Does Amtrak need to be around?

[Bane]

I'm currently reading a book titled "The Men Who Loved Trains" and it's just very intresting to read about the whole PENN Central problem from an inside prespective. It seems to me a lot of these problems started and ended with the ICC. If the ICC was more liberal in allowing these routes to drop, but forced some trains like the Chief, Zephyer, Empire Builder, etc to stay on with goverment funding to help, would we need this large size of Amtrak? I can see Amtrak taking over the PENN Central routes in the NE Corrider and I still see other Private Class 1 railroads running their flagship trains. If this happened would we have seen better and faster long distance or even medium distance trains? Granted I wasn't around for the railroad crisis of the 60's and 70's but it is intresting to think this. If maybe we had more third demsional thinkers in the ICC would passenger rail had more prominate in the 80's and 90's? THoughts?

 

[Larry H.]

This weeks news letter shows a graph that the first year of amtrak something like 20 million riders were on the routes. After the smart thinking of the political class it dropped to about a fourth that in one year. Yes, there was and is NO Vision..

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

If this happened would we have seen better and faster long distance or even medium distance trains?

I've been reading through Anthony Perl's book New Depatures, and I've recently gotten to the point where he points out that the American railroads have tended to lobby against the existance of passenger trains, hoping to get them out of the way completely so that they could focus on freight. Had they instead been lobbying for subsidies for building faster tracks, that might have helped us get different results.

But I think this ultimately boils down to whether taxpayers see high speed rail as being as worthwhile an investment as highways and airports. There are any number of organizational structures you can come up with which if you don't give them enough money to build high speed track, will fail to produce high speed train service.

 

[National Limited]

This weeks news letter shows a graph that the first year of amtrak something like 20 million riders were on the routes. After the smart thinking of the political class it dropped to about a fourth that in one year. Yes, there was and is NO Vision..

To what news letter are you referring? I'd be curious to see it.

 

[jphjaxfl]

By the time Amtrak was created in 1971, most of the post WWII built passenger equipment was getting older. The last two passenger trains that were reequipped were in 1957/58 with the new Denver Zephyr and the El Capitain. There were a few passenger coaches built in the early 1960s, but nothing else. The railroads knew that they would need to make significant investments in new passenger equipment just to keep their premier trains operating. Most of the railroads did not want to operate passenger trains operating much less build new equipment. The Penn Central had already petioned the ICC to discontinue all trains west of Buffalo and Harrisburg. Other railroads had downgraded trains so badly, it was driving passengers away. There were a few like the Santa Fe and Seaboard Coastline that still operated excellant trains on their premier routes. The Southern Railway was the main railroad that did not join Amtrak. They were required to operate their 8 passenger trains for a number of years before petitioning to discontinue. Except for the premier Southern Crescent, the other trains had TOFC cars added to offset losses. By 1979 the Southern Crescent was the only train left and the equipment which was built in 1950 was starting to show its age. Southern finally elected to turn the train over to Amtrak. The railroads would use to "shell game" accounting when petitioning the ICC to discontinue trains. I attended a number of ICC "train off" hearings as a college student in the late 1960s. They were very political and 99% of the time railraods were allowed to discontinue the trains. There was the case of L&N's Hummingbird where a passenger train advocate group challenged the ICC's decision to allow L&N to discontinue the train. The case went all the way to the supreme court and the group challenged L&N's accounting and provided information on how the railroad had done things to discorage passengers from riding the train. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the L&N. The Hummingbird had continued to operate from Cincinnati to New Orleans during the court cases. When the final ruling was handed down, the train was abruptly discontinued with all people being forced to detrain in Birmingham with even those eating breakfast in the dining car not being allowed to finish. The L&N bussed the passengers to their destinations. There was concern that the passenger advocate group would file another petition to keep the train running. If it was already annulled by the railroad, that could not happen. Even though Amtrak is political, it is necessary if passenger train service in the US is to be preserved.

 

[MrFSS]

I've been reading through Anthony Perl's book New Departures, and I've recently gotten to the point where he points out that the American railroads have tended to lobby against the existence of passenger trains, hoping to get them out of the way completely so that they could focus on freight. Had they instead been lobbying for subsidies for building faster tracks, that might have helped us get different results.
But I think this ultimately boils down to whether taxpayers see high speed rail as being as worthwhile an investment as highways and airports. There are any number of organizational structures you can come up with which if you don't give them enough money to build high speed track, will fail to produce high speed train service.

I'm reading this book. also. I'm about 3/4 of the way through. It is a difficult book to read and I find myself having to reread passages to understand what is being said. Maybe that's just me, though.

Anyway, the author gives great comparisons to the Japanese and European passenger train systems that were being built in the 80's and 90's which included high speed legs in their systems.

He, toward the end of the book, also explains the different possible scenarios that would have to take place in the US to completely revamp rail service.

Everything from having gasoline taxes being used to fund rail development to having the bus, trucking, and airlines become involved in paying for it along with the federal government and state governments. Also, private enterprise would have to be involved in the funding.

The big question becomes - should we disband Amtrak completely and start over from scratch or revamp Amtrak.

The book gives one an entirely different perspective on the situation.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

amtrak just needs a face lift just get some more highspeed trains. some better equipment. better attitude towards passengers.and get some more routes. bring back the routes that got cut do to budget issues like the desert wind. restore train service to PHX sense that stopped when SP ripped up the track.restore the sunset. and get some better management to make it work. if amtrak got the $$$$ it needed this could be done.via rail in Canada was created the same way amtrak was created.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

By the time Amtrak was created in 1971, most of the post WWII built passenger equipment was getting older. The last two passenger trains that were reequipped were in 1957/58 with the new Denver Zephyr and the El Capitain. There were a few passenger coaches built in the early 1960s, but nothing else. The railroads knew that they would need to make significant investments in new passenger equipment just to keep their premier trains operating. Most of the railroads did not want to operate passenger trains operating much less build new equipment. The Penn Central had already petioned the ICC to discontinue all trains west of Buffalo and Harrisburg. Other railroads had downgraded trains so badly, it was driving passengers away. There were a few like the Santa Fe and Seaboard Coastline that still operated excellant trains on their premier routes. The Southern Railway was the main railroad that did not join Amtrak. They were required to operate their 8 passenger trains for a number of years before petitioning to discontinue. Except for the premier Southern Crescent, the other trains had TOFC cars added to offset losses. By 1979 the Southern Crescent was the only train left and the equipment which was built in 1950 was starting to show its age. Southern finally elected to turn the train over to Amtrak. The railroads would use to "shell game" accounting when petitioning the ICC to discontinue trains. I attended a number of ICC "train off" hearings as a college student in the late 1960s. They were very political and 99% of the time railraods were allowed to discontinue the trains. There was the case of L&N's Hummingbird where a passenger train advocate group challenged the ICC's decision to allow L&N to discontinue the train. The case went all the way to the supreme court and the group challenged L&N's accounting and provided information on how the railroad had done things to discorage passengers from riding the train. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the L&N. The Hummingbird had continued to operate from Cincinnati to New Orleans during the court cases. When the final ruling was handed down, the train was abruptly discontinued with all people being forced to detrain in Birmingham with even those eating breakfast in the dining car not being allowed to finish. The L&N bussed the passengers to their destinations. There was concern that the passenger advocate group would file another petition to keep the train running. If it was already annulled by the railroad, that could not happen. Even though Amtrak is political, it is necessary if passenger train service in the US is to be preserved.

iphjaxfl, you and I have so many of the same memories it is uncanny. I recall everything as you note it .I remember the Humming Bird(two words) being discontinued in Birmingham while people were eating breakfast. Only thing, I seemed to recall that L&N did not bother to provide buses. But I hope your memory is correct.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

someone else suggested this. force the trains to run ontime. that will force the host railroads to back off. quit running 5 mile long freights just to stick amtrak in a hole. the law says that they HAVE TO give amtrak the right a way. but sense theirs no way to enforce the law they do what the heck they please. also maintain the tracks once in while. what amtrak needs is its own transcontinental line then it can run as fast as the locos are geared to go.

 

[AlanB]

Everything from having gasoline taxes being used to fund rail development to having the bus, trucking, and airlines become involved in paying for it along with the federal government and state governments. Also, private enterprise would have to be involved in the funding.

Although Amtrak doesn't directly benefit from it, and there are those who think that the amount should be higher, about 2.86 cents of the 18.4 cents Federal gas tax does go to alternative transit options. The Mass Transit fund doles out monies to cities for light rail and commuter rail projects, funds water projects, and what not.

 

[MrFSS]

Everything from having gasoline taxes being used to fund rail development to having the bus, trucking, and airlines become involved in paying for it along with the federal government and state governments. Also, private enterprise would have to be involved in the funding.

Although Amtrak doesn't directly benefit from it, and there are those who think that the amount should be higher, about 2.86 cents of the 18.4 cents Federal gas tax does go to alternative transit options. The Mass Transit fund doles out monies to cities for light rail and commuter rail projects, funds water projects, and what not.

The author of the book also pointed out that some states have it written in their laws that gasoline tax can't be used for anything BUT roads.

 

[sldispatcher]

It just takes some leadership with a little vision...and not try to bite off more than one can chew.

I believe that Amtrak internally will have to lead the way. They need fewer b'crats and more frontline staff. The potential is definitely there.

 

[GG-1]

someone else suggested this. force the trains to run ontime. that will force the host railroads to back off. quit running 5 mile long freights just to stick amtrak in a hole. the law says that they HAVE TO give amtrak the right a way. but sense theirs no way to enforce the law they do what the heck they please. also maintain the tracks once in while. what amtrak needs is its own transcontinental line then it can run as fast as the locos are geared to go.

Aloha

Some of the rules for freight operation regarding Livestock are more restrictive than the rules as applied for passengers.

 

[Bane]

This weeks news letter shows a graph that the first year of amtrak something like 20 million riders were on the routes. After the smart thinking of the political class it dropped to about a fourth that in one year. Yes, there was and is NO Vision..

Well In the book I am reading by Rush Loving Jr, he comments on Amtrak's little boom. He comments on how Jim McClellan had crazy troubles starting Amtrak. Within a year ridership was up 15% and they didn't have the cars for it. McClellan did over step his bounds by attempting to get more cars from out west to cover the surge, eventually these cars had issues since they were not designed for the East Coast Weather. In accordance with issues with class 1 railroads switching cars, cars having no a.c. or heating on trips, typical politics and of course more and more cars breaking down you can guessed what happened. Amtrak never had the backing, and it's quoted in the book that the only reason Nixon signed is because he thought he would get rid of Amtrak in 4 years.

I do wonder if some of these Class 1's would still have passenger trains if the ICC would have allowed the reform that most of these railroads needed to survive and succeed. If the ICC let them drop the majority of there passenger trains, allow them to keep a few flagship trains, and allow them to abandon lines and tracks, we would have maybe never needed Amtrak.

 

[WICT106]

Actually, Bane, I think that had the private RRs continued to offer passenger service, they would have either insisted upon some form of subsidy for the services in question, or terminated all passenger service upon the promulgation of the Stagger Railroad De-regulation act of 1980. In other words, once the "Staggers Act" came into force, I think the remaining passenger trains would have been terminated in a very quick fashion.

 

[zoltan]

The author of the book also pointed out that some states have it written in their laws that gasoline tax can't be used for anything BUT roads.

...which completely ignores the fact that the cost of motoring isn't just what you pay for gas, it's the negative consequences you force upon others by your decision to drive; creating localised air pollution and reducing the availability of transit to others due to reduced demand, for example, and so tax from fuel rightfully ought to leave the road network to go towards righting those negative consequences, in addition to paying for the roads.

 

[George Harris]

I do wonder if some of these Class 1's would still have passenger trains if the ICC would have allowed the reform that most of these railroads needed to survive and succeed. If the ICC let them drop the majority of there passenger trains, allow them to keep a few flagship trains, and allow them to abandon lines and tracks, we would have maybe never needed Amtrak.

I have heard it said more than once, but never with any proof, that both ATSF and SCL seriously considered staying out of Amtrak. The catch was, if you stayed out, you could not petition for any train offs for some period, I think either 2 or 3 years. While ATSF wanted to keept the Super Chief, the Texas Chief and possibly a few others, there were some low ridership trains that led them to decide to go with Amtrak, but they keep control of the copyrights on the names. That is why after a few years both the "Chiefs" suddenly got new names. ATSF told Amtrak they were not living up to the standard they felt the name deserved. SCL for their part would have been happy to keep their premier Northeast to Florida trains, but not if they had to keep their secondary runs.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I have heard it said more than once, but never with any proof, that both ATSF and SCL seriously considered staying out of Amtrak. The catch was, if you stayed out, you could not petition for any train offs for some period, I think either 2 or 3 years. While ATSF wanted to keept the Super Chief, the Texas Chief and possibly a few others, there were some low ridership trains that led them to decide to go with Amtrak, but they keep control of the copyrights on the names. That is why after a few years both the "Chiefs" suddenly got new names. ATSF told Amtrak they were not living up to the standard they felt the name deserved. SCL for their part would have been happy to keep their premier Northeast to Florida trains, but not if they had to keep their secondary runs.

That's probably very true because the Southern did not join Amtrak, but had already gotten rid of many of their secondary trains. The 6 Southern trains that were left in addition to the Crescent carried TOFC cars on the end even before Amtrak started. Those trains continued for several years until they finally came off. I think the Asheville Special was only tri weekly and ran only in NC so it came off first.

If the government had provided a capital funding subsidy for new passenger equipment with the trains still operated by the railroads, that might have been a good alternative to Amtrak. Santa Fe, SCL and a few other might have been willing to keep the major trains running.

 

[Larry H.]

This weeks news letter shows a graph that the first year of amtrak something like 20 million riders were on the routes. After the smart thinking of the political class it dropped to about a fourth that in one year. Yes, there was and is NO Vision..

To what news letter are you referring? I'd be curious to see it.

Sorry I missed your request. Its the UPRA newsletter that tops the page of the Amtrak Discussion boards at the moment. It was in the previous weeks letter.

 

[birdy]

The ICC is a story unto itself. I had highly educated, older relatives in the South who harbored a vehemence for the ICC that you would not believe. Its hard to believe in this age of deregulation, but the ICC controlled all forms of interstate commerce, and with an iron fist, too. They were the premier federal regulatory agency for decades. One of their things was to adjust freight rates so that finished goods from the South received unfavorable freight rates, while raw materials were given good freight rates. the idea was to compensate for the fact that labor in the South was unorganized. They were pretty up front, about it, too. Basically, a disguised form of colonialism, hence my relatives' hatred.

A lot of the story of the "New South" starting in the mid to late sixties is really a loosening of the grip that the ICC held on the manufacturing economy of the South. As a guy who regularly advocates blatant government intervention in the markets, particularly the transportation markets, I have to admit that the history of the ICC is a reminder of the dangers of overregulation by the government.

* * * * *

P.S. I don't understand why the funding of Amtrak has to be tied to the gasoline tax. Just pay for it out of general revenues, fund sensible projects, of which there are dozens, and don't try to get cute. We aren't alone. the public is with us, they just don't know it yet. I do think that high speed rail requires federalization for the purpose of expediting condemnation and siting. Whether that is through the organization called Amtrak or a TVA type organization, I don't know. High speed rail really has nothing to do with freight since they can't use the same track (at least at the 200 MPH + range I am talking about).

 

[AlanB]

P.S. I don't understand why the funding of Amtrak has to be tied to the gasoline tax. Just pay for it out of general revenues, fund sensible projects, of which there are dozens, and don't try to get cute.

Amtrak funding isn't really tied to the gas tax. Some people consider Amtrak funding as a subsidy, since the gas tax pays for much, although not all of the streets and highways. They see that as the users paying for what they use, unlike the income tax dollars that go to Amtrak. What many mistakenly believe though is that the gas taxes cover all the needs of the streets and highways, and that is wrong.

That said, about 2.86 cents of the Federal portion of the gas tax does go into the Mass Transit fund. This was done many years ago by Congress one of the times that they raised the gas tax, they took a portion of that increase and started sending it to the MTF. The MTF now funds many projects for cities that want to install light rail systems or add commuter rail systems. It also goes towards ferry projects and a few other items.

But unless some of the monies from the MTF one day end up in a commuter rail project that somehow benefits Amtrak because Amtrak runs on those tracks, Amtrak does not directly benefit from the MTF.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

High speed rail really has nothing to do with freight since they can't use the same track (at least at the 200 MPH + range I am talking about).

For conventional speed, heavy freight, sure. But for overnight package shipment, high speed rail might very well be useful for freight. I also have to wonder if high speed rail has the potential to provide cheaper high speed freight than airplanes, and if that will lead to more things being shipped faster than they are today if we had a national high speed rail network. (I sometimes buy fruit in Massachusetts that was grown in California. Can high speed rail make getting that moved in 24 hours instead of maybe 72 affordable so that I can enjoy fresher fruit? Can high speed rail bring me ground package delivery pricing with overnight or second day speeds?)

 

[birdy]

High speed rail really has nothing to do with freight since they can't use the same track (at least at the 200 MPH + range I am talking about).

For conventional speed, heavy freight, sure. But for overnight package shipment, high speed rail might very well be useful for freight. I also have to wonder if high speed rail has the potential to provide cheaper high speed freight than airplanes, and if that will lead to more things being shipped faster than they are today if we had a national high speed rail network. (I sometimes buy fruit in Massachusetts that was grown in California. Can high speed rail make getting that moved in 24 hours instead of maybe 72 affordable so that I can enjoy fresher fruit? Can high speed rail bring me ground package delivery pricing with overnight or second day speeds?)

Good question, but even this lefty draws the line at that kind of government subsidy. Let the BNSF pay for their own track.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Let the BNSF pay for their own track.

Careful with that. You don't want the situation where rail is subsidized so much less than highways that shippers decide that the highways are cheaper and therefore a better choice, if the true costs (including environmental damage) are worse with the highway.

You can certainly let BNSF pay for their own track and find some way to tax trucking more, but it may be politically easier to equalize things by giving BNSF more tax credits.