Interesting Negative Article about Amtrak

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.
It seems that everyone says Amtrak has never been able to decide how to run it. "They're costs are always out of control." "Cut unprofitable routes." "Cut the routes, no one rides." "Amtrak should prove itself in the NEC before trying run a nationwide train." "Routes should only be where there are high traveled corridors." ---hmmm, the Empire Builder seems to be doing well.

The passengers are there. 25 million to say the least, on a very skeletal system. Can Amtrak be privatized? Are its costs really out of control? Its a chicken or egg thing. Congress is waiting for Amtrak to "prove" itself, while Amtrak waits for Congress so it is able to prove itself.

The answer, get funding, then cover the nation with the routes it once had. Make sure no major corridor is left out. Maybe then, Congress will actually see a return on its investment.
 
Amtrak's biggest problem is a lack of national transportation policy, and the fact that federal funding greatly favors roads and airways over rail.

Essentially, it's a lack of funding. Overall, no passenger transportation system in this country (including airlines) pays for itself completely. Yet, only intercity rail faces a downright hostile government in terms of receiving the funding it needs to succeed. This despite the fact that Amtrak has a higher cost recovery ratio than the highways (approximately 65% vs. less than 60%), and one about equivalent to that of the airlines.

If Amtrak could receive additional funding for improved equipment, operations, and infrastructure, I'm certain that it could grow revenues even faster than the subsidy grows, making it even more efficient and effective.
 
It seems obvious that Amtrak has suffered from its failure to be included in long-term transportion planning and policy. The interesting question, I think, is what would be the consequence of its inclusion rational, long-term planning.

I love trains and am extremely happy, and more than a bit surprised, that long-distance trains still cross the American West. They have great value in terms of tradition, scenic beauty, and convenience for those living near those routes.

On the other hand, these routes seem to lose a lot of money per passenger, based on the minimal statistics I have seen. I'm sure other people are more acquainted with these than I am, but there appears to be a significant subsidy there. I personally don't object to this; Amtrak is one of the few things that the federal government that I derive enjoyment from.

I'm not educated on the subject, but I've thought that having a system that emphasized shorter, more frequent, and more reliable service between major cities would make more sense. Take the areas served by the Sunset Limited, for example. I think it makes great sense that have trains that cover an interstate route along the Gulf from Jacksonville to New Orleans and then Houston and San Antonio. Conceivably there could be connecting bus service on to El Paso if the state of Texas thought that important and was willing to help pay for it. From the other coast, service might make sense between Los Angeles and the Phoenix, or perhaps even better from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and then from Las Vegas to Phoenix. Bus service could then connect Phoenix to Tucson and then on to El Paso.

I'm sure there are all sorts of logistical problems with this, but to some extent it seems a compromise between the existing system and those who want to privatize and thus effectively shut down much of Amtrak.
 
This may surprise you, but Amtrak's corridor trains are worse financial performers than the long-distance trains are.

The reasons long-distance trains have high "loss per passenger" are 1) those numbers include allocated overhead that wouldn't go away, or even be significantly reduced, if the LD trains themselves went away, and 2) long-distance trains carry passengers over longer-distances, therefore, it's going to cost more to transport them. On a loss-per-passenger-mile basis, many LD trains are competitive with corridor trains. On a recovery ratio (percentage of costs covered by fares) basis, many LD trains outperform their corridor counterparts.
 
Madison is right...

Long distance really do not cost all that much to operate. In reality, an LD is dozons of shorter trips. It is a mistake to think that everyone will go from Chicago to Seattle for example. A very small percentage actually the entire route. With all the other city pairs, there are over 900 city combinations on the Empire Builder alone.

Also the Sunset Lmtd. runs across the entire US. You say you should only focus on corrirdors like, NOL to Houston or San Antonio. But a very high percentage of passengers are traveling beyond those corroridors. These LD trains actually bring in quite a bit of Amtraks revenue, while they do not really cost that much to operate. So cutting LD trains really only cuts that extra revenue, which help pay for other corridors.

Plus these LD help feed other corridor trains, and vice versa. People are connecting from all over the place to the Sunset Ltd. They just don't all live in Orlando and get on there. Many probably have bus connections or are coming from other trains, such as Miami. So cutting LD routes, will only hurt the corridor passenger levels as well.

Also I don't like the term "loss per passenger or per pass. mile." The cost it takes Amtrak for that extra person to board is very low. Like a few cents? Maybe for the paper of the ticket. It makes it sound less passengers should ride Amtrak for them to save money. Same thing with the airlines. The amount of money it costs for one flight between two cities doesn't really change. The train is still running, whether, the extra passengers get on or not.

Chris
 
Hmmm. Has the author of this article ever heard an address given by David Gunn or read an interview with David Gunn? It seems to me that Gunn's constant cry is "infrastructure." How can one argue that Amtrak is not spending money appropriately when it has not been granted enough money by congress to pay for the improvements the author of this article suggests. Was not the $900 million he quoted as cost for repair to the NYC tunnels the same abount the Bush administration requested for Amtrak for FY 2005? And, do I not remember reading in the not to distant past that major renovatioins had occured in the NYC tunnels including the installation of fire fighting equipment and the repair of watertight doors on either end of the tunnels--doors which hadn't worked in over 30 years? Again, it seems that someone who does not understand the situation is given a platform in which to expose their ignorance.
 
Well work has started on the tunnels into Penn, but I think only about 20% of the recommended work is done. On the other hand, even though Amtrak does own the tunnels, I have to question why Amtrak should have to bear the fiscal burden of fixing the tunnels up. Amtrak probably accounts for no more than 15 to 20% of the trains using the tunnels.

The LIRR and NJT are the biggest users of those tunnels. Now in all fairness let me state the the MTA through the LIRR has contributed some funding to the safety issues, but it is a small percentage of the monies needed. To my knowledge NJT has contributed nothing.

Additionally while the bridges that are in the worst shape (those north of New Haven) are mainly used only by Amtrak, nonetheless much of the infrastructure south of NY is used by various commuter RR's. Commuter RR's which don't pay their fair share of NEC expenses.

So the fiscal burden upon Amtrak for the NEC is greater than it should be, but this is something that is not factored into reports like the one that started this topic.
 
How does the amount that Amtrak pays the freight RRs for use of their tracks compare to what Amtrak collects for use by other RRs of the Amtrak-owned tracks?? If tthere is something resembling parity there, it would be dangerous to start talking about other RRs not paying their "fair share" to Amtrak, because that would invite the freight RRs to charge Amtrak more.
 
AmtrakWPK said:
How does the amount that Amtrak pays the freight RRs for use of their tracks compare to what Amtrak collects for use by other RRs of the Amtrak-owned tracks?? If tthere is something resembling parity there, it would be dangerous to start talking about other RRs not paying their "fair share" to Amtrak, because that would invite the freight RRs to charge Amtrak more.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm not aware of too many freight-owned lines where Amtrak runs, by far, the majority of the trains on the line. By comparison, commuter lines run the most NEC traffic.
 
I'm not real sure of the actual numbers myself, but it does vary from system to system. I don't believe that any actually pay full value for the costs both operationally and capital that Amtrak incurs by permitting the usage of its tracks.

To my knowledge however, most do pay somewhat higher fees than what Amtrak pays for passage on the freight RR's. I wouldn't worry too much though about comparisons for a few reasons. One as Robert mentioned, in no instance does Amtrak put more trains on the tracks than do the freight companies themselves.

Secondly Amtrak does have a bonus program for OTP, which does up the anti, assuming that the freight RR wants that bonus.

Finally, if the freight companies want something to scream about, they've already got all the ammunition that they need. Amtrak charges them full value for passage on the NEC when they use it.
 
Of course, as I understand it, the NEC is MUCH better engineered and maintained, being designed and built for high speed, and freight traffic would be MUCH harder on it than Amtrak's trains, wouldn't it?? I would think a single mile-long heavy freight would put more wear-and-tear on the track than 100 Acelas.
 
It's been lightly discussed, but it would be a very expensive and time cosuming project. It would be necessary to do this in both in New York and Baltimore. I also don't know if it's possible to get Superliners in on the mainlines, I know it can be done in some stations (WAS), but other areas I don't know.
 
While I'm not a civil engineer, I don't think that it is possible to enlarge those tunnels. They were built using cast iron shells that fit the size of the bore exactly. One can't enlarge the bore without removing the cast iron collar, which would make the tunnel unusable for long periods of time (perhaps 2 years), not to mention subjecting it to collapse or blowout.

If it was easy to enlarge, then the LIRR and NJT would have forced it to happen years ago. Instead they both invested heavily in designing and building double decker cars that will fit through the existing tunnels.

I believe that the only way to ever consider getting a Superliner into NY would be to build newer/larger tunnels.
 
I agree with alan. The only way would be to stop service in the tunnels. Pump compressed air in and then remove part or all of the shell. Then they would have to excavate mud out and place a new shell in. It would cost ALOT and be very dangerous. It is more likely that a new tunnel will be built before that.
 
Well..That is a negative article! Here in the UK there are two broad views of the funding and standards of our rail systems..at one time British Rail ran ALL the trains, and maintained ALL the track. This resulted in a tradition of employing for the long term, often for life, so the rail workers had lots of experience, both in running the trains, and in safety matters. Training was good, and there was an ethos of working together to keep the trains running, overall there was a concern to observe safety, and professional maintainance of track was routine. The "foreman" of a track team would walk his section of track each day, and replace bolts, or report back as required. in case of major faults.

Since B.R. was taken from public ownership, about 10 years ago..ie broken up into seperate sections and sold off to "shareholders" there have been lots of issues, including lack of skilled and competent track workers, safety being second to profit, and a decline in service and standards.

We now have several rail companies trying to run trains, with different wages for each driver, signals and tracks owned by one company, stations by another, ticket offices by another, enquirey services by someone else, safety and maintainance by another!

The article's Author sounds as if he is a "right winger" as we say in UK..he has no interest in spending public money for public services..I understand that the private rail maintanence companies here in UK have been ordered

to hand back the track maintanence to a public owned government non-profit making outfit.

I have no idea how Amtrak spends its "allowance", but it needs to be able to say how it is spent each year. I for one would be real pleased if they spent a tiny amount on cleaning the train windows so that we could admire the views properly! B) Ed.

P.S. One thing that annoys me in talks about funding is how the infrastructure costs are delt with..for example I imagine communities without airports do not expect airlines to pay up front for the building costs of new airports, so why expect Amtrak to pay for tunnels and bridges out of its revenues?

If I was under pressure to "make a profit this year", I too would not embark on expensive and disruptive long term track work or big projects, but would patch things up so as not to be seen to spend too much of the profits....it all depends on how you do your accounting !
 

Latest posts

Back
Top