Private operation of long distance trains?

[cirdan]

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

It could be even worse. I don't think any private operator can just walk up to a freight railroad and demand to be allowed to run a train. There would need to be legislation to establish some level of justified and equitable access, and that would be open to being torpedoed by lobbying.

Not to mention the red tape it would take to jump through all the hoops.

Probably the same people who say the private sector should take over from Amtrak would put themselves in the way of actually making that possible.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Wouldn't a private operator essentially work like a shared trackage agreement? They'd need to negotiate and pay for access?

As an aside, I think something people are forgetting with the UK examples (and EU generally) is that a) the tracks and rolling stock were typically already government owned and b) much less freight and heavier passenger service. It's not something that can directly translate to our situation.

 

[Ryan]

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

No, the magic of the Free Market will simply make all of those hard spots go away.

 

[user 29618]

I took one of the last Southern Crescent trips ATL - WAS a couple of days before Amtrak took over running things.

Bear in mind that at the time, the Southern RR (like most of the others) was trying very hard to get rid of passenger service. So the rail cars were old, with flaking paint and drab interiors. Elderly attendants on the edge of retirement. No one had an incentive to make the trip pleasant.

Nevertheless...

The bar car was full of young people, a couple of guys playing guitars, businessmen getting pleasantly sloshed on quality booze, and we had wonderful food and service for the entire trip. Best breakfast ever. We left on time and arrived on time.

Amtrak has upgraded the appearance, and degraded most everything else.

 

[Northwestern]

I was able to take a few trips on private passenger trains prior to Amtrak. The San Francisco Chief and the Burlington Northern. I could see the deterioration of the private trains back then. Rude attendants and overall train personnel with poor attitudes. They must have known their fate. The one thing I did notice, however, was the quality of food. Still very good in the 1960's.

The FAST act of 2015, as a pilot program, would allow a private passenger train on 3 Amtrak long distance routes. Nothing ever came about. If memory serves, I think BNSF said they might consider a passenger train if the feds would subsidize the venture.

Scroll down to Sec. 11307

https://is.gd/OvEsEH

 

[Cal]

I took one of the last Southern Crescent trips ATL - WAS a couple of days before Amtrak took over running things.

Bear in mind that at the time, the Southern RR (like most of the others) was trying very hard to get rid of passenger service. So the rail cars were old, with flaking paint and drab interiors. Elderly attendants on the edge of retirement. No one had an incentive to make the trip pleasant.

Nevertheless...

The bar car was full of young people, a couple of guys playing guitars, businessmen getting pleasantly sloshed on quality booze, and we had wonderful food and service for the entire trip. Best breakfast ever. We left on time and arrived on time.

Amtrak has upgraded the appearance, and degraded most everything else.

I thought the Southern was one of the few to keep their trains in good condition all the way till the end?

 

[user 29618]

I thought the Southern was one of the few to keep their trains in good condition all the way till the end?

Maybe good running condition, but the paint inside in corridors was worn away to bare metal where people rubbed against it while moving from car to car. And of course, the fabric in curtains and seats was pretty faded. Obviously no reason to redecorate by that time. I think it was either one, or two days before Amtrak took over.

 

[ehbowen]

There were rumors...nothing hard in print that I can point to, but strong whispers...that, back in the day, (mid-90s) ATSF management had expressed an opinion that, if they were allowed to 'bid' on the corresponding portion of the trains' Amtrak subsidies, they might be willing to resume their operation themselves.

Didn't go anywhere; I'm sure there were a couple of reasons. First, Amtrak's 'creative accounting' made it seem that the LD trains were money pits and the NEC was the crown jewel; I'm sure they blanched at even the idea that someone might turn that one around on them and grab an outsized bite of the subsidy. Second, much of the infrastructure was/is under Amtrak's thumb...you want to run one train a day out of our Union Station in Chicago? Fine, your rent will be one million dollars a month, plus half of the utilities. Finally, about that time the merger (I almost typed 'murder'!) with BN gained traction, and under the new management any flicker of interest for the old order of things passed away.

 

[Cal]

There were rumors...nothing hard in print that I can point to, but strong whispers...that, back in the day, (mid-90s) ATSF management had expressed an opinion that, if they were allowed to 'bid' on the corresponding portion of the trains' Amtrak subsidies, they might be willing to resume their operation themselves.

Didn't go anywhere; I'm sure there were a couple of reasons. First, Amtrak's 'creative accounting' made it seem that the LD trains were money pits and the NEC was the crown jewel; I'm sure they blanched at even the idea that someone might turn that one around on them and grab an outsized bite of the subsidy. Second, much of the infrastructure was/is under Amtrak's thumb...you want to run one train a day out of our Union Station in Chicago? Fine, your rent will be one million dollars a month, plus half of the utilities. Finally, about that time the merger (I almost typed 'murder'!) with BN gained traction, and under the new management any flicker of interest for the old order of things passed away.

Imagine if that did happen, the Super Chief would have been running again. probably with excellent service. If it did happen prior to the merger, I think they might've fit it in to survive the merger. Would be a very interesting alternate-reality.

 

[cirdan]

Didn't go anywhere; I'm sure there were a couple of reasons. First, Amtrak's 'creative accounting' made it seem that the LD trains were money pits and the NEC was the crown jewel; I'm sure they blanched at even the idea that someone might turn that one around on them and grab an outsized bite of the subsidy. Second, much of the infrastructure was/is under Amtrak's thumb...you want to run one train a day out of our Union Station in Chicago? Fine, your rent will be one million dollars a month, plus half of the utilities. Finally, about that time the merger (I almost typed 'murder'!) with BN gained traction, and under the new management any flicker of interest for the old order of things passed away.

Very interesting. I hadn't realised this. The common narrative tends to be the freight roads hated passenger trains out of principle.

Management and their mantras and opinions come and go just like any other fashion, but hard facts remain and as long as the basic conditions stack up, this would suggest there may, somewhere along the line, at least be a possibility.

 

[mp492_5]

Why do you need NS to switch it out? Howell Y is close by and the Crescent is turned on it by Amtrak crews when it terminates in Atlanta and there is a spur at the station with a north lead that can hold the whole consist.

 

[west point]

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.

Amtrak would only need to have its own switcher at ATL. For the northbound #20 the outbound engineer could position the cars to go on the rear. Couple up. Then inbound crew could move switcher to steel siding once #20 left. Southbound once #19 disconnected inbound engineer could board switcher, leave steel and couple dropped cars, wye cars and pull them into steel siding. A pocket siding west of ATL would help to speed up the attaching cars to #20.

an advantage of parking dropped cars on steel is sleeper passengers could board early until say 30 minutes before any revised arrival time.

Note Amtrak crews do switch now and in the past, So no NS needed if Amtrak switcher is present. Or Amtrak could lease a switcher from NS.

NOTE" ATL has Amtrak carmen to monitor the switching moves so conductors can do passenger duties.

 

[toddinde]

Privatization rarely works and almost always costs more. The British fiasco is one of the worst. It’s so bad, they’re renationalizing although, sadly, the Tories are insisting on operating contracts with private operators instead of just bringing back British Rail. The most successful railroads in the world are state owned like Deutsche Bahn.

 

[TheCrescent]

Privatization rarely works and almost always costs more. The British fiasco is one of the worst. It’s so bad, they’re renationalizing although, sadly, the Tories are insisting on operating contracts with private operators instead of just bringing back British Rail. The most successful railroads in the world are state owned like Deutsche Bahn.

Rail ridership doubled in the UK after privatization. The most successful (measured by market share and costs per ton-mile) freight railroads are private.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Rail ridership doubled in the UK after privatization. The most successful (measured by market share and costs per ton-mile) freight railroads are private.

Before the pandemic Amtrak ridership had roughly doubled since taking over passenger rail that private railroads were attempting to permanently abandon so kudos to them I guess. Outside a few targeted industries such as intermodal and fossil fuel refining many commercial customers find US freight railroads to be so expensive and undependable that they now prefer to ship by truck instead. The people who wax poetic about the performance of private railroads tend to be institutional investors.

 

[TheCrescent]

Before the pandemic Amtrak ridership had roughly doubled since taking over passenger rail that private railroads were attempting to permanently abandon so kudos to them I guess. Outside a few targeted industries such as intermodal and fossil fuel refining many commercial customers find US freight railroads to be so expensive and undependable that they now prefer to ship by truck instead. The people who wax poetic about the performance of private railroads tend to be institutional investors.

Economists who have done studies of railroad economics have repeatedly shown that privately-run freight railroads have significantly reduced the cost to deliver a ton of freight one mile and are able to charge much lower rates than they did in the last. That’s a fact and publicly-operated freight railroads have not done that.

Amtrak ridership has increased since 1971, but aviation and car travel have grown much more. Amtrak’s portion of US passenger transportation was very low in 1971 and is even lower now. If Amtrak ridership had grown at the same rate as air travel, Amtrak ridership would be much greater now (and much greater than it was pre-pandemic).

You’re of course welcome to share your generalizations but if you look at cold, hard data, privately-held freight railroads have performed much better in a wide range of measurable fields than publicly-held ones. Same for private and public airlines: private ones have been able to significantly increase passenger loads and significantly reduce fares: see how British Airways performed after it was privatized.

Passenger rail in the US is somewhat different because it’s not profitable and so unlike freight rail or airlines, it’s not possible to have the same experiences of much higher volumes at lower fares if it were totally private. But other countries have introduced private-sector participants into some elements of their passenger rail systems and have seen some benefits from doing so, even though there is a large role for government, and subsidies, even with private-sector participation.

 

[west point]

Crescent: Yes, freight RRs have reduced cost of providing service. It shows in wall street's almighty OR. But at what cost to the shippers.? The big shippers are paying more often. The smaller shippers are being discouraged or just ignored. The smaller ones can add to the bottom line of a RR but would raise the OR from a fictious 60 to 70. So instead of the RRs taking more traffic the ones that could go RR instead go trucks.

That raises the final cost of goods that are passed on to the final consumer. The chase for that OR has given delays due to inadequate dispatchers (too long districts). short sidings, lack of crew, pickled locos, and on and on. The Ukraine problem is here so, for the next few years this country is going to need for the RRs to pick up some traffic to reduce the use of diesel. But the RR operational infrastructure is so stretched I cannot see any improvements unless ORs are limited, and stock buy backs suspended. It is not going to happen.

Then we have starvation Amtrak. Arrogant RRs do not want to fulfill their common carrier obligations same as with the small freight shippers. Will RRs ever really meet their common carrier obligations? Maybe after wall street bleeds them dry with worn out facilities that have RRs ending up doing the PC - CR dance all over.

 

[TheCrescent]

Crescent: Yes, freight RRs have reduced cost of providing service. It shows in wall street's almighty OR. But at what cost to the shippers.? The big shippers are paying more often. The smaller shippers are being discouraged or just ignored. The smaller ones can add to the bottom line of a RR but would raise the OR from a fictious 60 to 70. So instead of the RRs taking more traffic the ones that could go RR instead go trucks.

That raises the final cost of goods that are passed on to the final consumer. The chase for that OR has given delays due to inadequate dispatchers (too long districts). short sidings, lack of crew, pickled locos, and on and on. The Ukraine problem is here so, for the next few years this country is going to need for the RRs to pick up some traffic to reduce the use of diesel. But the RR operational infrastructure is so stretched I cannot see any improvements unless ORs are limited, and stock buy backs suspended. It is not going to happen.

Then we have starvation Amtrak. Arrogant RRs do not want to fulfill their common carrier obligations same as with the small freight shippers. Will RRs ever really meet their common carrier obligations? Maybe after wall street bleeds them dry with worn out facilities that have RRs ending up doing the PC - CR dance all over.

Some shippers pay more: have you seen sleeping car prices on the Crescent lately- over $1,000 for my 600-mile trip? Private railroads are not the only ones gouging customers. Amtrak sure does it.

All of the issues you list can be dealt with through increased regulation and/or increased competition. And having railroads be publicly-owned would just create other problems.

Some countries on the other side of the Atlantic (notably the UK and Norway) are stepping back from prior privatization models for passenger rail. But even after current changes go into effect, they’ll have more private-sector participation in intercity passenger rail than the US does.

 

[caravanman]

Let's be honest here, if private long distance passenger trains could make money for shareholders in the US, Amtrak would soon vanish. The fact that Amtrak needed creating shows how bad private railroads were at profitable passenger services?

 

[Cal]

Let's be honest here, if private long distance passenger trains could make money for shareholders in the US, Amtrak would soon vanish. The fact that Amtrak needed creating shows how bad private railroads were at profitable passenger services?

But to be fair, that was when flying was still fairly new. The climate has changed a lot since then, figuratively and literally. But I don't know if one could start and make it off the ground.

 

[toddinde]

Rail ridership doubled in the UK after privatization. The most successful (measured by market share and costs per ton-mile) freight railroads are private.

Ridership would have increased anyway due to a variety of factors. Privatization gave Britain the most crowded trains and most expensive fares in Europe. In any event, privatization failed, and they’re renationalizing.

 

[TheCrescent]

Ridership would have increased anyway due to a variety of factors. Privatization gave Britain the most crowded trains and most expensive fares in Europe. In any event, privatization failed, and they’re renationalizing.

No, ridership wouldn’t have necessarily increased in the same way. Private operators introduced new equipment and fancier on-board services, for example, which may have helped. Ridership increased more quickly after privatization than before.

The UK is reducing the private sector’s role, but operation of most train lines will still be by private operators. That’s a greater private-sector role than in the US.

 

[Barb Stout]

Crescent: Yes, freight RRs have reduced cost of providing service. It shows in wall street's almighty OR. But at what cost to the shippers.? The big shippers are paying more often. The smaller shippers are being discouraged or just ignored. The smaller ones can add to the bottom line of a RR but would raise the OR from a fictious 60 to 70. So instead of the RRs taking more traffic the ones that could go RR instead go trucks.

That raises the final cost of goods that are passed on to the final consumer. The chase for that OR has given delays due to inadequate dispatchers (too long districts). short sidings, lack of crew, pickled locos, and on and on. The Ukraine problem is here so, for the next few years this country is going to need for the RRs to pick up some traffic to reduce the use of diesel. But the RR operational infrastructure is so stretched I cannot see any improvements unless ORs are limited, and stock buy backs suspended. It is not going to happen.

Then we have starvation Amtrak. Arrogant RRs do not want to fulfill their common carrier obligations same as with the small freight shippers. Will RRs ever really meet their common carrier obligations? Maybe after wall street bleeds them dry with worn out facilities that have RRs ending up doing the PC - CR dance all over.

What does OR, PC, and CR mean?

 

[jis]

What does OR, PC, and CR mean?

My guesses … for what they may or may not be worth …

OR - Operating Ratio
PC - Penn Central
CR - ConRail

 

[WICT106]

What does OR, PC, and CR mean?

OR = Operating Ratio, a financial term comparing loss & income as a percentage. PC is Penn Central, a railroad that came to represent everything wrong with the 1960s US railroad industry, & CR, judging from the context, appears to mean Con Rail, the government created entity that was created to operate the former PC rail properties.