Should Amtrak have to Compete with Private companies, new bill?

[frj1983]

Any Floridians out there who can explain why John Mica is sooooooooo

Anti-Amtrak??

 

[WICT106]

I have to echo the sentiments of several of the other posters here. Amtrak was created because the freight railroads found the passenger end of the business to be unprofitable. that's right -- even the vaunted corridors and commuter trains were found to be unprofitable when the consumer compared their out of pocket costs to the out of pocket costs of driving. Why on Earth do those who make these proposals think that these efforts will be profitable, when even highways do not have their utility measured in terms of profit or loss ?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It might actually work, although I don't want it to happen. The 1970s and now are different times. Now the cost of going into New York by car is more expensive than taking the train.

 

[George Harris]

Odd that we rarely hear nostalgic pining (at least that I have noticed on this side of the pond) for the days long ago before most European railroads were nationalized, which I suppose I equate to our own pre-merger era. American railfans still look at their favorite fallen flag railroads in the same light that most people consider their favorite sports teams.

Most European systems were government operations from day one. Those that were not became government many years before our passenger side did. Being government maant being able to pander to the public regardless of economic reality and also to ignore technological advaces in many areas. If you look at the state of their current technology level on the freight side, it is hard to keep from laughing.

 

[Larry H.]

Imagine if freight railroads really had a stake in passenger trains again, with their corporate name emblazoned on the side of streamliners and their public image dependent on the service they provided...fast, efficient, clean and friendly are words that could all be reintroduced into the railroad lexicon!

Were you around when the freight railroads were doing everything in their power to Not provide "flagship" service. It was completely the opposite. Huge delays, dirty cars, no water, freight cars behind fantail observation cars, surly crews, poor food, no heat, no air, claiming sold out trains that were running nearly empty so that they indeed were empty. Beautiful cars designed less that 10 years ago were sent out in tattered and battered shape, no one cared. I experienced all these things and more. Enough, none of the companies that did those things cared a hoot about anything but driving off the rail passengers. There were a few odd exceptions that held on despite all odds, but only a handful.

 

[Larry H.]

Gee I just realized I also described "Amtrak" too..

Shorted and shorter trains, poorer food, tattered cars, toilets that don't work, eliminated lounges, closed stations with no service, have things really changed?

 

[jphjaxfl]

Any Floridians out there who can explain why John Mica is soooooooooAnti-Amtrak??

The aviation, automobile, and other lobbies have him in their pocket. If Florida had frequent, well run passenger train system like California, it would be very beneficial to the tourist industry, but would have an impact on airlines and automobile related industries.

He is very much in favor of the proposed commuter rail system in the Orlando area. Tri Rail in South Florida has worked well and I think he realizes that.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Gee I just realized I also described "Amtrak" too..
Shorted and shorter trains, poorer food, tattered cars, toilets that don't work, eliminated lounges, closed stations with no service, have things really changed?

I remember the mid to late 1960s til Amtrak started when private railroads were still running passenger trains. A few like Santa Fe and Seaboard Coastline were still customer orientated and were attacting passengers. There were few mediocre and the rest were terrible and did everything they could to keep passengers from every riding again.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

"Passengers will please refrain!"

 

[Chessie Hokie]

Imagine if freight railroads really had a stake in passenger trains again, with their corporate name emblazoned on the side of streamliners and their public image dependent on the service they provided...fast, efficient, clean and friendly are words that could all be reintroduced into the railroad lexicon!

Were you around when the freight railroads were doing everything in their power to Not provide "flagship" service. It was completely the opposite. Huge delays, dirty cars, no water, freight cars behind fantail observation cars, surly crews, poor food, no heat, no air, claiming sold out trains that were running nearly empty so that they indeed were empty. Beautiful cars designed less that 10 years ago were sent out in tattered and battered shape, no one cared. I experienced all these things and more. Enough, none of the companies that did those things cared a hoot about anything but driving off the rail passengers. There were a few odd exceptions that held on despite all odds, but only a handful.

Well, they weren't really "freight railroads" back then...that concept was a result of the birth of Amtrak. Before that railroads had a regulatory responsibility for service as common carriers. Moving both freight and passengers was normal at one time. Though railroads always made the bulk of their money on moving freight (even in the days when passenger trains were still profitable), passenger service was the public face of the railroad and this was, for many railroads and railroaders, a point of pride. Certainly the application of this varied from one railroad to another, reflecting the character, philosophy and savvy of each individual line, but generally through the '40's and even into the early '50's most lines made an attempt at putting their best foot forward, even when losing money on the service (yes, there were exceptions). As the red ink increased exponentially in the '50's and '60's with the increasing loss of patronage to the automobile and air travel is when we saw the wanton degradation in service...often (but not always) as a concerted management method to rid themselves of an operation that was bleeding them dry. It worked. We know how that went down and I have no argument other than to say it wasn't always so.

Passenger train travel, back then, was widely considered to be an old, outmoded method of transport...the future was the automobile and airliner! When Amtrak was formed, legally relieving the railroads of their common carrier obligations concerning the carriage of passengers, most people doubted it would last more than a few years. Amtrak was intended to be a good faith last gasp effort to save the passenger train, which was thought to be inevitably destined to failure...for political cover as much as anything. It has survived ever since on the budgetary equivalent of bread and water...to everyone's surprise.

Quote from Yogi Berra: "The future just ain't what it used to be."

Well, low and behold...times have changed...again. Besides us train nuts, who never gave up the faith, problems of highway and air traffic congestion, gridlock, rising fuel prices, environmental concerns, population growth, etc., have increasingly caused people to look for alternatives and rethink dusting off this old has-been technology and recognizing the potential that exists in the effective and efficient attributes of the simple physics of steel wheels on steel rails.

I think it is inevitable that rail passenger service will increasingly be called upon to alleviate excessive dependence on other modes. Passenger rail is almost sure to be a long term part of the solution toward a rational national transportation system. It isn't going to happen overnight and will take some changes in attitudes. One of the attitudes that likely needs to change to make it successful, though, is the idea that "freight railroads" are somehow completely out of bounds due to their private nature. What Congress giveth...Congress can taketh away (relieve from common carrier obligations). Government could certainly use a carrot and stick approach to entice cooperation: the carrot could offer subsidies to cover passenger losses and, even better, exempting railroad trackage from property taxes, among other enticements. The stick could be simply bludgeoning the railroads to submit to political will...not a pretty scenario. Based again on my argument of the inevitability of it all, I think the "freight railroads" would eventually find it in their best interest to cooperate to move people, and they may decide it would be better to just do it themselves...and do it right...rather than have some other party (contractors) wandering around on their rails. I think railroad management would see this as a way to maintain more control over their own system. Particularly on routes outside of the NEC.

 

[Larry H.]

I wouldn't hold my breath!