So is Alaska RR the only one that continued passenger service? I'm not sure if it was even eligible for Amtrak.
Alaska RR was owned by the Federal Government since the 1920s. IIRC it was originally under the Department of the Interior. In 1967 it was transferred to the FRA. Then it was purchased by the State Government in 1985. It was never really eligible to participate in Railpax.So is Alaska RR the only one that continued passenger service? I'm not sure if it was even eligible for Amtrak.
Rio Grande CEO William Holtman was afraid of letting Amtrak having “carte blanche” to run much more trains over his road than the 3 weekly RGZ’s…afraid it would interfere with their “Fast, Frequent, Freight” train operations…D&RGW was the third RR that did not join Amtrak. The reason was not that of the CRI&P (couldn't afford it) or the Southern (which as I recall had its doubts as well as resources to continue passenger service), but I forget D&RGW's reason or at least the one I did read at the time (perhaps in Trains magazine or the Passenger Train Journal).
I know that RR's opted into Amtrak and not all did. My question was could they reverse that decision?@jimdex is correct. There's no mandate. When Amtrak was created, two railroads OPTED to retain their passenger service for awhile: Southern Railway's Crescent, and D&RGW's Rio Grande Zephyr.
Passenger service is very labor intensive and runs liability risks, which is why the freight operators aren't clamoring to start up passenger service.
The ones that chose not to, were obligated to run their existing trains for a few more years, before they could reapply for membership. And then that was extended.I know that RR's opted into Amtrak and not all did. My question was could they reverse that decision?
See Mike from Crete's post:If it counts, Union Pacific has Metra passenger trains running on their tracks in Chicago that leave from Ogilvie.
Union Pacific has absolutely no interest in running passenger trains.
Right now, they're in the process of turning over their Chicago commuter trains entirely over to Metra. Unlike BNSF, they have no other contracts to run commuter trains anywhere, they sure wouldn't want to get back into the long distance service they fought so hard to get rid of.
It is somewhat of a moot question, since I think we can pretty much agree that none of the original "member" roads would ever want to, but whether they "can" or not, may have changed through the years, as other aspects of the original agreement's have. There may have been a clause in the original agreement, that would make Amtrak the exclusive provider of intercity, non commuter passenger trains on member roads, but that may have disappeared from later revision's in the Amtrak legislation...not sure.The question of what the contractual obligation of the RR's is to starting their own passenger service (Amtrak joiners that is) is, irrespective of whether they will or want to, a good question. I don't think we've gotten a concrete answer - if we did I missed it.
That implies that they can't directly compete with Amtrak without their permission.(c) No railroad or any other person may, without the consent of the Corporation, conduct intercity rail passenger service over any route over which the Corporation is performing scheduled intercity rail passenger service pursuant to a contract under this section.
That has since been rescinded by Congress in one of their frenzied attempt to get private operators of LD service, even freight railroads if possible. They require FRA’s blessing now. Not Amtrak’s IIRC.From the original Act:
That implies that they can't directly compete with Amtrak without their permission.
"Corporation" is now Amtrak, and the "contract" is referring to taking over the passenger service.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1327.pdf
The requirement to permit private operations seems to have been a stock item for lawmakers who thought they were following Margaret Thatcher's path. In Colorado legislation that in effect mandated privatization of part of the Regional Transportation District's service the same type of open market clause was included. Small, innovative, nimble companies would provide better service than the huge public agency and would live by the free market -- or die by it. It was that last part that bothered potential investors.That has since been rescinded by Congress in one of their frenzied attempt to get private operators of LD service, even freight railroads if possible. They require FRA’s blessing now. Not Amtrak’s IIRC.
Anyhow, the real problem is getting access to host railroad tracks and there Amtrak still is the only one that supposedly has special dispensation and we all know how well that works out
This incidentally gives the host railroads an upper hand should they wish to run passenger trains. But demonstrably they don’t since they can make much more money running freight trains.
The difference is that these non Amtrak operations either involve the train company owning the tracks directly, or having some mutual agreement with the railroads who own them.But Brightline is not operating under Amtrak, nor are dozens of commuter rail lines across the US. So the government definitely allows other operators.
There have been attempts to do this, for example France had a postal TGV service for many years until decreasing letter volumes put it out of service.Wouldn’t it be interesting if BOTH of these were true:
A. Demand for 100+ mph intermodal develops, AND…
B. The only way to run that fast remains with passenger trains.
It would be fascinating to see how the class 1 RRs would react if, for example, Brightline West were to develop a way to add containers to their trains. That may not be the best example but you probably get my point. Would UP want to get in the game if there actually were profit in passengers — roundabout though it may be.
That's a great idea! Is there a reason why they won't offer frequent Big Boy excursion rides?They can but it seems very unlikely they would want to. I mean if they wanted to they could run daily trips from Denver to Cheyenne with the Big Boy and 844! Probably wouldn't lose money, but I'm not sure if that's a business they want to get into.
UP has offered some public rides on Big Boy runs in the past few years, but the prices have been astronomical.That's a great idea! Is there a reason why they won't offer frequent Big Boy excursion rides?
Running that rolling historical icon is rather expensive, and maintaining it for frequent service, when parts have to be custom made, and there isn’t a large pool of qualified labor to run and maintain it, makes it too difficult.UP has offered some public rides on Big Boy runs in the past few years, but the prices have been astronomical.
I was kinda joking but regular excursions out of Denver would most likely be profitable. It's way easier to run it back and forth from her home base rather than month-long excursions around the system.Running that rolling historical icon is rather expensive, and maintaining it for frequent service, when parts have to be custom made, and there isn’t a large pool of qualified labor to run and maintain it, makes it too difficult.
I doubt running it “daily” in the market mentioned would be profitable. It is better left as it is… a fantastic tool for good publicity and public relations for the railroad with occasional use.
It’s use depends a lot on the whims of whoever is the current CEO…
Enter your email address to join: