute. I am tired of hearing that the government is always bad, and private business is always good. I have deleted the rest of my comments to avoid getting too political.
I have to control myself to keep this brief. Nothing is absolute. I am tired of hearing that the government is always bad, and private business is always good. I have deleted the rest of my comments to avoid getting too political.
In the end, it has nothing to do with government or private business or union or non-union. It has everything to do with setting the game up such that you are rewarding the behavior you want.
It has nothing to do with how hard working or conscientious Amtrak employees are. It has everything to do with the work they are assigned and the opportunity for improved productivity.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
henry6 CSSHEGEWISCH I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best. Yes...that is the point of many privatization attempts, to break the unions. Sly, aren't they.
CSSHEGEWISCH I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
Yes...that is the point of many privatization attempts, to break the unions. Sly, aren't they.
There's a large area between "no union" and "existing contract" and, yes, it's very likely Amtrak's labor contract are loaded up with all sorts of things that defend the status quo - because that's job protection for management as well as labor.
But, because something may be hard or time consuming to do doesn't mean "give up". It's worth noting that there has been great change on the freight roads in the past three decades - two man crews, RCO, etc. - and they are still union shops. It took de-reg for market forces to hit operations full force and create change. Why not at Amtrak, too?
desertdog schlimm henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained. Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me. I'm with you on this one, Schlimm. John Timm
schlimm henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained. Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
I'm with you on this one, Schlimm.
I think he's talking about bidding out the service. The winner is the one with the lowest negative bid. From Amtrak's point of view it would be "How much do I have to pay you to operate sleepers and food service?"
The winner would keep the flat subsidy plus any revenue the service generates. It would give the operator incentive to maximize revenue AND minimize costs - like a real business. It would also minimized the subsidy to operate the service. It's a way of baking in some strong market forces into an operation that only feels them weakly now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.