I think we (Amtrak) went down that road once...never again...
Actually, if Amtrak leased them out to the freights as extra capacity (think...oh, about 20 freight car companies like TTX) rather than operating the cars themselves, as long as they exceeded the continuing maintenance costs in revenue, it would be a winner. That's not the job of Amtrak, of course, but since they've got the equipment just sitting there...
Did we? Back then, in the Warrington years, the notiion of carrying Amfrieght was tossed on to the laps of freight rr's to pay for the Long Distance trains that they didn't want in the first place. If I remember the plan was hastily shoved forward in order to beat the 2002 ARC deadline of self sufficiency. Now, and this depends on how fast they were able to move a UPS hot Z train from California to Chicago and the East Coast, if Amtrak can do it faster and cheaper (since a Genesis / Superliner consist has higher speed running than even the hottest Z trains, though I don't know how much average speed was between the two), then a courier like UPS and FexEx, along with Amtrak and the host rr's, would likely come to the table voluntarily to at least see the numbers. It's true that the idea was tried - but in a bad way, and it's almostly in the realms of fantasy that such a poker game could ever attract the key players in the same room again in the next decade. But one never knows, economies can and do change. Perhaps in another twenty years what was cold can be hot and vice versa.
Amtrak may still be making lease payments on those cars. I recall seeing a long list of small lease payments for a lot of the (specialized) freight cars in one of the financial reports, but I don't have that in front of me. If that is the case, there could be penalty clauses on closing out the leases early by selling them. Or Amtrak tried to sell the cars, but had no takers at any price above scrap value.
I think retiring many of the heritage cars probably tops that as the worst idea.
Yes. I recall when Amtrak attempted to run a 'Fast Mail' train from Boston to New York on the Inland Route in the '80's. Conrail refused to carry it from Boston to Springfield until Amtrak added at least one coach.
It depends on what generates more cash overall. Pitching them might generate more money up front, while leasing them out might generate more over a longer timeframe, followed by scrapping revenue. In other words, Amtrak has a bunch of equipment that it doesn't have much use for, so it's a question of how to get the best use out of it.
It was not that Conrail refused. Amtrak, by law, is not permitted to run freight only trains other than on their own trackage.
IIRC, Amtrak did try to run it 'for mail and express only' (listed that way in the timetable), but Conrail refused until Amtrak agreed to add at least one coach....it must be somewhere in the timetable archives......I believe that until they did comply, they were forced to send the train via PVD to NHV.....
Of course Conrail refused. Amtrak was illegally trying to encroach into Conrail's property. Wouldn't you refuse if a bum decided to come and plant himself in your living room too?
I think there IS a market for this service, but given constraints listed in above posts, we'll never see it. But then again, look at what the FEC is proposing, I for one, NEVER EVER thought I would see anything LIKE that come to fruition......
They were mostly retired due to the retention toilet requirement; retrofitting for that was more than the cars were worth. (Yes, I know VIA did retrofits of a collection of Budd cars, but they cherrypicked cars in the best condition, and it was a very questionable move economically. Amtrak's remaining Budds are falling apart now. The St Louis Car and Pullman-Standard cars were falling apart quite early. I expect VIA to be in big, big trouble in 10 years due to lack of working equipment.)
