Florida East Coast Proposes Passenger Service

[RRUserious]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

 

[VentureForth]

Until the FEC begins operations in Florida (and that's far from being a reality), there's no other privately owned and operated passenger trains in U.S.

Hey now, don't forget the Las Vegas Monorail .

I think I would take exception to the Grand Canyon Railroad being a privately owned passenger transportation system as opposed to a tourist railroad. Sure, it offers connect service to the Grand Canyon, but there are no intermediate stops on the line.

 

[jis]

AFAIK the only privately owned common carrier passenger railroad in the US today is Saratoga and North Creek. They did not exist before 1971. There are no surviving common carrier passenger operations that are privately owned in US that survived from before A-Day. The private passenger operations other than S&NC that exist are all tourist kind of operations, not common carrier operations.

Well, and S&NC is sort of a tourist operation as well (albeit it's a slightly different sort). The others all either:

A) Joined Amtrak eventually (DRG&W and the Georgia Railroad were the last holdouts here; they cut service in the run-up to mergers); or

B) Had their passenger services shifted to public transport agencies (Conrail in the mid-80s and the CSS&SB in the late 80s were the last transfers on this front, IIRC; the LIRR was another example, though in that case I forget when NY State took things over).

I would consider the Grand Canyon Railway is the same category as the Saratoga and North Creek. It runs daily, year-round (with one or two holiday exceptions), performs a serious transportation function, and even has joint ticketing with Amtrak.

I was not proffering my opinion of the nature of operation of S&NC or any other. I was simply stating a fact as a matter of law as was explained to me. Passenger Railroads can be chartered in one of two ways in the US. They can either be chartered as a Common Carrier or as a Private Carrier. Railroads like Amtrak and all commuter lines and S&NC are chartered as Common Carrier. Other passenger operations are chartered as Private Carriers. Common Carriers have to meet more stringent requirements both in terms of service provided and in terms of corporate governance(in some sense of the phrase ) than do Private Carriers.

So while on the surface GCR and S&NC may appear to be similar, as a matter of law apparently they are different.

Again, I am no legal expert. I am just stating as things were explained to me by the GM of S&NC, who possibly even has an axe to grind, and am happy to be corrected by someone who has a more detailed and better founded in facts explanation of this matter.

BTW, Anderson, LIRR was taken over by NY State in 1966 and placed under the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority, which then changed its name to Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 1968.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

Amtrak handles tourist, as do all railroads, even such turds as SEPTA, and even such vital infrastructure monsters as the NYC Subway. Believe me when I say the vast majority of Amtrak in general, and probably a majority of LD passengers, are using the train primarily as a mode of transportation.

 

[VentureForth]

I would consider the Grand Canyon Railway is the same category as the Saratoga and North Creek. It runs daily, year-round (with one or two holiday exceptions), performs a serious transportation function, and even has joint ticketing with Amtrak.

I respectfully disagree. The S&NC doesn't run in the Winter - only Memorial Day through the end of October. The Winter operation is a "Snow Train" and operated under a completely different banner.

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

I think my wife would absolutely kill me if I said, "Hey hon! Let's go ride the Silver Meteor to NYC and back. No, we can't afford to spend the night in NYC - we'll just take the train right back."

I would agree with GML that the mass majority of people that ride Amtrak - even long distance - do it to get from point A-B, not solely for the opportunity to ride Amtrak. Trust me, for a cost similar to a cross country bedroom trek across the country, you can have a decent cruise to the Bahamas, and believe me there is no comparison in what you get for the money!

 

[jis]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

Way way more than half of Amtrak ridership is on Corridor trains which almost exclusively provide transportation function with close to zero tourist function. Of the rest possibly only about half have a significant tourist component. So I would say that the assessment is more or less an overstatement of the tourist function played by Amtrak on the whole. The position that "I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination"." would not be sustainable by available facts. Of course I assume that the word "operation" was meant in place of "destination" since otherwise the quoted sentence does not make much sense.

 

[NE933]

Of course I assume that the word "operation" was meant in place of "destination" since otherwise the quoted sentence does not make much sense.

Well how do we know the difference? Taking a train, plane, boat, or whatever - involves using a temporary destination comfortable enough to move the paying party from one place to the other, and back. Or something in that way of one or the other or some such....

 

[NE933]

That, or you've just been walking the Yellow Brick Road too long.

I have a few bricks missing on my Yellow Brick Road; can't ya tell?

8-P

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Until the FEC begins operations in Florida (and that's far from being a reality), there's no other privately owned and operated passenger trains in U.S.

I think I would take exception to the Grand Canyon Railroad being a privately owned passenger transportation system as opposed to a tourist railroad. Sure, it offers connect service to the Grand Canyon, but there are no intermediate stops on the line.

I would also agree that it is a tourist operation. IIRC, all of their pricing is based R/T, and I'm not sure you could get a O/W price.

 

[RampWidget]

Could the FEC make the Southern terminus of this line actually at the cruise terminals if it is a shared location with their freight pickups?

You'd probably want at least some separation or split in the terminal (I don't think being offloaded next to a bunch of intermodal freight is going to be terribly popular).

In the early days of the Florida East Coast, the Havanna Special did disembark passengers directly to the overnight ship to Havanna, Cuba. It was next the piers that handled freight. One if the reasons for the Overseas extension to Key West was to get passengers closer to Havanna with more time on the train, less time on the ship.

No reason that FEC could not serve the cruise terminals directly if desired. At Fort Lauderdale, the FEC mainline runs right by the vehicle entrance to Port Everglades (and the other side runs right by the FLL airport).

In Miami, the FEC and the Port of Miami are already working to restore direct rail service to the port, which is actually located on Dodge Island out in Biscayne Bay. Cruise ships use the north side of Dodge Island and so are generally already separated from the cargo operations at the Port of Miami.

 

[VentureForth]

And that would be a huge advantage for the FEC and a restoration to Flager's dream of bringing tourists to Miami!

 

[TVRM610]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

All of Amtrak? or All of Amtrak LD?

The Acela, Regionals, Cascades, Carolinian, Surfliners, Piedmont, Keystone Trains, Pennsylvanian, Illinois Corridor are most certainly NOT tourist operations to any degree. They are intercity rail transportation. The Long Distance trains are a bit more debate-able since I have seen a good number of "tourist" type or "taking the train cause it sounded fun" types. Having said that, I think very very few people are using the train like a cruise ship, they are still using the train to get from point a to point b. I mean most flights to Vegas and Orlando could be considered "tourist operations" too.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that people still use the train for transportation. I mean how does Greyhound and Mega Bus stay in business? Because people need to get from point A to point B and do not wish to drive or fly (or the options aren't available). If I want to take a train for fun, I'll ride the Strasburg Railroad, or one of the many steam trains in Colorado. I take Amtrak because it's my preferred way to get to a destination.

 

[Anderson]

My (albeit anecdotal) experience is that a lot of the traffic on the Silvers, for a good example, is rather "transportational" (that is, going from A to B and taking the train to do it, not taking a train and incidentally going from A to B). Now, it may be people going on vacation to Florida via train (or going up north on business via train), but the key is that it is "X via train".

Now, I'll confess to having taken more than one "excuse trip" on the train locally (i.e. up to Richmond "for dinner"...it's an excuse trip, I admit it), and I'll be doing one this fall with Charlie on the Crescent/CONO/Cardinal (I have no good reason to go to New Orleans, but it's where the train is running and it makes for the best trip) and another one out of Norfolk as soon as that train starts operating (so help me, I intend to be on the first scheduled train out of Norfolk; if I'm lucky, I'll also be back home in time for lunch via another train). And yes I've done some points runs (WAS-NYP on the Acela leaps to mind...but then again, the Acela is synonymous with "points run" for me). But most of my train trips have had a decent reason behind them, and they were simply the travel part of a trip somewhere.

In this vein, I think it is fair to say that most of my wishes for a better train network have much more to do with being grumpy about having to drive somewhere because either there is no train in the region or the train schedule to get somewhere is absurdly clunky (Altoona, I'm looking at you). I've spent far too much of my life stuck in a car going from A to B and eating bad food along the way to want to do much more of it; I'd rather have someone else handle the driving and have a decent dining car to go to at meal time.

 

[rrdude]

I think I would take exception to the Grand Canyon Railroad being a privately owned passenger transportation system as opposed to a tourist railroad. Sure, it offers connect service to the Grand Canyon, but there are no intermediate stops on the line.

Nor are there any intermediate stops on Amtrak's Auto-Train, and it is hardly considered a "Tourist Train", although thousands of tourists take it each year.........

The GCR does indeed provide transportation, for those without autos, or who wish not to rent a car, or ride in a bus to get to the canyon.

And Johnny.Mehennett writes, "I would also agree that it is a tourist operation. IIRC, all of their pricing is based R/T, and I'm not sure you could get a O/W price."



I'm willing to bet if you dig deep enough into the tariffs you'd find O/W pricing published, just not advertised.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

On the one hand, I don't have ready access to PA's "noises"; on the other hand, I would be sort of surprised if they cut the Pennsylvanian, considering both its high ridership (for a once-daily corridor operation) and the fact that they were apparently seriously looking at adding a second daily frequency lately. Mind you, it seems quite possible that there are going to be sour grapes over Amtrak not counting any PHL-NYP travel towards PA's credit...but I'm not sure that this would be enough to get the train canned.

PennDoT negotiating for some future possibilities with Amtrak and PA Legislature funding something this coming year or not are two completely different things and one of those heading in a positive direction while the other heads in a negative direction for the immediate future is not inconsistent with the way how these things often go down.

However, I really don't believe that PA won't come up with the money to continue running the Pennsylvanian. PA and Amtrak will most likely work out something. PA is not Indiana.

The biggest new state bills will be for California and New York, and both of those states appear to be completely ready to step up to the plate.

PHL - NYP runs do not count towards any credit for anybody. At that point it is a corridor train paid for by NEC and revenues accruing to NEC. Just like VA does not get credit for running Regionals between WAS and NYP. That is not how Section 209 is written and how it is being interpreted by the STB.

Our Republican Governor is both pro-Amtrak and pro-Pittsburgh... he won't let the train die.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I hold some FEC bonds. They are rated B3, or junk, and pay a really nice interest rate (8.125%) and are secured paper. They are junk because RR's do not generate large amounts of cash, especially FEC, and their assets are in difficult to convert real estate. The bonds represent virtually the entire debt of the RR, $475 million and mature in 2017. The RR is profitable but not by much, especially considering the debt service $ every six months. Any funding of passenger trains and new lines will require all outside money. Should the RR incur any debt itself I do not believe they could pay it because the current bond issue is secured and any other paper would be subordinate and carry a prohibitive interest rate if anyone would buy the paper at all. I suspect a new corporation would have to be created to run the service and to issue debt paper. FEC as currently structured cannot issue any debt paper without retiring the current bond issue and there is little money to do that. Stay tuned.

From what I've read, FEC went to issue bonds last year and had to offer over 10% on them(!).

Of course, lower grades on bonds seems to be nothing new...Norfolk Southern only gets BBB+...which seems oddly low for such a profitable (almost wildly so) company.

When the government gets downgraded, everyone else ends up downgraded too

 

[Oldsmoboi]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

Well that makes US Airways and Grayhound tourist operations since they can't operate without Congress reauthorizing the TSA, ATC, and Highway budgets...

 

[Colonel Klink]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination". I also think that I'd lump in every rail route not run by Amtrak into the "other category". Even if there isn't a private transportation business behind them, they still have to be the kind of thing that can operate without Congress reauthorizing the Amtrak budget.

Well that makes US Airways and Grayhound tourist operations since they can't operate without Congress reauthorizing the TSA, ATC, and Highway budgets...

Oh, I beg to differ. I think the airlines, Greyhound, and the travelling public would be far better off if the TSA lost all funding along with its mandate to exist. They'd be far safer too. Amirite, amirite?!

 

[PaulM]

"Tourist operations". Seems to me that fits all of Amtrak to some degree. Amtrak really does not seem like something the bulk of passengers depend on to get around. I would argue that Amtrak IS a "tourist destination".

I completely disagree with this.

First of all, I think we should substitute the word "vacationer" for tourist. Then we could have a reasonable discussion about the percentage breakdown between traveling for vacation, to visit family, on business, as a destination (a foamer riding for no other reason than to ride), etc. You might use it as a destination; but I very much doubt the bulk of Amtrak's passengers do. And if the bulk of passengers don't depend on it to get around, what do they depend on it for? If the train in a given situation isn't the cheapest or fastest; that doesn't mean it's a destination, just the preferred means of transport.

 

[Dixie]

What this does raise is some interesting possibilities, such as cruises being able to add on a "Disney adder" on one end of a cruise as part of a package...or, indeed, Disney being able to do run some operations that include a rail transfer to/from the ships.

We have an extended family cruise booked on Disney out of Port Canaveral this coming December. Taking the train to Florida would be our ideal mode of transportation (two of my last four trips to WDW have been on Amtrak to KIS), but since we're adding the cruise component to the vacation, it's much less hassle to drive our own cars to Florida.

I would **love** to take a train from WDW or from points north to Port Canaveral. Right now, Disney runs motorcoaches from its resorts to Port Canaveral at a cost of ~$70 per person round trip. While it conveniently provides resort-to-stateroom luggage service, for a family it adds significantly to the cost of a cruise. If ever Disney offered private rail coaches coaches directly from WDW, I imagine the price would be similar to their current motorcoach service if not more.

While Disney operates the majority of its cruises out of Port Canaveral, in Dec. 2012 they will start a 6-month stint of cruises on the Disney Wonder out of Miami. No word yet if those cruises will continue past 2013, but a WDW > Miami port rail option (without the Tampa detour) would be great.