Ryan
Court Jester
Usually people do research, learn facts and then draw conclusions.
Not so sure about this ready, fire, aim method of posting.
Not so sure about this ready, fire, aim method of posting.
Is Private Rail the Future for Regional Routes?
- Thread starter dlagrua
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
I'm more wondering how contracting out operations to a private company suddenly results in a significant increase in equipment. I'm not aware of any company in the US that has a significant amount of passenger rail equipment sitting around that can run frequently as Amtrak's equipment does.
I will continue to choose to speak solely about Amtrak and not forum members. The numbers posted show that the available equipment has gone down. Not to argue the point but a fact is that Amtrak equipment is also aging. Yes rolling stock can be rebuilt but eventually that becomes prohibitively expensive. East of the Mississippi more Viewliner coaches may be needed and who can determine what the end of the lifespan, is for the older Superliners.
The Trump administration has called for improvements to the transportation infrastructure including the passenger rail network. Three weeks into a new administration its difficult to say what that approach will be but until now our president has done all his work in the private sector. Wick Mooreman has also worked solely in the private sector. I do not take a strong position on the public vs private argument. Its hard to tell which would serve the American people better. I just comment on the future of passenger rail as I envision it .
IMO, during the next four years, we will see a public/private partnership running a portion of the nations passenger rail system. I hope to still be riding the rails in this period so if you accept a wager for lunch on this prediction just let me know.
Am I reading things wrong? It looks to me that the # of cars increased over the last 10 years.
Ryan
Court Jester
No, you're absolutely correct. There are more cars in service now, due to all of the wreck repairs completed over the last 8 years.
The entire premise this thread is based on is nothing more than yet another "alternative fact".
The entire premise this thread is based on is nothing more than yet another "alternative fact".
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,659
At the end of the day what matters to me is that there is still a significant rail system in operation, and I hope and want it to continue that way. I don't only say this as a railfan but I also say it because I strongly believe the positive effects of passenger railroads (and railroads as a whole) on society, the environment, the economy etc is largely understimated and misunderstood.
At the end of the day, whether that railroad system is operated directly by the government or by some private enterprise with government support is a detail.
Last edited by a moderator:
What are these "posted numbers" to which you refer? The numbers I posted - the same numbers you quoted above - plainly show a slight increase in the number of cars in service.
I assume the theory is based on these private companies ordering new rail passenger equipment, but that takes time, more than an arbitrary four years. Also, just who are these private companies who want to invest funds in a money-losing passenger rail operation? How are they supposed to get new cars delivered any faster than a government operated entity?
The heavy shop is pushing out more wreck cars. However the number of cars that have been total and scrap is a ever growing number. Is this going to cause a collapse of the Western Train. Not today, but given time it will have negative impact. It simple math. You need to look at the long picture, not the last 8-10 years the Superliner 1 enter service in 1979.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
First, we are responding to a statement about what has happened to the number of serviceable cars in the last ten years.
Second, even if all cars disappear it is hard to imagine why any private party would step in and order cars, as hypothesized by the OP. That is distinct from, what in effect amount to public - private partnership which has happened a couple of times with purchase, sell, lease-back so that a private party with a positive tax bill can take advantage of taking depreciation deductions while Amtrak which has no tax liability can take advantage of somewhat lower expense of gaining access to the cars for service.
As I said, the whole line of reasoning is bogus. But that is of course just IMHO.
Second, even if all cars disappear it is hard to imagine why any private party would step in and order cars, as hypothesized by the OP. That is distinct from, what in effect amount to public - private partnership which has happened a couple of times with purchase, sell, lease-back so that a private party with a positive tax bill can take advantage of taking depreciation deductions while Amtrak which has no tax liability can take advantage of somewhat lower expense of gaining access to the cars for service.
As I said, the whole line of reasoning is bogus. But that is of course just IMHO.
In keeping with the open exchange of ideas and opinions; I would like to clarify my point before many of the posters here suffer from high blood pressure. What I really believe will happen is a public/private partnership on some LD Amtrak routes. Amtrak has something like 30 million passengers that travel every year and the government is always looking to save money, especially when the name Amtrak comes up. . Now consider the perpetual lack of sufficient funding for the service, the thinking of current leadership in the house, senate, oval office and the position to rebuild Americas transportation infrastructure. It is reasonable to believe that Amtrak will continue on but why should we rule out a public/private partnership? Its just an opinion and a prediction but is this really so far out of the question? if so explain why this will not happen.
In theory the private/public partnership for commuter/State rail is ideal since this is the model we currently are using in this country in many places.LD Trains are another kettle of fish however.
In reality when the profit motive enters the picture, the subsidies required by government greatly increase the costs in order for the private entity to show a profit. Cases in point, Class I Railroads throwing in the towel on Passenger rail in the late 60s and early 70s bringing about the creation of Amtrak, and the recent financial fiasco for IP on the Hoosier State contract.
With the current political climate, and considering the costs that would be involved, I can't see this happening with LD Trains.
To paraphrase an old saying: How do you turn a large fortune into a smaller one?
Answer:Invest in Passenger Rail. YMMV
In reality when the profit motive enters the picture, the subsidies required by government greatly increase the costs in order for the private entity to show a profit. Cases in point, Class I Railroads throwing in the towel on Passenger rail in the late 60s and early 70s bringing about the creation of Amtrak, and the recent financial fiasco for IP on the Hoosier State contract.
With the current political climate, and considering the costs that would be involved, I can't see this happening with LD Trains.
To paraphrase an old saying: How do you turn a large fortune into a smaller one?
Answer:Invest in Passenger Rail. YMMV
Ryan
Court Jester
I don't think that many of us are ruling out a public/private partnership. Any way that government can take some tax dollars and slip some of them to lining contributors pockets, they will.
The objection is your impervious stance on the facts that underlie your conclusion.
The objection is your impervious stance on the facts that underlie your conclusion.
While I disagree with your conclusion regarding a public/private partnership, it was not that your position was wholly unreasonable - indeed, there have been proposals for a private entity to operate three such routes under contract. Predictably, such a plan has gone nowhere.
The main objection was that your conclusions were based upon a false assumption - that Amtrak's roster of long-distance train equipment was shrinking and would soon become inadequate to meet current requirements. That's not the case, but nor was it ever a prerequisite for private operation of passenger rail.
Among the bigger stumbling blocks to such a plan is just what private entities would want (and be qualified with a workable plan - note Corridor Capital and arguably Iowa Pacific) to bid on such an operation, and how a profit-seeking organization could run the train route for less money than Amtrak and still make a profit doing so (not many for-profit companies looking to invest in a money-losing opportunity). There really is no free lunch; I am not convinced a private company would see cost significantly lower costs, or much higher revenue, than is possible under Amtrak service. Further, there are problems with just where these other companies are going to find cars and locomotives (they don't have them now) and the time to acquire them, and the fact the Class 1's really don't want to deal with anyone other than Amtrak (hints too much at 'open access').
I still think the Brightline executives are going to prove that saying correct - the hard way. But I digress.
neroden
Engineer
Nah, they own enough real estate around the Miami Station alone to make a profit. Historically land development is the consistent way to make money off passenger trains. The trains themselves break even at best, but being next to a station increases the value of the property as residential or office property (or even, in the old days, agricultural property).
This was the business model of everything from the Metropolitan Railway in London to the land grant railroads in the US.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
And the land development leads to increased ridership helping break even or do a bit better. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two. This is incidentally also true of road development, in those situations where the roads are explicitly charged for by being in a tax surcharge zone to get road access.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Railway Gazette has a larger article about new jobs at Brightline.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/n-america/single-view/view/brightline-targets-inter-city-opportunities.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Will more private commuter lines be on the way? This story seems to indicate that it may be coming in Vermont: A new company called All Earth has just purchased a lot of commuter RDC cars..:
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/april/allearth-pays-4-million-commuter-rail-cars
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/april/allearth-pays-4-million-commuter-rail-cars
Didn't this article get posted in another thread a couple weeks ago?
At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by "more private commuter lines." There are currently no private commuter lines in the US (or Canada), unless you're referring to commuter rail agencies that pay (contract with) private entities to operate commuter rail.
At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by "more private commuter lines." There are currently no private commuter lines in the US (or Canada), unless you're referring to commuter rail agencies that pay (contract with) private entities to operate commuter rail.
It can be argued that Brightline in phase 1, unless it expands north of West Palm Beach, is really just a glorified commuter service. And its privately operated.
Call me skeptical, but I would be shocked to see these plans actually come to be...
Vermont couldn't even sustain its former state-wide Vermont Transit bus (privately owned), so how can they hope to succeed with trains, which certainly are more costly to operate?
Vermont couldn't even sustain its former state-wide Vermont Transit bus (privately owned), so how can they hope to succeed with trains, which certainly are more costly to operate?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Exactly my thoughts. Often the spirit is unrealistically willing but at the end of the day the flesh turns out to be weak. There is no enormous flow demand in Vermont on that route waiting for someone to pick up 1% of it to fill up trains.
If Brightline does not expand beyond the Miami - West Palm Beach phase, yes, I'd agree that's commuter service. Miami - Orlando, though, is intercity.
EDIT: I'd also add that the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro, with a population of about 6.1 million, is vastly more populous than the entire state of Vermont, let alone any particular metro area in Vermont.
Last edited by a moderator:
Must agree with the logic, but what drove All Earth to spend millions on these trains? Are they just looking for the large government subsidy? Maybe some politicians feel that it would help their cause to claim that they brought commuter rail to the state. The major population center in Vermont is in the Burlington area but AFAIK rail commuting in that state has never been attempted. Many questions remain unanswered.
I was not aware of that and looking further om wiki, we find that the federal government gave Vermont $18 million for track improvements and station work. It used old RDC cars, and the fare was $1 on the honor system. The Vermont commuter service experienced low ridership and was cancelled. I just wonder how All Earth plans to do it differently and succeed with a new venture. Could be to just get some federal and state government money, run it for a short period and then retire. Time will tell
