CMStPnP The best description above was Amtrak was created as a private company with Congress as the majority stockholder. Private companies in receivership are allowed government subsidies under our Constitution as well as politically appointed board members and that basically is what we have with Amtrak. Amtrak was created in a state of recievership with Congress as the appointed Trustee.......another way of looking at it. The NIXON administration did not want to "Nationalize" the rail passenger system at the time and that is why Amtrak is not a government agency and that participation in Amtrak by private railroads was voluntary and not forced. Idealogically, nationalization carries the tag Socialism along with it which was unpalitable to a Republican administration. Further, Amtraks creation was viewed as both sides as only temporary. The Republicans at the time viewed Amtrak as a company would fall apart in a few years anyway and didn't give it much thought beyond it being a placebo for the public at the time so that the Administration was not seen as standing by while the entire rail passenger system just collapsed into chaos. For the Northeast at least the NEC collapse would have led to a rather nasty recession for the Northeastern states. Democrats saw Amtrak as a stopgap until the company could figure out some kind of reorganization plan to put it's finances in order and once again stand on it's own feet. Thats how I remember the history.
The best description above was Amtrak was created as a private company with Congress as the majority stockholder. Private companies in receivership are allowed government subsidies under our Constitution as well as politically appointed board members and that basically is what we have with Amtrak. Amtrak was created in a state of recievership with Congress as the appointed Trustee.......another way of looking at it. The NIXON administration did not want to "Nationalize" the rail passenger system at the time and that is why Amtrak is not a government agency and that participation in Amtrak by private railroads was voluntary and not forced. Idealogically, nationalization carries the tag Socialism along with it which was unpalitable to a Republican administration.
Further, Amtraks creation was viewed as both sides as only temporary. The Republicans at the time viewed Amtrak as a company would fall apart in a few years anyway and didn't give it much thought beyond it being a placebo for the public at the time so that the Administration was not seen as standing by while the entire rail passenger system just collapsed into chaos. For the Northeast at least the NEC collapse would have led to a rather nasty recession for the Northeastern states. Democrats saw Amtrak as a stopgap until the company could figure out some kind of reorganization plan to put it's finances in order and once again stand on it's own feet. Thats how I remember the history.
That's pure speculation. I would agree that there would not have been the expansion, the Lake Shore, the Montrealer, the Hartland Flyer, the Sunset to Florida, the Desert Wind, the Pioneer, and others, The contraction that occured when Carter was President would have come earlier. But a national system would have remined. But that is also pure speculation, and your speculation may be right.
MidlandMike 7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted. Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2 Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even.
7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation.
Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation.
"In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..."
[my caps]
("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".)
and
"Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..."
Quoted from:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf
Ed
PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2
Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even.
You asked a question. I answered it.
7j43k MidlandMike 7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted. Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2 Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even. You asked a question. I answered it. Ed
No need to get short with Mike. I don't agree with him but his post is worthwhile and factual, as was yours.
And we have the factualy mutually exclusive aspects of Amtrak's heritage.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdo No need to get short with Mike. I don't agree with him but his post is worthwhile and factual, as was yours.
Short?
He asked a question as if it were inconceivable that there could be an answer that he didn't want:
"Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtak's creation."
I gave him the answer.
His next response was to ignore the answer and to find evidence that made it seem irrelevant.
It may well be. But that doesn't mean that the answer to his question was in such error as to be ignored.
7j43k MidlandMike Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use. Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
MidlandMike
Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use.
Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
I was not specific enough in my follow-up question to this exchange. My context was how Amtrak operates now (and coincidencly, the last 40 years or so.) Originally Amtrak's function was to operate a national passenger system, and its form was as a for-profit corperation. But there was obviously mission creep after a short time, as evidenced by the fact that it has required constant subsidy. So far Congress has considered its function was more important than its form.
Also I did not ingore or deny your answer, I simply pointed out how conditions had changed.
Neither of you intended hostility, so you both can let this matter rest. Yes and yes for both matters of information.
Well, regardless of what it's intent WAS, NOW it ain't workin.
And, it's NEVER going to get better the way it's organized now.
The only Federal "government agency" trying to OPERATE a customer service transportation business. Passenger trains running at 1920's speeds, with 1950's service model, serving (roughly) 2% of the incorporated areas of country, with Congress as the board of directors.
Yup, sounds like a REAL winnin' combination there...
Victrola1Wall Street Journal "Published on Jul 16, 2019 SUBSCRIBE 1.5M Amtrak’s proposals for altering or eliminating some of its long-distance train routes, in favor of more frequent service where the population is growing, is facing opposition among those who fear rural America would suffer. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
The first link that reads: "Wall Street Journal" takes me to Youtube. Which is a tad misleading.... is this place turning into 4chan?
For those who use it, it is working, far better than nothing, but not what it should be. I compare it to the local city transportation during the era after they ripped up the streetcar tracks and had not even thought about light rail and/or new subways.
You could use the buses, and people who remembered the better service the streetcars gave, which they did in many cities, were called old-fashioned. But the buses were a lot better than nothing.
It's nice what you can do with a train AFTER you've already got the basics covered.
https://www.jrailpass.com/blog/luxury-trains-japan
https://www.jrailpass.com/blog/seven-stars-kyushu-luxury-train
From one of the websites:
Even before the advent of the shinkansen bullet train in 1964, luxury trains, often called “blue sleeper trains,” were a common sight across Japan. These trains were designed, not only as an efficient mode of transportation but as an experience in themselves. Getting there truly was half the fun.
In recent years, however, the use of luxury trains has largely given way to the rapid travel offered by the shinkansen. The last of the “blue trains” ceased operation in 2015. While some have called this “the end of an era,” luxury seekers are not to be disappointed by Japan’s all-new line up of first-class rail accommodations. Beginning in spring 2017, JR East and JR West launched two “cruise trains” for your traveling enjoyment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/twilight-express-mizukaze-japan-luxury-train/
(AND, narrow-gauge, no less!)
daveklepperFor those who use it, it is working, far better than nothing, but not what it should be.
How very true.
Also: The elderly & the disabled are not "sick." I strongly object to the disparagement in John Privara's use of the term. The elderly & the disabled, to invoke a phrase from the movie "Boy's Town" and a song by the Hollies, ain't heavy; they're our brothers and sisters.
I'm now getting into the ederly catagory and the last thing I want is to be stuck on a train for 1+ or 3 days each way while visiting my children & grandchildren in Fl and TX. Especially since I spend about 6 hours total traveling from my house to their nearest airport at a fraction of the price of a sleeper and a little less (sometimes considerably less) than coach fare.
I believe the best thing to ever happen to us LD traveling old folks is the SWA senior Want-to-Get-Away fares (still includes 2 free checked bags per person). I've been a RR fan for over 70 years but I also appreciate progress, convenience, and saving money.
you can f1y some can't
daveklepper you can f1y some can't Additionally, after we arrived in Inverness we were able to see the Caledonian Sleeper, an overnight rail service between a number of points in Scotland and London (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian Sleeper). It was attached to a diesel locomotive lettered for the Deutsche Bahn--why the DB, I don't know.
I spoke to my older friend (Princeton, class of '64) again. He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains.
charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains.
East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged?
Wow, Amtraks Capitol Limited is among one of the fastest and most efficiently run Amtrak LD trains I have ever been on, last rode it about 2-3 years ago, Chicago to DC. Much better than the Texas Eagle. I would love to have a Texas Eagle run to the standards of the Capital Limited. My Aunt rode it and liked it as well. It was ontime when we rode it. When I worked in Detroit I would drive to Toledo to take the Capitol Limited into Chicago and Change trains to Milwaukee. It was up to an hour and 20 in faster than the regular Detroit to Chicago trains due to delays and all the stops the Chicago to Detroit trains made..........which covered the time it took to drive to Toledo from Dearborn. Plus back then the Capitol had a dome car and you could board at 5 a.m. in Toledo, and watch the sun rise. Be in Chicago at 8 or 8:30. It really hauled azz on Conrail track back in the 1990's.
BaltACD charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains. East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged?
West of Pittsburgh to Chicago and no more challenged than you.
Years ago (1986?) I rode the Amtrak Broadway from NYC to Chicago. Same deal: rough, slow, multiple times sided, and six hours late to Chicago.
CMStPnP Wow, Amtraks Capitol Limited is among one of the fastest and most efficiently run Amtrak LD trains I have ever been on, last rode it about 2-3 years ago, Chicago to DC. Much better than the Texas Eagle.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains. East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged? West of Pittsburgh to Chicago and no more challenged than you. Years ago (1986?) I rode the Amtrak Broadway from NYC to Chicago. Same deal: rough, slow, multiple times sided, and six hours late to Chicago.
NS is doing their best to discourage Amtrak where the operate over NS. If you racall - a year or so ago NS was in virtual gridlock everywhere between Buffalo and Chicago - all from NS applying the wrong operating plan. While Amtraks may have gotten delayed 6 to 8 hours - NS freights were getting delayed one to two or more DAYS. NS has improved to some degree, how much is open to question.
Green. Red. Black.
Regarding Nos. 29 & 30, each morning about 6, just before I open my newspapers, I check my emails and look at my app asm.transitdocs.com to see how the Lake Shore Limited is doing, as well as the Capitol.
I have no numbers, only impressions from years of looking, that the Capitol Limited is not only never in Cleveland on time, it is often shown in red (up to 2 hrs. late) and not infrequently in black (over 3 hrs. late). It is almost never shown in green, in either direction.
(Even as I write, #30 is 4 hrs. 9 min. late at Rockville, Maryland. It left Chicago only 8 min. late, but lost an hour between South Bend and Elkhart, another hour before Sandusky, and a third hour between Connellsville and Martinsburg)
daveklepper The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues. Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues.
Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
And why can't busses serve this purpose? They're cheaper, much more flexible (compared to trains , which only operate over fixed routes), and much more efficient than trains.
MidlandMike charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me. LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?
charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?
Citing passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
NKP guy (Even as I write, #30 is 4 hrs. 9 min. late at Rockville, Maryland. It left Chicago only 8 min. late, but lost an hour between South Bend and Elkhart, another hour before Sandusky, and a third hour between Connellsville and Martinsburg)
MikeInPlano MidlandMike charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me. LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them? Citing passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
Passenger-miles is the measure of the actual work done by a passenger train, anything else is derivative. And you think carrying a lot of passengers 30 miles is cheap? Commuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
MidlandMikeCommuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
Public commuter lines structure their fares voluntarily to maximize ridership vs cost recovery. A very large part of this reason is local commuter agencies get breaks on EPA environmental pollution requirements to the larger cities that sponsor them. If they have a mass transit system in place that carries a lot of riders. Not really sure how that all works and someone with an Urban Planning degree might be able to explain it better.
Amtrak does the same with it's LD fares or used to (hard to tell so far if those days are behind us or not). Corridor fares depends on the Corridor what Amtrak does. Chicago to Milwaukee fares for example are fixed and do not use yield management. They have only started to recently charge an extra $1-2 in fare for rush hour trains.......which is not a lot on a $50+ RT rail fare. When Amtrak took over the LD train system in the 1970's one if it's goals was to make the train more affordable to the masses and you see that reflected in the accomodations, fare structure, lack of amenities on board, onboard menu choices, lack of real First Class Accomodations, etc. What private railroad do you know of back in the 40's and 50's would only have a hamburger, a pasta selection and maybe baked chicken as the only menu options in the dining car?
You'll also notice that Public Commuter lines do almost nothing to enhance revenue, one class of service on one type of car is pretty much all you get these days. Long gone are the extra fare cars and in some cases bar cars (which were a holdover from the private railways running things earlier in the 1900's).
MikeInPlanoCiting passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
That may be the case but the revenue capture opportunity of a single passenger captive on a train for 3000 miles is probably substantially higher than the group of 100 traveling a mere 30 miles. Just because you do not see Amtrak taking advantage of it doesn't mean it is not out there.
I think if you check the basic rail fare between the two groups is correspondingly cheaper as well for the shorter route because the fixed costs are lower.
Last your previous statement that buses can suppliment trains and be cheaper is based on density of passengers on the route. Had this discussion with family in Milwaukee concerning the Milwaukee trolley (The Hop). Apparently someone up there is stoking opposition to the trolley saying buses are cheaper. Actually again depends on the riders. Buses have issues in that they have a much shorter life cycle than a trolley car #1. #2 Your limited to how many passengers a bus driver can haul with one vehicle due to size and road limits. #3 fuel economy with just a moderate load of passengers the bus loses as well. Last but not least, been shown again and again that some rail passengers will refuse to ride a bus no matter if it is the only alternative. The figure is fairly decent though I do not remember what it is but I think it is at least 30% of rail passengers will not ride a bus and will seek either an automobile or an earlier termination of their trip vs riding on a connecting bus.
One more comment on how Amtrak runs long distance trains. The most cost recovery you see on a lounge car is what? Someone in the lower level selling $1 candy bars and $5 hamburgers and I can tell you at the prices Amtrak sells items in it's LD snack cars the margins are pretty slim given the salary and benefits of the person standing behind the counter. No hawking of souveniers or not much anyway, no bartender, no scheduled events in which would increase cafe sales. No it is pretty much bare bones. Someone has to pay to haul that lounge car as it consumes fuel and comes at the cost of possibly an additional coach or sleeper. Same deal with the Dinning Car. Hooking the labor intensive Dining car on a long distance train when the most expensive item on the menu was a $25 steak......if you ask me thats a total joke and now it is restricted to only sleeping car passengers? Ouch. It sounds like the crew on the LD dining car has been reduced from seven to 3-4, which I guess is an improvement but they should improve the food offerings as well as train and incent employees to upsell. Not saying the dining car will ever be profitable but Amtraks efforts to reduce the loss has been no-brainer items they should have done years ago. You probably will never see Amtrak consolidate or close most of the commissaries which has to be another financial hemmorage point.
MidlandMike Commuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.