Metra buys railroad commuter service on bids put out to the Class Ones. Of course you would have to admit that Amtrak is a essentioal goverment service and as such cant make money. Congress thru USDOT would put out a contract and Class Ones and anyone else would bid on the Contract. If the line actualy make money then the company would get to keep it.
Amtrak is a Government-owned corporation and is for-profit.
They could put out a bid, but I don't see and Class-1 lining up to take it. Why would they? If there was money to be made hauling passengers, Amtrak would have never been formed.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I think a lot of people are watching the Hoosier State operation as a possible model for change.
Short distance is different. Looses economies of scale.
DragomanBut a lot has changed over the last 40+ years. They would get paid a subsidy to run the trains -- only be bidding to show the best combination of better service and lower subsidy. And if they could create a profit, it would be theirs. If anyone could possibly do so, it would be the current "host" railroads.
trackrat888 Metra buys railroad commuter service on bids put out to the Class Ones. Of course you would have to admit that Amtrak is a essentioal goverment service and as such cant make money. Congress thru USDOT would put out a contract and Class Ones and anyone else would bid on the Contract. If the line actualy make money then the company would get to keep it.
The missing part of your proposal of course is Metra usually provides and maintains the tracks and for new service.........eventually when frequencies rise enough makes an offer to buy the tracks. The Metra model has actually improved freight railroad infrastructure in and around Chicago. Further, their lease terms on equipment is probably attractive as well as I can think of no other reason why BNSF continues to hold ownership in commutter rail cars in Chicago.
So it goes well beyond just placing a bid out there.
zugmann Amtrak is a Government-owned corporation and is for-profit. They could put out a bid, but I don't see and Class-1 lining up to take it. Why would they? If there was money to be made hauling passengers, Amtrak would have never been formed.
If there wasn't money to be made in passenger train service how was the privately run and operated Auto-Train formed during the era of Amtrak? Was it that Wall Street was just stupid or duped?
CMStPnPIf there wasn't money to be made in passenger train service how was the privately run and operated Auto-Train formed during the era of Amtrak? Was it that Wall Street was just stupid or duped?
They got their equipment for a steal and ran the wheels off it. A big part of the reason they went belly-up was they weren't generating enough cash to fund equipment capital costs.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You could bid out service, or even parts of service by function.
Suppose you bid out the food service and sleeper service. You could fashion the deal so that the contractor gets a flat, or per person subsidy but gets to keep all the revenue. Company requiring the least subsidy wins the bid.
Profit motive should provide better service and lower overall cost.
Metra has purchase-of-service agreements with BNSF and UP for service on their lines. Metra specifies service and schedule and pays the carriers to provide that service. The contracts are carryovers from when the RTA first came into existence and moved from paying a subsidy to cover losses to such a contract.
The remainder of Metra's services are directly operated by Metra.
CMStPnP zugmann Amtrak is a Government-owned corporation and is for-profit. They could put out a bid, but I don't see and Class-1 lining up to take it. Why would they? If there was money to be made hauling passengers, Amtrak would have never been formed. If there wasn't money to be made in passenger train service how was the privately run and operated Auto-Train formed during the era of Amtrak? Was it that Wall Street was just stupid or duped?
zugmann
Amtrak is a Government-owned corporation and is for-profit. They could put out a bid, but I don't see and Class-1 lining up to take it. Why would they? If there was money to be made hauling passengers, Amtrak would have never been formed.
The original Auto-Train went bankrupt for multiple reasons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Dakguy201 I think a lot of people are watching the Hoosier State operation as a possible model for change.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Let's go ride it, then... oh wait...
Sure there may be some smaller/specialized corridors that can make money, but as a whole, there isn't much money to be made in hauling around the general public. doesn't mean I'm against passenger trains, on the contrary, I think we need more, but it should be provided as a service. I do not subscribe to the theory that something must be profitable to be successful.
And I've seen some of the major operating differences between passenger railraods and freight railroads. I do not think the two models are compatible anymore.
zugmannSure there may be some smaller/specialized corridors that can make money, but as a whole, there isn't much money to be made in hauling around the general public. doesn't mean I'm against passenger trains, on the contrary, I think we need more, but it should be provided as a service. I do not subscribe to the theory that something must be profitable to be successful. And I've seen some of the major operating differences between passenger railraods and freight railroads. I do not think the two models are compatible anymore.
+1
zugmann CMStPnP If there wasn't money to be made in passenger train service how was the privately run and operated Auto-Train formed during the era of Amtrak? Was it that Wall Street was just stupid or duped? Let's go ride it, then... oh wait... Sure there may be some smaller/specialized corridors that can make money, but as a whole, there isn't much money to be made in hauling around the general public. doesn't mean I'm against passenger trains, on the contrary, I think we need more, but it should be provided as a service. I do not subscribe to the theory that something must be profitable to be successful. And I've seen some of the major operating differences between passenger railraods and freight railroads. I do not think the two models are compatible anymore.
CMStPnP If there wasn't money to be made in passenger train service how was the privately run and operated Auto-Train formed during the era of Amtrak? Was it that Wall Street was just stupid or duped?
Agree!
We should always strive for "better" and there may be ways to do it without hanging the whole balance sheet on the operator.
dakotafred Dragoman But a lot has changed over the last 40+ years. They would get paid a subsidy to run the trains -- only be bidding to show the best combination of better service and lower subsidy. And if they could create a profit, it would be theirs. If anyone could possibly do so, it would be the current "host" railroads. I have to question this, Drago. I think the biggest thing that has changed over 45 years is that the Class Ones are now two generations removed from their history and institutional knowledge of running passenger trains. By now, I don't see them having a leg up on anybody else.
Dragoman But a lot has changed over the last 40+ years. They would get paid a subsidy to run the trains -- only be bidding to show the best combination of better service and lower subsidy. And if they could create a profit, it would be theirs. If anyone could possibly do so, it would be the current "host" railroads.
Fred --
I believe a few other things have changed as well:
1) US population -- nearly 50% (so even if only a small precentage of people want to travel by train, and that percentage has not changed, it is still a larger base).
2) Both highway and air travel have become increasingly uncomfortable and crowded, rather than the modern and "in" forms of transportation that they were 40-45 years ago, making reliable rail an increasingly more interesting alternative (again!).
3) Today there appears to be a greater appreciation to using rail for passenger transportation, and where frequent and reliable service has been made available, it has been successful. Witness the services in California, which now have frequencies exceeding anything before (even better than in the "Golden Age", whenever that was).
Yes, I know -- this is corridor service, a differrent animal. But I posit that of course there is limited patronage for Long Distance services which only run once a day (if that!), and then, half the time, in the middle of the night. If airlines ran schedules like that, hardly anyone would be flying either! But have every LD route run with two or three trains a day (assuring every stop has at least one convenient time), on reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment, you'd be increasing revenue and spreading fixed overhead costs over more passengers, maybe to the point of reduced total cost per passenger mile and, therefore, better cost recovery.
But, I must admit my crystal ball is cracked (some may think I am too, but that is another story!), so all of this is only a speculation.
Dragoman But have every LD route run with two or three trains a day (assuring every stop has at least one convenient time), on reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment, you'd be increasing revenue and spreading fixed overhead costs over more passengers, maybe to the point of reduced total cost per passenger mile and, therefore, better cost recovery.
Since most LD trains are running at far less than capacity now, two or three per day would show even lower occupancy rates. The operational expenses above the rails exceed revenue by ~20 cents per passenger mile.
Dragoman 1) US population -- nearly 50% (so even if only a small precentage of people want to travel by train, and that percentage has not changed, it is still a larger base). 2) Both highway and air travel have become increasingly uncomfortable and crowded, rather than the modern and "in" forms of transportation that they were 40-45 years ago, making reliable rail an increasingly more interesting alternative (again!). 3) Today there appears to be a greater appreciation to using rail for passenger transportation, and where frequent and reliable service has been made available, it has been successful. Witness the services in California, which now have frequencies exceeding anything before (even better than in the "Golden Age", whenever that was).
I agree with all these talking points in favor of a passenger-rail renaissance. (And would add to the list of successes the super-corridor-sized Eugene, Ore. to Seattle service.) It will no doubt be spotty, depending on local circumstances such as rail capacity as well as population density. I do believe its day is coming.
I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the country in which Interstate driving is, for the most part, a pleasure rather than a headache. As with other Americans, when I go, it's usually by car. For that ninth and 10th trip, it's by train or not at all, even though I have to drive 100 miles to board.
An exception last month, for a special family event -- my first flight since a funeral in 2001, just before 9-11 -- reminded me of the reason for the rule. Really: For sheer discomfort, for insult added to injury, for a glimpse into our collectivist future -- I give you the modern airline flight.
No more exceptions to the rule. (There's nobody left to die whose funeral isn't within driving distance.)
Super-corridor? Eugene-Seattle is the ideal size for a rail corridor: <300 miles, intermediate traffic centers, congested Interstate. That is why it is working. But it would be much better if the speed could be increased. Now it takes 6:40 to cover 283 miles, $55. One can fly, hassle-free from Mahlon in 1 hour, or take a bus for $29, 5:50.
schlimm Dragoman But have every LD route run with two or three trains a day (assuring every stop has at least one convenient time), on reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment, you'd be increasing revenue and spreading fixed overhead costs over more passengers, maybe to the point of reduced total cost per passenger mile and, therefore, better cost recovery. Since most LD trains are running at far less than capacity now, two or three per day would show even lower occupancy rates. The operational expenses above the rails exceed revenue by ~20 cents per passenger mile.
Schlimm, I believe that this linear analysis fails to take into account several points:
1) Capacity is a funny thing. As you well know, you can't just look at the overall occupancy rates. Many segments, at many times of the year, are booked 100%. Amtrak appears to have neither the equipment nor the inclination to adjust quickly and adroitly to demand (other than a few cars off during the winter, and maybe a few extra at Thanksgiving). But it could be done efficiently. And let's not talk about not being able to have equipment just hanging around awaiting higher demand. Iowa Pacific seems to have dozens of cars, awaiting the appropriate opportunities.
2) I did reference "reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment", which is not the perception held by many today. (Whether the perception is justified or not, is a different subject.)
3) My own experience and observation lead me to the conclusion that doubling or tripling service availability can more than double or triple ridership. With once a day (or thrice a week) schedules, maybe one way is convenient or otherwise workable, but the the other way isn't. Then I may just chuck it and fly or drive. With more options, more people will be able to choose rail. I know it sounds a lot like "build it and they will come", but that does sometimes seem to be the case.
Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many.
oltmann and others have repeatedly pointed out several problems with LD:
1. Poor equipment utilization.
2. Insufficient equipment.
3. Sleeper services drive up costs on LD.
Better to develop corridors.
schlimm oltmann and others have repeatedly pointed out several problems with LD: 1. Poor equipment utilization. 2. Insufficient equipment. Better to develop corridors. 3. Sleeper services drive up costs on LD.
Corridors are absolutely a great place to improve.
But aren't the problems you are reminding us of -- poor equipment utilization and insufficient equipment -- the sort of problems that might be solved if a qualified and dedicated 3rd party operator (including the host roads) bid on the route?
Dragoman schlimm oltmann and others have repeatedly pointed out several problems with LD: 1. Poor equipment utilization. 2. Insufficient equipment. Better to develop corridors. 3. Sleeper services drive up costs on LD. Corridors are absolutely a great place to improve. But aren't the problems you are reminding us of -- poor equipment utilization and insufficient equipment -- the sort of problems that might be solved if a qualified and dedicated 3rd party operator (including the host roads) bid on the route?
"Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many."
Yes, I can see it suprising many as there is nothing special about a 300 mile corridor that makes it perform better, particularly as the average trip length for the LD trains is a bit more than 500 miles when artificial limits are removed from the market's desires.
I would nominate the Crescent route, the entire way NYC to NOL for a second added flipped schedule service. Yes, the gain in passenger miles would be more than double, as two schedules open up more possible departure and return trips due to the differing times. The issue is the Congress does not want to expand service on a route and there seems to never have been a serious proposal by NRPC to do so in recent times (there was even a arguement that the Crescent shouldn't have been taken over in 1979).
Here is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient.
The longer route coach only trains perform better than the shorter route coach only trains and there is no evidence that sleepers drag the LD trains down. The only hatchet job report I am aware of assumed all food service, checked baggage, and a second locomotive was soley assigned to sleepers to show a marginal loss and even then admitted that sleepers should be kept on the same basis as coach at least.
I believe Congress has been shapped by the professional sillyness of the highway lobby (driven by truckers and their lobbyists) claiming the incremental fuel tax pays for the incremental use of high grade roads while all the time trying to figure reasons to explain away the desire of citizens for something better in ground transportation that might actually come sometime soon.
There seems to be significant frustrated demand. Perhaps the contract, that is needed for another operator, becomes the vehicle to disply the financial arguements about relative financial efficiency per passenger mile with expanded offerings.
V.PayneHere is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient.
Two 40+ year old surveys are only interesting as historical curiosities, not relevant today.
Sorry for the late comment here. Surprised at the lack of correction to the original post. METRA does not buy services from the 2 Class 1s based on a bid process. UP (and CNW before it) and BNSF/BN insisted on total control of their railroads. They were OK with hosting METRA services as long as they operated it. This is rather complete as station agents etc. are Class 1 employees.
Prior to METRA, RTA did put operation of the RI lines out to bid which CNW won. But subsequently METRA took over direct operation.
I wonder if CN would have insisted on a "Purchase of Service" agreement if they had been in control at the time for North Central and Heratige Corridor services were established/transferred.
The comment that METRA improvements have benefited the freight railroads ( with the quasi information provided, a surprise?) really only applies to the UP West line. Most other improvements either were on lines with little or no freight traffic or were CREATE funded (Englewood Flyover for example).
V.Payne "Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many." Yes, I can see it suprising many as there is nothing special about a 300 mile corridor that makes it perform better, particularly as the average trip length for the LD trains is a bit more than 500 miles when artificial limits are removed from the market's desires. I would nominate the Crescent route, the entire way NYC to NOL for a second added flipped schedule service. Yes, the gain in passenger miles would be more than double, as two schedules open up more possible departure and return trips due to the differing times. The issue is the Congress does not want to expand service on a route and there seems to never have been a serious proposal by NRPC to do so in recent times (there was even a arguement that the Crescent shouldn't have been taken over in 1979). Here is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient. The longer route coach only trains perform better than the shorter route coach only trains and there is no evidence that sleepers drag the LD trains down. The only hatchet job report I am aware of assumed all food service, checked baggage, and a second locomotive was soley assigned to sleepers to show a marginal loss and even then admitted that sleepers should be kept on the same basis as coach at least. I believe Congress has been shapped by the professional sillyness of the highway lobby (driven by truckers and their lobbyists) claiming the incremental fuel tax pays for the incremental use of high grade roads while all the time trying to figure reasons to explain away the desire of citizens for something better in ground transportation that might actually come sometime soon. There seems to be significant frustrated demand. Perhaps the contract, that is needed for another operator, becomes the vehicle to disply the financial arguements about relative financial efficiency per passenger mile with expanded offerings.
A day train between NY and Atlanta would probably dry up most of the shorts on the Crescent.
Buslist The comment that METRA improvements have benefited the freight railroads ( with the quasi information provided, a surprise?) really only applies to the UP West line. Most other improvements either were on lines with little or no freight traffic or were CREATE funded (Englewood Flyover for example).
As a dispatcher who works in the Chicago terminal, this is true. All Metra does is it shuts down the city for 6 hours a weekday. I have yet to see an improvement as a result of Metra, although I have seen Metra refuse to do anything to help get traffic moving through the city....
Of course knowing the poster who orginally posted that about Metra, he will probably claim he is a regular rider of Metra, which makes him more knowledgeable than an employee.....
An "expensive model collector"
Amtrak would still be Amtrak and take care of reservations and stations and have a national system map. The Class ones and twos would provide/lease equipment with some help from grants from the feds and the states and provide crews. The enigines would still say Amtrak operated by BNSF Amtrak operated under contract by Genesee and Wyoming ext ext.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.