One of the more darkly amusing lines in an Amtrak report, in many regards, was in the equipment plan where they went on about concerns that someone could buy up ex-Amtrak equipment and use it to set up a competing service. I'd like to know where this concern is coming from for a couple of reasons:
1) Any "other" service, with few exceptions, would likely take losses off of Amtrak's books. With only a few exceptions (the Lynchburger, the NEC services, etc.), very few Amtrak trains even come close to making money after state subsidies. Before subsidies, many lines are big losers...and the exceptions tend to be the lesser losers.
2) Any services covering lines that Amtrak does not would likely provide interchange business. An example here would be if a private operator fired up a train that ran Madison-Milwaukee, Scott Walker be damned. Such a train, even extended to Chicago, would likely not poach that much business from Amtrak's Hiawathas (though it might screw the Thruway connection)...but it would provide passengers going Madison-Chicago-[insert destination here]. Even more stark would be any LAX-Las Vegas train: Amtrak would get added Surfliner, etc. business from interchanging passengers. And of course, "tourist" trains would either be their own sort of thing operating somewhere "off the system" or likely provide interchange business a la the Grand Canyon RR.
3) Most services along Amtrak-served lines would likely be "tack-on" services as opposed to pure competition (i.e. an operator offering a "luxury" train from NYP/WAS-ORL or Fort Lauderdale would likely want to hitch their cars onto Amtrak's trains rather than work out their own slots with CSX). In cases like this, Amtrak could probably negotiate favorably for those slots, ensuring that they get a batch of extra revenue without having to pay much at all for the costs of that (mostly just fuel).
Basically, the 20-odd failures to operate more than a tourist train suggests that this concern is somewhat paranoid; and that in a lot of cases, even a successful operator wouldn't be "competing" in many regards and might well help Amtrak's bottom line.
1) Any "other" service, with few exceptions, would likely take losses off of Amtrak's books. With only a few exceptions (the Lynchburger, the NEC services, etc.), very few Amtrak trains even come close to making money after state subsidies. Before subsidies, many lines are big losers...and the exceptions tend to be the lesser losers.
2) Any services covering lines that Amtrak does not would likely provide interchange business. An example here would be if a private operator fired up a train that ran Madison-Milwaukee, Scott Walker be damned. Such a train, even extended to Chicago, would likely not poach that much business from Amtrak's Hiawathas (though it might screw the Thruway connection)...but it would provide passengers going Madison-Chicago-[insert destination here]. Even more stark would be any LAX-Las Vegas train: Amtrak would get added Surfliner, etc. business from interchanging passengers. And of course, "tourist" trains would either be their own sort of thing operating somewhere "off the system" or likely provide interchange business a la the Grand Canyon RR.
3) Most services along Amtrak-served lines would likely be "tack-on" services as opposed to pure competition (i.e. an operator offering a "luxury" train from NYP/WAS-ORL or Fort Lauderdale would likely want to hitch their cars onto Amtrak's trains rather than work out their own slots with CSX). In cases like this, Amtrak could probably negotiate favorably for those slots, ensuring that they get a batch of extra revenue without having to pay much at all for the costs of that (mostly just fuel).
Basically, the 20-odd failures to operate more than a tourist train suggests that this concern is somewhat paranoid; and that in a lot of cases, even a successful operator wouldn't be "competing" in many regards and might well help Amtrak's bottom line.