# Could Amtrak Be Replaced With Something Better?



## fredmcain (May 17, 2018)

Group,

I would like to share a message that I posted on another group. I hope I don't step on any toes here.

What follows is my idea for replacing Amtrak but first I have to make it clear that it _WOULD_ require Congress to pass new legislation.

The first part of that legislation would be to _FREEZE_ the current system so that Richard “Doofus” Anderson can’t cut anything until the transition is complete.

Then the transition to turn back the passenger trains to the contracting freight roads could begin. I know, I know, we’ve been down that road before and it didn’t work. But first consider that times have changed AND new legislation could provide a new environment for intercity rail passenger service that would be more attractive to the companies than it was in the 1960s.

The first thing Congress would need to do is to completely and totally replace most of the equipment _AND_ provide _ENOUGH_ equipment to allow for expansion (both frequencies and possible new routes) as well as for maintenance downtime and wreck damage.

Then, the legislation could provide the railroads with low or no interest government backed loans in the future to help cover any further purchases.

The legislation could/should persuade or mandate the post office to move “head end” business back to passenger trains wherever feasible. 

The roads could also go after UPS or FedEx head end business. Remember Ed Ellis tried that before but ran into extreme opposition from the Class 1s because they were afraid of losing a little bit of TOFC or COFC business to Amtrak. But with the Class 1s on the engineer’s seat, that would not be an issue this time. In fact, they’d probably like it.

What I like the most of my idea is that it would all but eliminate the “Our tracks and your trains” issue that exists between the Class 1s and Amtrak. The trains could also be marketed in such a way as to boost corporate pride not unlike the U.P. Steam Program. Maybe BNSF would consider revival of the _Super Chief_ name. Warbonnets? Why not?

If this were ever to happen, something would also need to be done to address the issue of the Northeast Corridor – I’m not sure what. Perhaps it could be turned over to some kind of multistate agency and managed much as the Port Authority manages the PATH trains in the New York/New Jersey area. A similar kind of thing would need to be done in California. But I think the “Joint Powers” board might be able to take care of that (where they have rights to the tracks, that is).

Another idea I had would be similar but instead of Congress passing legislation to turn the trains back to the Class 1s, they could turn it over to some kind of a Brightline-like business or a series of such companies. Unfortunately, if they did that then we’d still be stuck with this “our tracks but your trains conflict”.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain,

Amtrak patron from Topeka, IN


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 17, 2018)

1. Class 1's don't want to have anything to do with running passenger trains. They don't want all the extra employees and other overhead expenses. If you paid them a lot more money, they would probably treat Amtrak better, much like the deal between California and UP in running the Capitol Corridor.

2. Having some private company in charge would probably work, but who would compensate them for their losses. Remember the reason we have Amtrak in the first place is that passenger trains don't make money, so congress would have to ante up a bunch of money for the private operator(s). In the U.K. private firms operate the trains, but most of the routes get some kind of a subsidy.

3. Forcing the post office to use passenger trains won't work if it raises costs for the Postal Service, which has its own money woes. The freight railroads already run hot trains for UPS, they'd have nothing to gain.

4. Today's railroads seem to have little corporate pride. Their main deal is to make as much money as possible for their Wall Street overlords. UP is unique in its steam program, but all it would take is an executive changeover to scuttle that. Look to NS for that example.

I'm not trying to knock your ideas, but this is the 21st century, we can't go back to the 1950's to find ways to operate trains. The heyday of passenger trains was cut short by the Interstate highway program and jet airplanes. Now we're looking at competition from robot-driven cars.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 17, 2018)

I was thinking that this was like going back to hehe 1950s.

I really think the solution to rail travel in the US is to focus on building a high speed rail system in the eastern half of the country.

The distance between many midsized and major cities is 200 to 500 miles. A dedicated interconnected hsr system would revolutionize travel patterns in the eastern half of the country. This would seriously reduce congestion on high ways and the air traffic system.

Think about it. China built this in 20 years in its country.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (May 17, 2018)

I think there are two possibilities, and the outcome at the moment is out of our hands:

Brightline does well, and other private companies start falling all over each other to offer trains from one of their real estate ventures to another. (The Henry Flagler model--the train is simply a vehicle--in both senses of the word--to get people to the train company's restaurants, hotels, and other attractions and have them spend money--lots of it--there.)

Brightline does not do well, and no other private company will touch passenger rail.

In the first scenario, Amtrak coexists and gets whatever is left over that no one else wants.

In the second scenario, we are stuck with Amtrak in its current form, with perhaps lots of cuts.

I would love the first scenario. We will have to wait and see, though.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 17, 2018)

Others nailed it with the fact that Class Is dont have any desire to run Passenger Rail ,( or even Commuter Rail such as,BNSF in CHI which they're trying to shed).

But please, no more NY/NJ Port Authority or Washington Metro type run operations for the NEC. This will prevent Politicians from getting their hands on the Jobs and the Money and making even more of a Mess than we have now when it comes to Rail.


----------



## TC_NYC (May 17, 2018)

Honestly, I think we'll see a successful case of the Brightline in Florida that will encourage some of the Class 1s to take subsidies in exchange for operating Amtrak. I think another strong option (that would improve Amtrak) would be contracting out all of the OBS on the train. Heck, contract it out to the Airlines who can tap into their FA pools to help man Amtrak trains and provide a higher level of service on board.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 17, 2018)

I hope Brightline does well but it also seems like a rather unique outlier compared to most routes and roads. Their extremely well located real estate holdings, efficient mainline routing, high population density, and corporate determination are a rare combination in my view. I'm also rather unsure as to how hiring a bunch of flight attendants would make things better. In my experience they're often bossy and/or rude, mostly indifferent to customer needs, and prone to (sometimes severe) overreaction. Even in premium cabins US flight attendants often come across as fake and manipulative rather than polished and genuine (IMO). I can put up with that sort of thing for the 1-4 hours it usually takes me to fly somewhere in the lower 48, but it gets old really quick if I'm flying for 5+ hours. Although I've run into some really annoying SCA's over the years I've also run into SCA's that were far better than the typical US flight attendant.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 17, 2018)

Steve4031 said:


> I was thinking that this was like going back to hehe 1950s.
> 
> I really think the solution to rail travel in the US is to focus on building a high speed rail system in the eastern half of the country.
> 
> ...


It would make sense and if the western/rural states' Congressmen would support it without demanding their share it could work. But good luck there. A nationwide high speed rail system that serves the whole country including the boon docks/middle of nowhere would cost 3 times as much and might not even serve twice as many people. If America can build a HSR system in stages it can gradually be successful.


----------



## TinCan782 (May 17, 2018)

Iowa Pacific or X-Train?


----------



## railiner (May 18, 2018)

When Amtrak was created to relieve the nation's freight railroads from their chronic money losing passenger train responsibilities, that ended that. And there "ain't no going back"....sorry....


----------



## cirdan (May 18, 2018)

Brightline is a special case. We don't yet know whether it will be a success or how it will develop long term. Even if it does work out well, the model is not easily transferrable to other locations.

If it was that easy and that attarctive, we would have seen dozens such systems spring up all over the place years ago.

Passenger trains will only grow if a political climate emerges that is favorable for them.

There was a time, about 10 years ago, that I thought that was happening. Rising gas prices, peak oil, etc.

Now with electric cars and self driving cars and so on emerging, I think that opportunity has lessened.

But that doesn't mean the battle isn't worth fighting, or that there aren't special cases and situations where passenger rail won't expand.


----------



## fredmcain (May 18, 2018)

railiner said:


> When Amtrak was created to relieve the nation's freight railroads from their chronic money losing passenger train responsibilities, that ended that. And there "ain't no going back"....sorry....


If by "going back" we mean returning to the situation that existed in the 1960s, that's true. That is probably why, when asked, top level Class 1 managers say "no way".

But, if Congress could change the environment for passenger rail through a combination of government backed equipment trusts, tax breaks and the possibility of new head-end business, then long-distance passenger trains could at least break even or possibly even eke out a small profit. But the big payoff would come in corporate image.

As for the contention that the roads today are not interested in corporation image, I can point out the expense the UP is going to to restore a "Big Boy" locomotive. If they aren't doing that for image then what are they doing it for?

My question to the head of the UP or BNSF, et al, would _NOT_ be "would you consider running passenger trains again?" but rather "what would it take in order to make running passenger trains attractive again?"

As the people at the FEC already know, improving tracks for new passenger trains dramatically improves freight service as well. AND the "our tracks but your damn trains" conflict is put to rest.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain (May 18, 2018)

cirdan said:


> There was a time, about 10 years ago, that I thought that was happening. Rising gas prices, peak oil, etc.
> 
> Now with electric cars and self driving cars and so on emerging, I think that opportunity has lessened.
> 
> But that doesn't mean the battle isn't worth fighting, or that there aren't special cases and situations where passenger rail won't expand.


I have my own ideas about electric cars and driverless cars. Although I think that electric cars might be good for the natural environment over the long term, I also see these developments as loading new cars down with so much high-tech gobblygook that they are likely to become beyond the financial reach of the average American. Indeed, that trend had already started before these new technologies were being developed.

I can see where more and more people will choose to do without them or at the least downsize again from a multi-car family to a single car family. This could actually boost the demand for public transportation as well as demand for Uber and Lyft.


----------



## cirdan (May 18, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > There was a time, about 10 years ago, that I thought that was happening. Rising gas prices, peak oil, etc.
> ...


True, but all that technological gobbeldeygook is just expensive because we're so early in the cycle and manufacturing methods are still inefficient. As mass production picks up this stuff becomes commoditized and prices come down.

Same as happened to smartphones, computers etc.


----------



## fredmcain (May 18, 2018)

cirdan said:


> True, but all that technological gobbeldeygook is just expensive because we're so early in the cycle and manufacturing methods are still inefficient. As mass production picks up this stuff becomes commoditized and prices come down.
> 
> Same as happened to smartphones, computers etc.


I believe you're partly right but I can see the cost efficiencies of mass production as only bringing the price of a new car down so far. An automobile is not a calculator or a smartphone. Like I say, the cost of a new automobile was already soaring at a much higher rate than the average rate of inflation _BEFORE_ the driver-less and electric car technologies. Even the Prius hybrid is almost like a car for the rich. So, I don't see these even newer options as bringing the cost down with or without mass production.

Of course, none of us can see the future. We'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out. I just hope that some politicians and lobby groups like RandalL "One L" O'Toole don't use the possibility of these new technologies as an excuse to cut passenger trains and urban rail transit systems under the premise that "we won't be needing them in the future". As this point I don't believe that anyone really knows that yet.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## railiner (May 18, 2018)

Just prior to Amtrak, and even after, just look at the commuter train equipment. Most, if not nearly all of them, were no longer owned by the railroads they ran over. They had visible equipment trust plates affixed, and the train services were heavily subsidized by government agencies of one kind or another. The railroads still had no desire to operate them.

You propose asking them:  "what would it take in order to make running passenger trains attractive again?"

I'm afraid the answer to that question would be: "Much more than you can afford", or something along that line....in any event more than what Amtrak costs now.


----------



## Trogdor (May 18, 2018)

fredmcain said:


> My question to the head of the UP or BNSF, et al, would _NOT_ be "would you consider running passenger trains again?" but rather "what would it take in order to make running passenger trains attractive again?"



The answer is going to be: a _*lot*_ of money.

The issue isn't that the passenger train itself does or doesn't cover its operating costs with revenue. The issue is that a passenger train takes up capacity on a railroad that would be *far* more profitable if used for freight traffic. This is something I think a lot of passenger rail advocates don't understand or appreciate.

Based on 2008 data, the average revenue for a bulk train was over $200,000, and the average revenue for an intermodal train was over $125,000 (those numbers are per train), with an average train distance of 700-800 miles. Even adjusted for empty returns (on bulk trains, there's about as much empty running as loaded running), it means revenue per train-mile of around $140.

By comparison, the Southwest Chief earns around $27 per train-mile [rough calculation based on a quick Google search, $45 million in 2015 revenue, divided by (2265 * 2 * 365)]. So, the typical freight train earns five times the revenue of a typical passenger train, and runs at a far lower cost (crew of 2 on a freight train vs. crew of 8 - 10 on a long-distance passenger train, plus station staff where said staff exists, plus passenger cars would be more expensive to maintain than freight cars as they have a lot more stuff that is far more complex than a couple pieces of metal with a brake line running through it).

On top of that, passenger trains running at higher speeds and requiring "priority" over freight trains takes up far more capacity than a standard freight train running in line with everything else. This is why freight railroads really would rather Amtrak go away. Giving the passenger operation back to them doesn't fix this problem. Only building new capacity will fix it. And that costs lots of money. Whose name appears on the side of the locomotive or on the conductor's hat is trivial.

So even if you paid a freight railroad enough to cover the direct costs of running a passenger train, it still wouldn't be worth it to them. They'd rather keep earning $200,000 per freight train, without all of the headaches associated with passenger trains (or the passengers themselves) gumming up the mix.


----------



## Skyline (May 18, 2018)

No. No. No. No.

Instead of purchasing new equipment and letting the very railroads that are openly hostile to passenger trains resume their operation after 47 years of Amtrak, the Feds should do what the late Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) proposed in the first decade of Amtrak.

The Feds should assume control (maintenance and traffic control, plus some of the adjunct facilities) of all the trackage. Then allow any railroad that wants to pay to use those facilities do so. The private railroads would retain control of its own terminals, intermodal in most cases -- and compete with each other where appropriate, cooperate with each other where that is mutually beneficial.

This is not much different than the current model for interstate highways, especially those that charge tolls. States also are stakeholders, of course.

The result should be a more competitive rail environment -- one that could benefit passenger trains if there is the political will to do so. With the Feds scheduling traffic, chances are good that under this scenario OTP performance for passenger trains would improve, and opposition to increased passenger train frequencies would subside.


----------



## railiner (May 18, 2018)

Skyline said:


> The Feds should assume control (maintenance and traffic control, plus some of the adjunct facilities) of all the trackage. Then allow any railroad that wants to pay to use those facilities do so. The private railroads would retain control of its own terminals, intermodal in most cases -- and compete with each other where appropriate, cooperate with each other where that is mutually beneficial.


I am afraid that unless the government "stole" that property though "eminent domain", the cost of acquiring would be catastrophic...


----------



## jis (May 18, 2018)

You do know of course that acquiring something through eminent domain does require paying market price for the property.


----------



## Trogdor (May 18, 2018)

I always get a kick out of suggestions that the federal government take over railroad infrastructure...seeing as how the federal government has done a generally shitty (am I allowed to say that on here?) job of managing and maintaining infrastructure everywhere else, and can barely keep an anemic passenger rail system running as it is.


----------



## jis (May 18, 2018)

Frankly I would like to skip everything and go straight to the Star Trek Transporter if I could


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 18, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> I always get a kick out of suggestions that the federal government take over railroad infrastructure...seeing as how the federal government has done a generally shitty (am I allowed to say that on here?) job of managing and maintaining infrastructure everywhere else, and can barely keep an anemic passenger rail system running as it is.


I'd be curious to hear your non-government private party solution to improving passenger rail service in this country.


----------



## Trogdor (May 18, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > I always get a kick out of suggestions that the federal government take over railroad infrastructure...seeing as how the federal government has done a generally shitty (am I allowed to say that on here?) job of managing and maintaining infrastructure everywhere else, and can barely keep an anemic passenger rail system running as it is.
> ...



Brightline seems to be trying. Some states (I said "federal government," not government generally) are doing somewhat decent jobs at investing in rail infrastructure because they've made it their own priority.


----------



## jis (May 18, 2018)

Brightline is actually an interesting but odd example, because their business model requires significant real estate development around their stations which they can monetize.

One of the problems in the US has been the careful fragmentation of the field so that outfits like Amtrak or NJT or MTA cannot really monetize the real estate to as great an extent directly as the likes of the Fortress Group can. If Amtrak got into the hotel and condo business Uncle Sam will probably throw a major hissy-fit about it. Same is true of any of the state outfits. OTOH, the classic railroads, the equivalent of FECR in the Brightline scenario, are basically so incompetent at running any real business that they are unlikely to be able to make a run for it in that space, while they are so scared of losing control that they won't cooperate with anyone else about anything. What is worse is, that it is not like they were always this bad. They were rather good at managing their rela estate, until they got greedy or something and lost their mojo rather completely in the middle of last century. So here we are where we are.


----------



## TinCan782 (May 18, 2018)

Business motives other than passenger rail have been in play for some time. With Pacific Electric (PE), the development of suburban communities around Los Angeles in the early twentieth century was the result. Transporting citizens to outlying areas for the purpose of selling (inexpensive) land was the motive!

_"Railroads were one part of the enterprise. Revenue from passenger traffic rarely generated a profit, unlike freight. The real money for the investors was in supplying electric power to new communities and in developing and selling real estate. To get the railways and electricity to their towns, local groups offered the Huntington interests opportunities in local land."_

...from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric

There is, of course, more to this and it makes fascinating reading.


----------



## railiner (May 19, 2018)

We all know what happens when railroads diversify into more profitable businesses including real estate....

It doesn't take the bean counters long to start bleeding the railroads, and put the profit into the sector's with the better return on investment, leading to deferred maintenance, and eventually...

(anyone remember the Penn Central?).


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 19, 2018)

I do not see Congress being able to do much with Amtrak considering what they have done over the past decades. At best Congress, that sees Amtrak as a profit corporation and not providing a public service, will force Amtrak to degrade its service a little bit every few years until there is no Long Distance, only in photos for our children to tell their grandchildren about. Then there may be a disaster of greater proportion than 9/11 with airlines out of service for even longer period of time, only there will be no long distance rail to fall back to.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 21, 2018)

railiner said:


> We all know what happens when railroads diversify into more profitable businesses including real estate....
> 
> It doesn't take the bean counters long to start bleeding the railroads, and put the profit into the sector's with the better return on investment, leading to deferred maintenance, and eventually...
> 
> (anyone remember the Penn Central?).


Anybody remember Santa Fe - Southern Pacific merger? They merged the holding companies in anticipation of the RR merger. All the non-RR assets, real estate, etc went into the merged holding company. When the railroad merger was declined, the new holding company, now essentially Santa Fe, kept all those assets and SP was spun out as a railroad only. Which was financially hobbled by the stripping away of other SP assets and never really recovered.

Railroads, at least the western ones, had always been big real estate holders and players.

I never noticed Santa Fe being an advocate of deferred maintenance, or not maintaining capital investment in the railroad.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 22, 2018)

railiner said:


> We all know what happens when railroads diversify into more profitable businesses including real estate....
> 
> It doesn't take the bean counters long to start bleeding the railroads, and put the profit into the sector's with the better return on investment, leading to deferred maintenance, and eventually...
> 
> (anyone remember the Penn Central?).


If I remember right, that was close to the model that the Northern Pacific used, where the railroad used subsidiaries to generate traffic, mainly in the timber and agricultural industries.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 22, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm also rather unsure as to how hiring a bunch of flight attendants would make things better. In my experience they're often bossy and/or rude, mostly indifferent to customer needs, and prone to (sometimes severe) overreaction. Even in premium cabins US flight attendants often come across as fake and manipulative rather than polished and genuine (IMO). I can put up with that sort of thing for the 1-4 hours it usually takes me to fly somewhere in the lower 48, but it gets old really quick if I'm flying for 5+ hours. Although I've run into some really annoying SCA's over the years I've also run into SCA's that were far better than the typical US flight attendant.


We must be flying in the skies of alternative universes. True, in-flight services is not as good as it was in the days of my youth, when flying coach on a pre-deregulated airline environment would get you full meal service on an east coast - Chicago flight, the ability to fold down the middle seat and get an extra-wide armrest (if the plane wasn't full, thanks, TWA!), and "stewardesses" who were deferential even to a pimply-faced college boy like me. But my recent flights had FAs who were polite and efficient, and generally didn't ruffle my feathers during what is now the stressful experience of a modern airline journey. I usually fly Southwest, but even on my marathon 14 hour UA flight to Beijing, the coach attendants were fine. I got the lousy meals (and such small portions, too!) served when they were supposed to, and they came around and refilled us with the rotgut plonk they serve in steerage or the surprisingly decent beer selection. The worst I can recall is a and Oakland - BWI flight on Southwest, when I ordered a glass of wine, the plane lurched, and the FA spilled the red plonk all over me. She was totally apologetic, almost groveling, helped me clean up and they comped me another glass of California's "finest." Maybe I'm just not so picky and demanding in my expectations from service workers, but I've never had any problems with airline flight attendants. Noiw, Amtrak dining carr staff -- well, there have been a couple of times where I've noticed that they were a bit "off their peak," shall we say, but never so bad that I saw fit to send a nastygram to corporate HQ.

You want bossy flight attendants, try El Al, circa 1972. But you did get bagels and lox for breakfast on the eastbound flights.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 22, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


Can you think of an example of another potential Brightline? FEC's passenger rail project seems like a unique one-off situation rather than a template for duplicating elsewhere. In the same vein can you name a country that has managed to deploy and manage modern passenger rail while leaving the national level government out of it? Both of these questions are neutral and sincere; if such examples exist I genuinely want to know about them.



MARC Rider said:


> We must be flying in the skies of alternative universes. My recent flights had FAs who were polite and efficient, and generally didn't ruffle my feathers during what is now the stressful experience of a modern airline journey. Even on my marathon 14 hour UA flight to Beijing, the coach attendants were fine. I got the lousy meals (and such small portions, too!) served when they were supposed to, and they came around and refilled us with the rotgut plonk they serve in steerage or the surprisingly decent beer selection.


By my memory airline stewards and stewardesses of the 1970's and 80's were extremely helpful and polite. They treated me so well I felt right at home and I think that's part of the reason I enjoyed flying even as a young boy oblivious to macro physics. Whereas today's senior flight attendants seem to view customers as little more than an unavoidable nuisance ripe for bossing and ridiculing. On a trip of a few hours nobody really cares but on a flight that's 10+ hours you start to sense the indifference and contempt. Ignoring requests, barking orders, pretending to offer you a better seat only to discover it's far worse, snapping at mistakes and misunderstandings, repeatedly ramming shoulders and feet with carts sans warning or apology, leaving nasty bathrooms uncleaned, etc. I still enjoy flying the likes of SQ, CX, TG, BR, etc. but that's not the labor pool from which Amtrak would be hiring.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 27, 2018)

I agree the flight attendants of earlier years were very customer oriented, but also the flying public had a different attitude compared to those flying today. When I flew heavy in the late 80's and 90's, the airlines greeted me with a genuine smile and greeting, upgrading me without asking. Most flight attendants were never bossy. Today, with a flying public that has no tolerance for anything and it is everyone by themselves at fault, flight attendants get abused so they find it hard to be genuine any more. I have heard the stories from three relatives who are senior flight attendants for AA and DL. Low pay with verbal and physical abuse. why do those in my family still do it, they have too much invested at this point.


----------



## neroden (May 30, 2018)

Rather than going back to the past, let's look at what's likely in the future...

...there is a very serious possibility that the cost of trucking will drop significantly due to electric trucks. To the point where the current freight railroads, who have to pay the full costs of track maintenance and dispatching, won't be able to stay competitive with trucks which use the roads for free.

It's quite possible that the "freight" railroads will need to be bailed out by government, AGAIN, like they were with Conrail.

This time, let's not make the same mistake made with Conrail (and Canadian National, and Grand Trunk, and the Intercolonial Railway in Canada). Let's keep the tracks public. Permanently. Like they do in nearly every country in the world. Wick Moorman even liked the idea. The main "thumb on the scales" in favor of trucks is that roads are public (trucks pay essentially nothing to use them, except for some toll roads) while tracks are private (so railroad operators have to pay a lot to use them). If this was fixed, then even with electric trucks, it would be clear that trains were much cheaper for hauling freight.

Once the tracks are public and treated as a public service like the roads, it's going to be really easy to get passenger service improved.


----------



## neroden (May 30, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Can you think of an example of another potential Brightline? FEC's passenger rail project seems like a unique one-off situation rather than a template for duplicating elsewhere. In the same vein can you name a country that has managed to deploy and manage modern passenger rail while leaving the national level government out of it? Both of these questions are neutral and sincere; if such examples exist I genuinely want to know about them.


I can think of examples where the state-level government was involved and not the national-level government, but I can't think of any examples where government wasn't the main passenger rail proponent and manager.


----------



## neroden (May 30, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > We all know what happens when railroads diversify into more profitable businesses including real estate....
> ...


Actually, you remember it wrong. I owned Southern Pacific stock.

They actually spun off ALL the combined real estate holdings, with the sole exception of railroad property then in use. The mining became "Santa Fe Gold". The rest became "Catellus", which owned nearly all the former passenger stations and lots of former freight yards and already-dismantled railway ROWs. I ended up with stock in both companies.

SP was then sold off (not spun out) to Rio Grande Industries, who merged the Rio Grande into the SP. This left me with Santa Fe stock. The remaining Santa Fe was eventually bought by Burlington Northern.

Railroads, at least the western ones, had always been big real estate holders and players.

I never noticed Santa Fe being an advocate of deferred maintenance, or not maintaining capital investment in the railroad.


----------



## jis (May 30, 2018)

The fundamental problem with depending exclusively on private capital for development of passenger rail service is that they will concentrate on only the most populous corridors and leave vast swaths of area with no service. When the government tries to behave like a private corporation the results are similar.

If the construction of the Interstate system were left only to private developers one can bet that there would be no Interstate through places like South Dakota and Wyoming, and there would also be a considerably smaller trucking industry as an offshoot of that erroneous decision.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 31, 2018)

Electric engines on trucks may be cheaper to operate locally, but long distance irregular routes may find charging stations hard to find and if one is found does the driver have time to charge the truck. An engine pulling a 40,000 pound load plus the weight of the rig, over the mountains will require some serious stored energy. I can see the electric trucks in the P&D, LTL, and Distribution city service where there are thousand and thousands of city trucks, but none of these will replace rail service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jun 1, 2018)

jis said:


> The fundamental problem with depending exclusively on private capital for development of passenger rail service is that they will concentrate on only the most populous corridors and leave vast swaths of area with no service.


Right now there's vast swaths of area in the US with no passenger rail service. How's depending exclusively on the government any better? If passenger rail were commercially feasible, I'd rather the market set who gets trains rather than Congress. Ideally you'd have both so everyone wins.


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2018)

I would too. But we already know how that worked out.


----------



## neroden (Jun 5, 2018)

If we had a government sane enough to treat railroad tracks the way we treat expressways, I honestly think everything would sort itself out rather quickly. I'm not a fan of private train operators like in the UK, but it works a lot better than private track ownership, which doesn't even work for freight service.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 7, 2018)

To answer the OP question? No. Unless the freight railroads kept offering service. Who knows what would had happened if the Government offered to give a subsidy to the freight railroads instead of trying to take it over itself. I read in Trains that Santa Fe was willing to continue the Chief past 1971. So some RRs actually took pride in their pax services. The Crescent ran apart from Amtrak for a time too.


----------



## jis (Jun 7, 2018)

And yet the US appears to have chronic under-capitalization of the rail infrastructure with sever capacity issues on many routes, partly caused by strange tax laws admittedly.

Santa Fe would not have been able to sustain passenger service given how its finances of the rail portion turned out eventually, just like Southern was not able to sustain the Southern Crescent operations either. People who did not live through it don;t seem to realize what the depth of the financial crisis was in the railroad industry, even among the not so hard hit companies, again admittedly caused by regulatory and ICC policies to some extent, and the rest caused by plain short sighted, short term greed.


----------



## fredmcain (Jun 7, 2018)

jis said:


> And yet the US appears to have chronic under-capitalization of the rail infrastructure with sever capacity issues on many routes, partly caused by strange tax laws admittedly.
> 
> Santa Fe would not have been able to sustain passenger service given how its finances of the rail portion turned out eventually, just like Southern was not able to sustain the Southern Crescent operations either. People who did not live through it don;t seem to realize what the depth of the financial crisis was in the railroad industry, even among the not so hard hit companies, again admittedly caused by regulatory and ICC policies to some extent, and the rest caused by plain short sighted, short term greed.


You know, JIS, I have long wondered how much of an impact property taxes have on the rail industry as a whole. I think most of us would admit they have an impact but how much of an impact?

It's a generally known, accepted economic fact that high taxes discourage investment and if taxes are punitive enough they can actually ENcourage disinvestment. I have long suspected that in some states, high property taxes have led railroads to abandon many branches and secondary mainlines that could've been used as "pop-off valves". And now we have arrived at the capacity issues you mentioned.

In the Indiana county I live in, we once had _THREE_ rail lines that criss-crossed the county. Now for all intents and purposes we have _NO_ rail service at all. I blame the county and their high property taxes for this as much as the railroads for abandoning them. Now our county will never be able to attract any kind of business that would need to use rail. Not that they would ever want to but they have completely eliminated that as a shipping option. You might say they have burned their bridges behind them. Too bad, really.

Regards

Fred M. Cain


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 7, 2018)

jis said:


> And yet the US appears to have chronic under-capitalization of the rail infrastructure with sever capacity issues on many routes, partly caused by strange tax laws admittedly.
> 
> Santa Fe would not have been able to sustain passenger service given how its finances of the rail portion turned out eventually, just like Southern was not able to sustain the Southern Crescent operations either. People who did not live through it don;t seem to realize what the depth of the financial crisis was in the railroad industry, even among the not so hard hit companies, again admittedly caused by regulatory and ICC policies to some extent, and the rest caused by plain short sighted, short term greed.


I remember, its one of the reason Conrail was formed, and why railroads were deregulated in 1980. True, the RRs were not as stable as they are today. Sante Fe was at the time surviving or thriving on the LA-CHI route and the new thing at the time called "intermodal" service.


----------



## railiner (Jun 7, 2018)

jis said:


> Santa Fe would not have been able to sustain passenger service given how its finances of the rail portion turned out eventually, just like Southern was not able to sustain the Southern Crescent operations either..


You can add the D&RGW to them...it held out the longest...1983, before surrendering to Amtrak...


----------



## neroden (Jun 8, 2018)

You want to deal with the property tax issue? Put the tracks in the hands of the public, i.e. government.

Private roads and private expressways pay property taxes too.


----------



## sttom (Feb 8, 2019)

Not to restart any arguments, but I have fairly contrary opinions when it comes to driverless cars. I don't see them as being as disruptive to rail or air traffic as the Elon Musks of the world think they will be. Best case scenario (well the practical one) is everyone can afford them, we can double highways capacity, we all commute via car and then have worse parking problems. The peddle line is we'll rent the cars to Uber, but if peak has passed, that will just dilute the availability for off peak rides. And I seriously doubt Uber and its competitors will lower fairs below what they currently charge even if they lack a driver and have lower maintenance costs. If we are used to paying around ~$1 per mile, why lower the fare? Which then leads us to where are we going to park? San Francisco already has issues with room for housing and developers get protested a lot and the permitting gets held up, I can't imagine how bad that would be for more parking given how much of a waste of space that would be. Not to mention self driving trains would then be a possibility which would enable faster train service to compete with cars. With how bad rail conditions are getting in some parts of the US, I can imagine railroads making a stink about how they were taxed to fund highways and airports and can easily (at least in the present political climate) demand some sort of government backed loans in compensation to upgrade and electrify the rail system. Which coupled with self driving trains, would mean faster service and no need for parking. People also assume that everyone will start using Uber or such for everything, but for longer trips, a train would still be cheaper. At a $1 per mile, me going to Sacramento would cost between $30-$50 or $18 on Amtrak. Even if self driving cars are faster at the outset, renting or car sharing one isn't going to be cheaper than a train. And a lot of people will be swayed by price.


----------



## fredmcain (Feb 8, 2019)

Sttom & Group,

You know what, a few months ago there was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Jenkins who predicted that truly autonomous vehicles that are 100% "driverless" are very likely decades away.  Everyone has become so wound up about driverless technology that they fail to see that.  There are just too many issues needed to address.

Driverless trains, however, are much easier since it's already on a fixed guideway.  You don't need to advance technology enough to keep it on the road.  But when and if driverless vehicles finally become feasible - what frightens me the most is the prospect of driverless trucks.  That scares me.  In my own personal, honest, humble opinion, driverless trucks should _NEVER_ be allowed on the Nation's highways but that's just me.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## sttom (Feb 8, 2019)

Best case scenario for self driving cars is we have functioning models and regulatory scheme for them by 2025 at the earliest. Given how long cars last (15 years or so) the best case scenarios is all cars being self driving by 2040. Some people think that self driving cars would be such a boon they will run human operated gas cars off the road by 2030. I seriously doubt that, which is why we should be putting money into better Amtrak and commuter service. Even if we get the self driving utopia by 2033, we still won't have enough room for parking, let alone ride sharing companies being too expensive for most people. A 10 mile Uber ride for $7.50 to $13 is ok, but $23 dollars for a 30 mile journey off peak is a bit outrageous if you ask me. Considering short haul trains are cheaper. But then again, the tech industry sniffs its own farts and thinks they are the harbingers of the peaceful easy times to come. 

As for self driving trucks, they will come, but I imagine they'd still need a person on them. Even a self driving train would likely need someone on the train to communicate with dispatch or report emergencies. I bet trucks would still need someone for security.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 8, 2019)

fredmcain said:


> A few months ago there was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Jenkins who predicted that truly autonomous vehicles that are 100% "driverless" are very likely decades away.  Everyone has become so wound up about driverless technology that they fail to see that.  There are just too many issues needed to address.


I'll never forget the story of how Henry Ford envisioned building a fleet of private automobiles to replace horse and buggy services.  It always starts off with several decades of sitting around waiting for Mrs. Journal to release her pearls and for Mr. Journal to replace his fallen monocle.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Feb 9, 2019)

I don't see the driverless car being the big success it's promoters see - kinda like the segway which was going to "transform" urban planning. Things that are hyped often end up as flops (videophones, for instance, remember them?).

There are already plenty of driverless trains - lots of airport systems and numerous metro/subway systems (closed systems granted).


----------



## OnlyMe (Feb 9, 2019)

I myself am wondering about Amtrak's sustainability.

I know the conversation somewhat drifted to talking about self-driving cars, but if any of you have the time you should look into another proposed project by Mr. Musk called the hyperloop. Its an interesting concept but if he does manage to get it running at a feasible cost and it does meet expectations. I could see that really being a thorn in modern day transportation's side.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2019)

Teleportation will replace everything eventually [emoji51]


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 9, 2019)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I don't see the driverless car being the big success it's promoters see - kinda like the segway which was going to "transform" urban planning. Things that are hyped often end up as flops (videophones, for instance, remember them?).


It's true that video phones made no sense in the POTS line era, but the consumer demand hype was real and those concepts eventually morphed into services like Skype and Facetime.  Services which have become ubiquitous worldwide.  The creator of the Segway is dead but multi-purpose streets with separate areas for walking, riding, and driving live on without him.  Nobody is rebuilding entire cities in a single generation, but designs for new and repurposed areas often reflect these changes.  Not to mention the explosion of powered scooters and bicycles urban centers are experiencing today. 

If you think antonymous cars don't have a big future then maybe you should consider this.   Roughly 90% of the time our private vehicles are sitting around collecting dust.  The rest of the time they're joining already clogged streets and freeways during rush hour to and from work.  That represents a huge waste of time and resources.  Antonymous vehicles aren't a miraculous invention, but if implemented properly they might be able to flip that script.  Imagine reducing the number of vehicles competing with your commute by half or more and yet still maintaining 90% productivity by making delivery runs outside of the commuter rush.



jis said:


> Teleportation will replace everything eventually



Yeah, they'll replace your original body with some sort of molecular replica.  Most of what we see in Star Trek would require a species that was able to devote a global focus toward science, technology, and cooperation without concern for color or race or nationality.  In other words, a species that was almost entirely unlike humanity.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 9, 2019)

fredmcain said:


> Sttom & Group,
> 
> You know what, a few months ago there was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by a guy named Jenkins who predicted that truly autonomous vehicles that are 100% "driverless" are very likely decades away.  Everyone has become so wound up about driverless technology that they fail to see that.  There are just too many issues needed to address.


Actually, from a technical perspective, Teslas are already pretty much completely autonomous. A Model S can literally drive off and park itself with no one inside, and can read all sort of street signs and road markings. It's just that the laws currently require someone to be at the wheel, which is actually a pretty dangerous middle ground, since neither the "driver" nor the car really know what their role is.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 9, 2019)

fredmcain said:


> That scares me.  In my own personal, honest, humble opinion, driverless trucks should _NEVER_ be allowed on the Nation's highways but that's just me.﻿


If you look at actual science and statistics, you will see that self driving cars objectively have a significantly lower crash rate than human-driven cars. It might _seem_ concerning to see a big scary truck driving by a computer, but that really just comes down to human psychology.


----------



## sttom (Feb 9, 2019)

OnlyMe said:


> I myself am wondering about Amtrak's sustainability.
> 
> I know the conversation somewhat drifted to talking about self-driving cars, but if any of you have the time you should look into another proposed project by Mr. Musk called the hyperloop. Its an interesting concept but if he does manage to get it running at a feasible cost and it does meet expectations. I could see that really being a thorn in modern day transportation's side.


The hyperloop is basically a maglev in a vacuum tube. Maglev technology already exists and could become viable if the Japanese have anything to say about it. Now self driving cars will become a reality, probably not as soon as the promoters say they will. But the hyperloop probably won't become a reality, but Maglevs are a hard eventually.


----------



## neroden (Feb 9, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Actually, from a technical perspective, Teslas are already pretty much completely autonomous.


Yeah, not really.  I actually own one, y'know.  And I've studied this stuff extensively.

Basically, there are a ridiculously large number of corner cases which "self-driving" fails to handle correctly.  It's going to take decades to get them all implemented.  Until then, you need a human to deal with the situations where the car goes "I don't know what to do", or worse, does something blatantly wrong.

It's pretty easy to implement self-driving on a well-maintained, standardized, Interstate-standards highway in good weather... and they haven't actually managed to do *that* reliably yet.  The railroad tracks are an even more heavily controlled and regulated environment, so self-driving works perfectly there.

The problem comes with the idiosyncractic, irregular, non-standardized environment of city streets and rural roads -- which is most of the country's roadways.  They're so far from functioning on these environments that Tesla specifically tells people NOT to use Autopilot in these areas.

Self-parking?  Again, working in VERY limited environments. Well-marked parking lots or extremely well-marked garages or very well marked curbsides.  The sort of places I park up here in Ithaca?  Not a *chance* and nobody with a Tesla here (there are lots) has gotten it to work.


----------



## neroden (Feb 9, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> If you look at actual science and statistics, you will see that self driving cars objectively have a significantly lower crash rate than human-driven cars.


That's largely because the average human is god-awful incompetent at driving.  In the US, even the absolute worst drivers who have records of running over multiple people are STILL GIVEN DRIVER'S LICENSES.  That brings the average for human-driven cars down a lot!

Current "self-driving" cars are objectively very bad drivers, much worse than anyone who actually really learned their professional defensive driving lessons.  Unfortunately, at least half of humans are even worse.  I think the solution is to massively restrict drivers' licenses, but our society thinks that people "need" to drive cars, even if they have a record of running people over.

People who aren't competent to get drivers' licenses should be on the streetcar, which gets us back to the GM/Standard Oil/Firestone Tire streetcar conspiracy and the need for more trains...


----------

