Private operation of long distance trains?

[TheCrescent]

Why can’t Amtrak contract with Norfolk Southern to do switching in Atlanta?

And if there is more demand than supply for sleeping car space, whatever the reason, why can’t Amtrak reach out to a private operator to add a sleeping car? Surely haulage fees are better than nothing.

 

[Cal]

Why can’t Amtrak contract with Norfolk Southern to do switching in Atlanta?

Because it's the same NS that is fighting tooth and nail against the Gulf Coast route; NS is not cooperative with Amtrak.

And if there is more demand than supply for sleeping car space, whatever the reason, why can’t Amtrak reach out to a private operator to add a sleeping car? Surely haulage fees are better than nothing.

Why would Amtrak want to have people use a different service than their own? Even with haulage fees, I feel like that's counter-intuitive.

 

[TheCrescent]

Because it's the same NS that is fighting tooth and nail against the Gulf Coast route; NS is not cooperative with Amtrak.


Why would Amtrak want to have people use a different service than their own? Even with haulage fees, I feel like that's counter-intuitive.

Has Amtrak asked NS to handle switching in Atlanta? If so, what was NS’s response? Both railroads already deal with each other and share burdens; my local Amtrak station is one room in a Norfolk Southern building, for example.

Amtrak ought to be finding ways to increase revenue and decrease losses. If it can’t find a way to generate more revenue when demand far outweighs supply, I give up.

 

[Cal]

Has Amtrak asked NS to handle switching in Atlanta? If so, what was NS’s response? Both railroads already deal with each other and share burdens; my local Amtrak station is one room in a Norfolk Southern building, for example.

I doubt it, and I doubt it'd do much use. And asking them would require Amtrak to have the idea to do NYP-ATL sleepers only, which I also doubt they have thought of.

 

[TheCrescent]

I doubt it, and I doubt it'd do much use. And asking them would require Amtrak to have the idea to do NYP-ATL sleepers only, which I also doubt they have thought of.

There was a PRIIA-related performance improvement plan that called for Amtrak to have one coach run south only to Atlanta and then back north. That would have required switching in Atlanta. The study showed that it would have increased revenues for the Crescent.

Amtrak never followed through?

And Amtrak hasn’t even asked NS about switching?

Amtrak is that pathetic?

 

[Cal]

There was a PRIIA-related performance improvement plan that called for Amtrak to have one coach run south only to Atlanta and then back north. That would have required switching in Atlanta. The study showed that it would have increased revenues for the Crescent.

Amtrak never followed through?

And Amtrak hasn’t even asked NS about switching?

Amtrak is that pathetic?

I'm not an expert, I just said I doubt it. Maybe they have and I just don't know.

And yes, Amtrak can be that pathetic.

 

[TheCrescent]

I'm not an expert, I just said I doubt it. Maybe they have and I just don't know.

And yes, Amtrak can be that pathetic.

In that case at least the long-distance trains need to be taken away from Amtrak and given over to another operator.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In that case at least the long-distance trains need to be taken away from Amtrak and given over to another operator.

What exactly is stopping this "other operator" from competing with Amtrak today?

 

[jis]

What exactly is stopping this "other operator" from competing with Amtrak today?

Actually there has been legislation in place to allow such to happen since 2008, but there have been no takers so far. Must not be that lucrative a business afterall.

 

[TheCrescent]

Actually there has been legislation in place to allow such to happen since 2008, but there have been no takers so far. Must not be that lucrative a business afterall.

Correct. But perhaps affirmatively removing Amtrak’s ability to operate LD trains, and requiring that anyone who wants to operate one (including Amtrak) must bid on the right, would get some takers.

(Ducking and running for cover.)

 

[jimdex]

Actually there has been legislation in place to allow such to happen since 2008, but there have been no takers so far. Must not be that lucrative a business afterall.

There are two major problems that would take legislation to correct: 1) freight railroads have no obligation to work with non-Amtrak operators, and 2) there is no mechanism to provide a federal government subsidy to non-Amtrak operators.

 

[jis]

There are two major problems that would take legislation to correct: 1) freight railroads have no obligation to work with non-Amtrak operators, and 2) there is no mechanism to provide a federal government subsidy to non-Amtrak operators.

To start with, the existing legislation sucks.

Indeed any access to host railroads would have to be via Amtrak since that right bestowed upon Amtrak was not legislatively delegated to private operators adequately. This I suspect was by design. Afterall, look a bit deeper to discover who was one of the significant contributors to the text in that legislation!

It does have a mechanism to divert federal funds to successful bidders but the formula for it ensures that it will be way less than adequate. In short the equation for risk sharing was skewed so far towards the operator that no one in their right mind would take it on.

All of this simply won't work as long as there is no regulatory agency independent of Amtrak on issues of rolling stock standards and such. Amtrak basically took every opportunity to bleed Iowa Pacific dry on rolling stock compliance given any smidgen of opportunity to reject equipment in the ill begotten Hoosier State experiment. Actually I was astounded that IP agreed to the crap deal.

 

[TheCrescent]

For privatization of LD trains, I say that we just look at how the UK and EU handle private operators of LD trains, and we copy and paste.

 

[lordsigma]

Correct. But perhaps affirmatively removing Amtrak’s ability to operate LD trains, and requiring that anyone who wants to operate one (including Amtrak) must bid on the right, would get some takers.

For privatization of LD trains, I say that we just look at how the UK and EU handle private operators of LD trains, and we copy and paste.

Removing Amtrak's ability to operate LD trains would likely effectively equate to their elimination. There are not private operators lining up to run LD trains. The legislation regarding private operators is deficient - but even absent the poor legislation - I would still be seriously skeptical that you'd get any takers.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

There was interest by groups to take over some of the routes. It’s just how the law was written that was/is the problem. As it was noted, a person who help write the law is the current President of Amtrak. So in some twisted way it might be the reason that Mr Garden got the job. He always has been political connected.

 

[TinCan782]

Not a long distance train but lets not forget Amtrak's Hoosier State, INDOT, Corridor Capitol and Iowa Pacific.
https://csanders429.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/rail-groups-pushing-for-hoosier-state-pact/

 

[cirdan]

What exactly is stopping this "other operator" from competing with Amtrak today?

That Amtrak gets money from government whereas a private operator doing exactly the same will not get a penny.
A private operator doing the same job much better won't get a penny either.

So Amtrak basically has a huge advantage, and no private operator has yet worked out how to get around that.

 

[lordsigma]

And at the end of the day would using a private operator really be more cost effective for the government? Likely only if they had the freedom to lower some costs that Amtrak is unable to. A private operator wants a ROI so they have to make money somewhere.

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

For privatization of LD trains, I say that we just look at how the UK and EU handle private operators of LD trains, and we copy and paste.

Um I'm not sure the UK is the best model of how to do privitization, given that they seem to be slowly moving back toward renationalization. There were several flaws in their approach which would take more than a post here to discuss.

 

[cirdan]

And at the end of the day would using a private operator really be more cost effective for the government? Likely only if they had the freedom to lower some costs that Amtrak is unable to. A private operator wants a ROI so they have to make money somewhere.

Which in the pessimistic case may mean they nickel and dime everything and pay their staff less and generally make a slightly better profit for a few years by running everything into the ground.

But in a optimistic case may mean they seek to innovatively grow the business and don't leave money or opportunities on the table.

In reality there will probably be a bit off both.

Furthermore the UK example has shown that private companies are far better than the public sector at lobbying and telling the government what it wants and then getting it. That might lead to a bit more of a level playing field versus the freight railroads who are presently clearly at an advantage in that respect.

 

[west point]

Privat operator on the NEC? Any operator would have to pay some allocated costs. + any service on the NEC thru the north river tunnels will need to wait for the new tunnel bores complete and one of the old bores completely refurbished. IMO that is 15 years down the pike. Now BOS <> NYP, NYP<>Albany and also the NYP substitutes NYG for NYP. doubtful if MNRR would allow with NY & CT state stating all slots needed for commuter trains. Amtrak does not have that problem.

Operation on freight RRs? If we think CSX/ Amtrak is hot just wait for the fallout for any proposal for a private operator wanting to have max speeds much faster that plug along Amtrak,

 

[AmtrakMaineiac]

It will be interesting to see how open access works out in Europe in the long term. Seems to me that the routes being chosen are cherry picked for ones that have high demand and a lot of routes less in demand will still need government operation. Also can and will they keep these low fares indefinitely ?

 

[MARC Rider]

It will be interesting to see how open access works out in Europe in the long term. Seems to me that the routes being chosen are cherry picked for ones that have high demand and a lot of routes less in demand will still need government operation. Also can and will they keep these low fares indefinitely ?

The issue of "cherry picking" is a problem with all private-sector operations in many industries. Not only to the private operators want to make a "profit" (however that is defined to them), most investors insist on such a high rate of return that many enterprises that could cover their costs are not of interest to these businesses, and get shut down or never started.

 

[jruff001]

There was a PRIIA-related performance improvement plan that called for Amtrak to have one coach run south only to Atlanta and then back north. That would have required switching in Atlanta. The study showed that it would have increased revenues for the Crescent.

Would it have increased revenues more than what NS would charge for the switching? There would have to be a NS engine and crew basically standing by every evening since the arrival time of 20 is so variable.

Anyway I think it would be a disaster for 20's on-time performance (which is already bad) to depend on NS to get an engine to the ATL station when it is needed. I can hear the NS dispatcher in my head now when 20 arrives in Atlanta: "Sorry, Amtrak, nothing is available at the moment; we'll get to you when we can."

Amtrak never followed through?

And Amtrak hasn’t even asked NS about switching?

Amtrak is that pathetic?

Quite a few assumptions you are making there.

 

[caravanman]

Would not the trials and tribulations that Amtrak experiences trying to run services over freight owned rails just be inherited by any private operator?