Fate of rail passenger service in various countries

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TransitTyrant said:
Wouldn’t all these proposals for long distance trains fall under the FRA study and not the corridor ID?
Click to expand...
Currently there are only 2 Passenger Trains still running in Mexico, The Tequila Express from Guadalajara to Tequila,Jalisco and The Copper Canyon Train, both Tourist Trains.( Both Privately owned)

The President of Mexico has a plan to restart a Passenger Train in the Yucatan for Tourists, and also a High Speed Corridor Route between Mexico City and Queretero.
 
George Harris said:
To the best of my knowledge, ALL Mexican passenger trains are gone and have been for quite a few years. Please correct me if I am wrong, along with information about whatever they are running now.
Click to expand...
As Bob Dylan noted above all regular passenger trains except the tourist trains are gone. I believe this was one of the conditions of the privatization of NdeM that there would be no "Mextrak".

I do believe there is a suburban commuter line out of Mexico City also.
 
Whenever a country was driven by "American" transportation experts they tended to lose rail passenger service, and once they shed those shackles their rail passenger service tended to improve. Witness Pakistan as exhibit number one of this phenomenon. Maybe Mexico can get past its past "American" transportation experts. And for that matter it is only recently that the US Possibly has managed to be on the verge of recovering from its own "American" transportation experts. :)
 
jis said:
Whenever a country was driven by "American" transportation experts they tended to lose rail passenger service, and once they shed those shackles their rail passenger service tended to improve. Witness Pakistan as exhibit number one of this phenomenon. Maybe Mexico can get past its past "American" transportation experts. And for that matter it is only recently that the US Possibly has managed to be on the verge of recovering from its own "American" transportation experts. :)
Click to expand...
Although in the case of Mexico, from what I understand the passenger trains were pretty run down in the later years whereas you had intercity buses that were much more comfortable and reliable (based on what I have heard, not based on personal experience). Not sure whether this was by design due to following American transportation "experts" or just due to economics, the same lack of profitability of rail travel that killed it in the US.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Although in the case of Mexico, from what I understand the passenger trains were pretty run down in the later years whereas you had intercity buses that were much more comfortable and reliable (based on what I have heard, not based on personal experience). Not sure whether this was by design due to following American transportation "experts" or just due to economics, the same lack of profitability of rail travel that killed it in the US.
Click to expand...
The whole business about "profitability" is the great American transportation expertise. But that is a matter to be discussed in a different thread. But in general, what is profitable and what is not is not ordained by the almighty. It is determined by human being by their choice about what they choose to socialize and capitalize in what way. In other words one decides what one wants to appear to be profitable and what not, to quite an extent. Again, compare what happened in India vs. what happened in Pakistan regarding passenger rail to see how two systems starting from essentially the same point went in opposite directions.
 
Last edited:
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Although in the case of Mexico, from what I understand the passenger trains were pretty run down in the later years whereas you had intercity buses that were much more comfortable and reliable (based on what I have heard, not based on personal experience). Not sure whether this was by design due to following American transportation "experts" or just due to economics, the same lack of profitability of rail travel that killed it in the US.
Click to expand...
You are correct, Mexican Passenger Trains had become really rundown and were neglected by N de M, sort of what SP did in the run em off days!

Mexican " Delujo" Buses are some of the Best in the World, a far cry from the days of the 2nd Class and "Chicken Buses" back in the day!
 
When I was in Mexico City, maybe three/four years ago (in the before times) there were murals/billboards in the airport for the planned high-speed service and it's my understanding that there are a couple commuter lines around CDMX in the works.
 
jis said:
But in general, what is profitable and what is not is not ordained by the almighty. It is determined by human being by their choice about what they choose to socialize and capitalize in what way. In other words one decides what one wants to appear to be profitable and what not, to quite an extent.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a general rule that for passenger travel one cannot generally charge enough to make the service cover its costs plus provide income for capital expenditures. In the past private railroads often accepted the fact their luxurious trains lost money because they considered them part of the company image. Today government runs systems accept that train travel is a social good and worth being subsidized. It is true that in countries following the American model, subsidizing of private auto transportation is considered higher priority than other modes and that creates pressure on the other modes to be priced competitive with the perceived out of pocket costs of driving ( basically gas and tolls) and therefore the need to be highly subsidized. The UK seems to be struggling with this - rail and transit fares are priced high to try to break even, on the other hand petrol is expensive and congestion charges added to artificially raise the cost of those that choose to drive. Plus an inadequate road system - unlike the US in many cases it is faster to use the train than to drive due to congestion.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
It seems to be a general rule that for passenger travel one cannot generally charge enough to make the service cover its costs plus provide income for capital expenditures. In the past private railroads often accepted the fact their luxurious trains lost money because they considered them part of the company image. Today government runs systems accept that train travel is a social good and worth being subsidized. It is true that in countries following the American model, subsidizing of private auto transportation is considered higher priority than other modes and that creates pressure on the other modes to be priced competitive with the perceived out of pocket costs of driving ( basically gas and tolls) and therefore the need to be highly subsidized. The UK seems to be struggling with this - rail and transit fares are priced high to try to break even, on the other hand petrol is expensive and congestion charges added to artificially raise the cost of those that choose to drive. Plus an inadequate road system - unlike the US in many cases it is faster to use the train than to drive due to congestion.
Click to expand...
True that. One saving grace for UK is that in spite of Beeching UK did not manage to almost totally gut its passenger rail system which has been successfully achieved across North America, except in small pockets of high urbanization.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Although in the case of Mexico, from what I understand the passenger trains were pretty run down in the later years whereas you had intercity buses that were much more comfortable and reliable (based on what I have heard, not based on personal experience). Not sure whether this was by design due to following American transportation "experts" or just due to economics, the same lack of profitability of rail travel that killed it in the US.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for many countries including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay etc which still retain some residual passenger trains but in which the competing bus routes are often both faster and more comfortable, thanks to decades of insufficient investment in rail, and in some cases also incompetent management, but essentially due to governments seeing their priorities elsewhere than passenger rail.
 
jis said:
True that. One saving grace for UK is that in spite of Beeching UK did not manage to almost totally gut its passenger rail system which has been successfully achieved across North America, except in small pockets of high urbanization.
Click to expand...

I think Beeching would never have been able to totally gut the UK system as the UK rail system never fell into the type of marginal insignificant role that the US system outside of the NEC did. Even in the darkest years, there was a considerable and consistent system-wide ridership on BR that could not easily have been absorbed by the roads. In many cases rail was also considerably faster and more comfortable than driving, and large cities, especially London, were even then heavily afflicted by congestion meaning that closing the commuter lines was simply unthinkable.

Beeching reduced the system mileage of BR by about half, but reduced passenger miles by only a fraction of that. Many of the lines he closed were extremely marginal or indeed duplications of other routes and would sooner or later have had to close anyway. France and Germany have seen their systems shrink by a similar amount (if not more) but over a longer period of time. So what Beeching essentially did was apply a shock therapy that permitted BR to concentrate on the routes where it mattered. It was of course a huge and regrettable waste that this came so shortly after the modernization plan with lots of near new equipment becoming surplus and having to be written off.

In terms of the freight network, Beeching reduced this by more than the passenger network, but also managed to reorganize the rather backward and slow system and create profitable corridors, as well as accelerate the introduction of things like intermodal services.
 
I think the bottom line was that in Europe and in many parts of Asia there was a social consensus about the importance of passenger rail. American exceptionalism viewed that as backward thinking as they thought they had arrived in an alternate Nirvana. Ironically Europe at least proceeded to develop both their rail and road networks where America fell behind over time, as far as passenger rail was concerned, while most western European countries did not really fall behind in road development.
 
As I understand it, when the conservative government under Fox took over, it de-nationalized the NdeM and sold off chunks of it to American railroads (Kansas City Southern). Technicaly the owners are still under an obligation to provide passenger service or face a fine. The American owners (with a legal whitewash of Mexican ownership) choose to simply continue to pay the fine. Simply a cost of doing business to them.

Too bad for the Mexican people. As poorly managed as it was, at least the NdeM provided inexpensive transportation to Mexico's poor. Not something important to the new owners.
 
John Webb said:
As I understand it, when the conservative government under Fox took over, it de-nationalized the NdeM and sold off chunks of it to American railroads (Kansas City Southern). Technicaly the owners are still under an obligation to provide passenger service or face a fine. The American owners (with a legal whitewash of Mexican ownership) choose to simply continue to pay the fine. Simply a cost of doing business to them.

Too bad for the Mexican people. As poorly managed as it was, at least the NdeM provided inexpensive transportation to Mexico's poor. Not something important to the new owners.
Click to expand...
In Mexico, Plans for New ________ are Announced with Great Fanfare by the Government , then the Money Disappears into Connected Peoples Pockets and in Six Years ( the Presidential Term Limit) the New President starts his Grift!🤑🤑🤑

Best example was the Proposed New Airport for Mexico City that never got off the ground!( literally and figuratively)
 
John Webb said:
As I understand it, when the conservative government under Fox took over, it de-nationalized the NdeM and sold off chunks of it to American railroads (Kansas City Southern). Technicaly the owners are still under an obligation to provide passenger service or face a fine. The American owners (with a legal whitewash of Mexican ownership) choose to simply continue to pay the fine. Simply a cost of doing business to them.

Too bad for the Mexican people. As poorly managed as it was, at least the NdeM provided inexpensive transportation to Mexico's poor. Not something important to the new owners.
Click to expand...
People who know more about it than I do have suggested that the focus on inexpensive transport for the poor was one of the problems. That handed coach travel to the "luxury" buses.

In 1974 as an example, the First-Class Coach fare from Neuvo Laredo to Mexico City was $11.14. By comparison Albany->Boston was $11.75.

The Amtrak tariff back then showed US$ fares radiating from Ciudad Juarez, as well. That was the gateway sold by ex-SP agents on the West Coast.
 
Last edited:
Compare British rail fares to German and you'll find the former sometimes a lot more. Still, the service is pretty good and the overnight "Caledonian Sleeper" and its "Club Car" (let's hear it for smoked salmon) are great.
 
cirdan said:
I think Beeching would never have been able to totally gut the UK system as the UK rail system never fell into the type of marginal insignificant role that the US system outside of the NEC did. Even in the darkest years, there was a considerable and consistent system-wide ridership on BR that could not easily have been absorbed by the roads. In many cases rail was also considerably faster and more comfortable than driving, and large cities, especially London, were even then heavily afflicted by congestion meaning that closing the commuter lines was simply unthinkable.

Beeching reduced the system mileage of BR by about half, but reduced passenger miles by only a fraction of that. Many of the lines he closed were extremely marginal or indeed duplications of other routes and would sooner or later have had to close anyway. France and Germany have seen their systems shrink by a similar amount (if not more) but over a longer period of time. So what Beeching essentially did was apply a shock therapy that permitted BR to concentrate on the routes where it mattered. It was of course a huge and regrettable waste that this came so shortly after the modernization plan with lots of near new equipment becoming surplus and having to be written off.

In terms of the freight network, Beeching reduced this by more than the passenger network, but also managed to reorganize the rather backward and slow system and create profitable corridors, as well as accelerate the introduction of things like intermodal services.
Click to expand...
I think the slower approach by France and Germany let them better analyze the cutbacks, find alternative operators, etc.
 
I wonder how all this would be if, for example, the airlines had to: 1) build & maintain all the airports, 2) pay taxes on it all like railroads, and 3) pay the personnel, from air traffic controllers to custodians. Or let the waterborne carriers build & maintain all the ports, pay taxes on it all, pay for all the dredging, and build & maintain all the locks & dams.
 
George Harris said:
One issue in Mexico is historically most of their passenger equipment was old US equipment bought from the US railroad companies at little more than scrap prices and in near scrap in condition.
Click to expand...
This is not unique to Mexico.

Many African countries for example use a lot of second-hand European (especially French) equipment and in some cases keep it running with minimum maintenance. I believe Argentina, Chile and Egypt have some ex-Spanish equipment (some of it extensively rebuilt and modernized). You can find second hand German trains in places like Iran and in several Balkan countries.

(just to name a few examples)

I guess many of these systems would not be able to afford new equipment. Second hand equipment at near scrap prices is thus their lifeline and is what keeps these railroads afloat. Although that is changing somewhat with Chinese manufacturers offering new trains at a substantially lower cost.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top