Growing both Corridor Service and LD

[Tlcooper44]

I think you'd see more support on the political right for rail infrastructure if Amtrak were privately operated. I suspect they'd be much more willing to support the tracks and infrastructure just as they do for airports/air traffic control or interstate highways. The difference is that the airlines are private companies driven by profit margins to seek out efficiencies and satisfy their customers. Since Amtrak is more-or-less operated by the government (or at least any operating losses are covered by the taxpayer), the political discussions too often become focused on operations-related issues like why can't Amtrak make money on the hamburgers they sell? There are many threads on this site that (rightly) bemoan Amtrak's failures in satisfying the customer. Placing profit motive behind politics certainly plays a role in their acceptance of mediocre customer service.

This idea has been thrown around a lot, but I've seen little evidence to show its merit. The right has shown that they are actually "rail" unfriendly, beyond just Amtrak. Especially in local governments like Ohio and New Hampshire, you won't find more anti-rail locations, despite growing popular support in those states amongst both republicans and democrats.

The UK privatized, and that was more or less a disaster.
Brightline at this point is hopeful experiment, but still far from a proof of concept that is needed to change minds.
I think if Amtrak privatized, we would see fragmented service, and a crippled national network.(that could not longer qualify as national). Certain communities would not be served.

I wish I could believe that if Amtrak cleaned up their crap that the right would be more willing to back them, but I simply don't believe it.

 

[lrh442]

It is also true that Republicans (many but not all) feel that they were fooled into allowing Amtrak to be created with promise of profitablity in five years.

jis, I'd be curious to know your source on the promise of profitability by 1976? I've heard variations of this claim, and also heard essentially the opposite; that everyone expected Amtrak to be a glide path to discontinuing passenger service altogether. However, I've never seen anything that can support these claims on either side. Thus, they remain hearsay and speculation, at least in my book.

 

[jis]

jis, I'd be curious to know your source on the promise of profitability by 1976? I've heard variations of this claim, and also heard essentially the opposite; that everyone expected Amtrak to be a glide path to discontinuing passenger service altogether. However, I've never seen anything that can't support these claims on either side. Thus, they remain hearsay and speculation, at least in my book.

Well the profitability part is in the law that created Amtrak. The discontinuance stuff is not in any law. It is mentioned in several books about Amtrak. So I'd say it is hearsay to that extent. The 1976 is usually quoted in those books.

But notwithstanding all that, the major beef that mostly a group Republicans have had is that Amtrak has not turned profit and they continuously keep mentioning that and quoting the total subsidy that Amtrak has consumed so far. That is a fact. One can make whatever one wants to of that.

As for the "for profit corporation", I don't know what it could mean other than it is supposed to make a profit. It is only recently that the slight tweak of prepending it with "run as a" was inserted to allegedly remove the imperative of making a profit and doing something else while being run as a for profit corporation. There are now additional proposals floating around for inclusion in the new authorization that more clearly removes the imperative for making a profit or being run as if to make a profit and make it clear that providing service takes precedence over making a profit. So clearly someone still feels that the matter of it being OK not to make a profit is not clarified enough.

Of course everyone is free to take whatever suits as hearsay and speculation and I am hardly going to argue about it. At the end of the day it probably does not matter a hill of beans since people will do what they will do no matter what is written. Historically that has been the case, so why change now?

 

[jebr]

When I see something concrete from Amtrak management actually supporting the long distance services and reversing recent and planned intentional degradations in service, I might change my mind about their intentions on long distance services.

Concrete action in my mind include all of the following:
1. Restoration of traditional dining on the eastern trains.
2. Removal of the plan to gut the Viewliner diners from the 5 year fleet plan.
3. Statement that all runs over a certain duration (16 hours? 18 hours?) will have dining and lounge/cafe cars. Back off the single food service car concept for the LDs.
4. Commitment to restore access by coach passengers to traditional dining post-COVID. Based on current trends, that should be by the end of 2021.

At this point, all I am looking for is reversal of the latest degradations in service on the existing network and a commitment to stop further degradation. As a start, I am not looking for service expansions or anything of that sort. I have my own opinions on that, but right now I would be content with Amtrak management just putting the gun down.

Frankly, I don't care about having "traditional dining" or a specific dining car, so long as there's good access to quality food. A single food service car concept could work fine for that - generally speaking, I'd just need something that lets me get a healthy, tasty meal on board (which in my opinion would require an on-board chef for at least most LD trains.) The money has to come from somewhere to run the dining car, and if similar quality food to the dining car can be provided less expensively by having people bus their own tables, I'm fine with that.

That said, it'd have to be paired with other strong commitments to the LD network - primarily making sure that the train runs on-time reliably, equipment is well-kept, and capacity is adequate so people can travel and not worry about sold-out trains or sky-high prices 97% of the time. For me personally, an on-time train with only a cafe car is far more usable than a train that will often be multiple hours late but has a dining car. I'd much rather Amtrak focus on making the long-distance trains reliable and usable for most people than simply focus on bringing back a traditional dining car.

 

[fdaley]

For me personally, an on-time train with only a cafe car is far more usable than a train that will often be multiple hours late but has a dining car.

I'm not sure I see this as the real-life trade-off. If I'm going from Albany to Buffalo, a train with a cafe car only is just fine, and I'd expect it to be fairly close to on-time given that it's only a 5-hour run. If I'm riding 16 hours from Albany to Chicago, I expect decent meal service or the train isn't going to be an option for me. And the fact that it's often late makes the meal service more important, not less.

 

[zephyr17]

That is an entirely false equivalency. Onboard service levels and timekeeping have no effect on each other and have absolutely nothing to with each other. Further, one, onboard service quality, is entirely within Amtrak's control and timekeeping, unfortunately, is emphatically not.

For journeys of up to three days, decent food service is necessary. Further, lounge space to enjoy the scenery is one of the defining differentiators of long distance train travel and such space is really necessary to such long journeys. The classification of lounge space as just a food service car is a misrepresentation of what lounge space means and offers.

Technically, the way the Capitol was run until COVID had just one food service car, thr diner/lounge providing cafe service at the lounge end. But they ran an unstaffed Sightseer which provided ample lounge space.

 

[MARC Rider]

For journeys of up to three days, decent food service is necessary. Further, lounge space to enjoy the scenery is one of the defining differentiators of long distance train travel and such space is really necessary to such long journeys. The classification of lounge space as just a food service car is a misrepresentation of what lounge space means and offers.

"Decent food service" doesn't necessarily have to mean "traditional dining." But I agree that the availability of lounge space is very important for long (and not so long) journeys. Being able to get out of your seat and hang around and meet other passengers is one of the attractions of long distance train travel, and I think a lounge car out to be able to pay for itself through sales of booze, other drinks and snacks.

 

[Amtrak25]

We have this dilemma for new routes over 750 miles:

Title 49 U.S. Code § 24102. Definitions

“(C) long-distance routes of more than 750 miles between endpoints operated by Amtrak as of the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

• www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24102
• www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title49/pdf/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleV-partC-chap241-sec24102.pdf

Amtrak's interprtation may be the LD route system is to remain frozen in time from 2008.