Private operation of long distance trains?

[TheCrescent]

First, I am still waiting for the name of a private passenger rail operator that filed for bankruptcy and liquidated a pension fund.

Second, railroad retirement funds are handled differently than other pension funds. The Railroad Retirement Board handles them for private railroads.

As an example, when the Rock Island went under, Congress worked with the Railroad Retirement Board to ensure employee assistance, including for retirement fund protection.

 

[MARC Rider]

First, I am still waiting for the name of a private passenger rail operator that filed for bankruptcy and liquidated a pension fund.

Second, railroad retirement funds are handled differently than other pension funds. The Railroad Retirement Board handles them for private railroads.

As an example, when the Rock Island went under, Congress worked with the Railroad Retirement Board to ensure employee assistance, including for retirement fund protection.

Would a private company operating a passenger train on other railroads' tracks fall under railroad retirement rules?

To get back to the very first post on this topic, it might, indeed make sense for Amtrak to have a private operator (if any actually existed) provide service for a selected set of "experiential trains." (as the late unlamented Mr. Anderson called them.) Unfortunately, that's not likely, as the operator would have to have a set of working passenger cars (sleepers, diners, and observation/lounge cars) that would meet Amtrak's specification. In some ways, this is already done with private cars, though not on a regular schedule. This is also what the "Pullman Rail Journeys" did, and that was regularly attached to the City of New Orleans. The "Pullman Rail Journeys" operation was not a business success, some said it was because Amtrak management was hostile to the concept, although it's possible the fares were too low to generate the needed income to pay for everything.

Private operators will certainly not be able to solve the current short-term challenges that Amtrak is facing -- I see no reason why they would be any more successful at obtaining working rolling stock or hiring new employees than Amtrak has been. In the long term, I'm not sure that experiential luxury train service is a particularly profitable line of business, even if it's a service hauled by Amtrak trains. There is certainly not a good track record of such services. When you think about it, the long-distance trains are really corridor trains with a single daily frequency whose main justification is to serve passengers traveling to and from rural areas. The through passengers are simply a little extra gravy to cross-subsidize that essential function, which justifies the spending of public money on the service.

 

[railiner]

Would a private company operating a passenger train on other railroads' tracks fall under railroad retirement rules?

I am not sure, but I don’t think so…
Some other examples are the original Auto Train Corporation. I believe the T&E crews were SCL employees, covered under RRB, but not the OBS Auto Train employees. Same with the former American European Express. And for that matter, the current cruise line trains operated on the Alaska RR…the ARR T&E crews are covered, and I believe as well as ARR OBS employees on ARR’s cars, but not the cruise line (Holland America/Princess, or Wilderness Express) OBS employees, on their cars.

 

[toddinde]

This .

i think people tend to develop a glassy eyed nostalgic view of the past .
My memories of British Rail in the 1980s are far from the paradise of affordable, punctual and clean trains that many people think there must have been . On the contrary , it was an underfunded and underperforming system that was in many respects on its last legs . I think some things have clearly got worse since then but many things are clearly better .

Well, my British friends would disagree. They have very fond memories of British Rail, and poll after poll shows the British people want it back. It’s one of the issues that has the greatest consensus. Not everyone in Britain can be a hopeless nostalgic. They must have a basis for their views.

 

[MARC Rider]

Well, my British friends would disagree. They have very fond memories of British Rail, and poll after poll shows the British people want it back. It’s one of the issues that has the greatest consensus. Not everyone in Britain can be a hopeless nostalgic. They must have a basis for their views.

I was quite satisfied with British Rail service during my 3-week visit in 1985. Nothing fancy, but the trains were reliable and reasonably comfortable. They had diesel trainsets that could hit 125 mph, never had a breakdown, and the trains went to way many more places than they did in the USA. I didn't have much need for food service, except we tried a dining car on a train coming back from Penzance to London, and the food and service were very good, if also very expensive (It think the equivalent of $20 for the meal -- back in 1985).

 

[Northwestern]

I was quite satisfied with British Rail service during my 3-week visit in 1985. Nothing fancy, but the trains were reliable and reasonably comfortable. They had diesel trainsets that could hit 125 mph, never had a breakdown, and the trains went to way many more places than they did in the USA. I didn't have much need for food service, except we tried a dining car on a train coming back from Penzance to London, and the food and service were very good, if also very expensive (It think the equivalent of $20 for the meal -- back in 1985).

***
Is the overnight Caledonia Sleeper (London to Glasgow) still privately owned (by Serco)? I see ScotRail, which is now a publicly owned company, has wanted to take over the Caledonia Sleeper. I wonder how profitable the Sleeper has been under the privately owned Serco. I would love to see something comparable to the C. Sleeper start up in this country, but, I know, a lot of hurdles.

 

[tgstubbs1]

One of the advantages of a state run RR should be streamlining the legal issues that come up.

When they want to add a route there isn't a long drawn out battle between competing private interests.

 

[west point]

Pension loss===== Railway express agency. (REX)[
Also my first airline clawed back most of the variable funds retirement and I get a lot less than what was supposed to be the fixed funds pot.

 

[CCC1007]

Pension loss===== Railway express agency. (REX)[
Also my first airline clawed back most of the variable funds retirement and I get a lot less than what was supposed to be the fixed funds pot.

I don't think the REA counts as a "Passenger" operation, as it was explicitly an LCL (less than carload) carrier.

 

[toddinde]

Would a private company operating a passenger train on other railroads' tracks fall under railroad retirement rules?

The answer is yes. Auto Train was an employer under Railroad Retirement.

 

[TheCrescent]

I don't think the REA counts as a "Passenger" operation, as it was explicitly an LCL (less than carload) carrier.

Agreed and most of the Railway Express Agency’s business by 1975 was not railroad-related. The PBGC handled the Railway Express Agency’s pensions when it went under. Retirees did not lose any pensions.

 

[toddinde]

***
Is the overnight Caledonia Sleeper (London to Glasgow) still privately owned (by Serco)? I see ScotRail, which is now a publicly owned company, has wanted to take over the Caledonia Sleeper. I wonder how profitable the Sleeper has been under the privately owned Serco. I would love to see something comparable to the C. Sleeper start up in this country, but, I know, a lot of hurdles.

I believe there are amazing markets in the US for it. Norfolk-Richmond-Washington-New York-Boston and a number of New England points like Vermont, Maine and upstate New York. New York-Montreal/Toronto. Chicago-Detroit-Toronto. Washington-Atlanta. LA-San Francisco. The list goes on.

I was quite satisfied with British Rail service during my 3-week visit in 1985. Nothing fancy, but the trains were reliable and reasonably comfortable. They had diesel trainsets that could hit 125 mph, never had a breakdown, and the trains went to way many more places than they did in the USA. I didn't have much need for food service, except we tried a dining car on a train coming back from Penzance to London, and the food and service were very good, if also very expensive (It think the equivalent of $20 for the meal -- back in 1985).

That’s what my British friends would say, and it was affordable. Britain, under privatization, has the highest fares in Europe. The service meltdown on the Great Southern a couple years ago was disastrous.

To get back to the very first post on this topic, it might, indeed make sense for Amtrak to have a private operator (if any actually existed) provide service for a selected set of "experiential trains." (as the late unlamented Mr. Anderson called them.) Unfortunately, that's not likely, as the operator would have to have a set of working passenger cars (sleepers, diners, and observation/lounge cars) that would meet Amtrak's specification. In some ways, this is already done with private cars, though not on a regular schedule. This is also what the "Pullman Rail Journeys" did, and that was regularly attached to the City of New Orleans. The "Pullman Rail Journeys" operation was not a business success, some said it was because Amtrak management was hostile to the concept, although it's possible the fares were too low to generate the needed income to pay for everything.

Private operators will certainly not be able to solve the current short-term challenges that Amtrak is facing -- I see no reason why they would be any more successful at obtaining working rolling stock or hiring new employees than Amtrak has been. In the long term, I'm not sure that experiential luxury train service is a particularly profitable line of business, even if it's a service hauled by Amtrak trains. There is certainly not a good track record of such services. When you think about it, the long-distance trains are really corridor trains with a single daily frequency whose main justification is to serve passengers traveling to and from rural areas. The through passengers are simply a little extra gravy to cross-subsidize that essential function, which justifies the spending of public money on the service.

You really hit the nail on the head, and it’s something the railroads understood. The California Zephyr for example was primarily transportation, but also served the rail cruise function. So we’re the Santa Fe’s fleet and the UP City trains. That is actually Amtrak’s advantage. The rail cruisers help subsidize the onboard services that all passengers use. When people argue that a train has to be one or the other, they don’t get it at all. Recent Amtrak management has been ignorant of their product, and thus, have sabotaged it.

 

[Northwestern]

You really hit the nail on the head, and it’s something the railroads understood. The California Zephyr for example was primarily transportation, but also served the rail cruise function. So we’re the Santa Fe’s fleet and the UP City trains. That is actually Amtrak’s advantage. The rail cruisers help subsidize the onboard services that all passengers use. When people argue that a train has to be one or the other, they don’t get it at all. Recent Amtrak management has been ignorant of their product, and thus, have sabotaged it.

***************************************************
On another forum, there was a lot of debate with regard to whether people take Amtrak solely for transportation reasons or whether it is because of rail cruise or experiential interests ( I wish I had a chance to take the old WP Zephyr, that was quite a train!) I do agree that the high ridership, corridor trains are primarily for transportation needs. But I think people ride middle distance and long distance Amtrak trains for both transportation and experiential reasons; the pure pleasure of riding a train as well as the scenic vistas along the way.

I guess there are several reasons why the Pullman Rail Journeys failed. Many feel the fare was too steep. Some complained that the overnight train prevented the scenic aspect of the train. Some felt that the PRJ was partially intended for business travelers, but the high fares wouldn't be reasonable as a flight, CHI-NO, would be much cheaper. I think one of the problems with PRJ and the American Orient Express was that they both required being hooked onto an Amtrak train. I think it would have been better if PRJ and the AOC would have been powered by its own locomotive. It could have allowed for an independent timetable. It would avoid the cost charged by Amtrak for the hookup. Also, rather than Chicago to New Orleans, I think PRJ should have chosen a long distance route, such as the route of the E. Builder, Zephyr, or SWC.

 

[cirdan]

Well, my British friends would disagree. They have very fond memories of British Rail, and poll after poll shows the British people want it back. It’s one of the issues that has the greatest consensus. Not everyone in Britain can be a hopeless nostalgic. They must have a basis for their views.

I haven't the time to do a search now but there are several BBC documentaries available on YouTube that were made by the BBC in the 1980s that paint a very dire picture of failing and crumbling infrastructure. The Settle and Carlisle route was on its last legs for example and had the accountants of the day had it their way it would have been abandoned back then without much ado. It was really only protests by rail fans and by local communities that prevented the inevitable. Today traffic (including freight) has recovered to the point that they couldn't make do without this route and some of the great viaducts that back in the day were supposedly beyond economic repair and utterly decrepit have been restored and are back to prime condition. And it interestingly turned out they could be restored for much less money than the accountants at the time said. If your want to close down a route you can always fiddle the figures to make it look as if there is no alternative.

Another route I used to travel on sometimes was the Waterloo to Exeter. In steam days this had been mostly double track but it had largely been reduced to single track by the 1980s and the trains running on it were among the most decrepit imaginable. British Rail were clearly playing the game of, if you annoy the passengers enough they will stop coming and then you have a good reason to close an unwanted route. Today the opposite is true and and many sections have been returned to double track and although the trains that run there today are not perfect by any stretch and are also getting on in years, they are a huge improvement on what there was before.

The 1980s also saw the introduction of the Nodding Donkeys or Pacer trains which were basically four-wheel freight-car under frames without pivoting trucks that rode very badly. They were married with low-cost bus body shells and had bus seats that might have been fine for riding around town but were a torture on longer train routes. They were among the most hated trains of all times.

Yes, I know many people do wax lyrical and want to turn the clock back. But in my view that is misplaced nostalgia.

 

[MARC Rider]

I haven't the time to do a search now but there are several BBC documentaries available on YouTube that were made by the BBC in the 1980s that paint a very dire picture of failing and crumbling infrastructure. The Settle and Carlisle route was on its last legs for example and had the accountants of the day had it their way it would have been abandoned back then without much ado. It was really only protests by rail fans and by local communities that prevented the inevitable. Today traffic (including freight) has recovered to the point that they couldn't make do without this route and some of the great viaducts that back in the day were supposedly beyond economic repair and utterly decrepit have been restored and are back to prime condition. And it interestingly turned out they could be restored for much less money than the accountants at the time said. If your want to close down a route you can always fiddle the figures to make it look as if there is no alternative.

Another route I used to travel on sometimes was the Waterloo to Exeter. In steam days this had been mostly double track but it had largely been reduced to single track by the 1980s and the trains running on it were among the most decrepit imaginable. British Rail were clearly playing the game of, if you annoy the passengers enough they will stop coming and then you have a good reason to close an unwanted route. Today the opposite is true and and many sections have been returned to double track and although the trains that run there today are not perfect by any stretch and are also getting on in years, they are a huge improvement on what there was before.

The 1980s also saw the introduction of the Nodding Donkeys or Pacer trains which were basically four-wheel freight-car under frames without pivoting trucks that rode very badly. They were married with low-cost bus body shells and had bus seats that might have been fine for riding around town but were a torture on longer train routes. They were among the most hated trains of all times.

Yes, I know many people do wax lyrical and want to turn the clock back. But in my view that is misplaced nostalgia.

It seems that you're implying that the Bristish railway system is in much better shape than it was during the 1980s. This suggests that someone invested a lot of money to make it so. Was the source of these funds private investors who took a risk of losing their investment if the business didn't work out? If not, then there's no point in yapping on about how "private operation" can do a better job, because whatever the nature of the company, it's not really "private operation."

 

[cirdan]

It seems that you're implying that the Bristish railway system is in much better shape than it was during the 1980s. This suggests that someone invested a lot of money to make it so. Was the source of these funds private investors who took a risk of losing their investment if the business didn't work out? If not, then there's no point in yapping on about how "private operation" can do a better job, because whatever the nature of the company, it's not really "private operation."

Yes, definitely the network is in a better state of repair today than it has been for many decades. And also carrying more passengers and more freight.

Also the decline has been reversed. Until the 1980s there were routes being closed all the time, stations closed, formed double track lines converted to single track. It was a slow decline but the direction was clear. And it all added up over time.

Today the opposite is true. I can't remember when last a line was closed but there are lines being reopened and stations added on existing lines virtually all the time. Also junctions are being rebuilt and tracks added to remove bottlenecks and create additional paths and capacities. Overall progress is still slow, but the direction has clearly reversed.

You are right that it is not private money paying for the changes. But privatisation has created a situation where there are private companies whose interests are married to the future of rail and this makes them better at lobbying and at constructively suggesting improvement. Also, and I think this is very important, they sign multi year contracts with the government, sometimes 10 years or longer, and this prevents the government from pulling the rug from under their feet and closing down lines and stations at some accountant's whim as happened in the 1980s. So its not really about being private being better per se but about there being multiple parties engrained in a contractual situation that creates a situation favoring more long term thinking.

So I'm not yapping about how private money does. ab better job, but warning that if we go back to civil servants and ministerial accountants having absolute control we will go back to mediocrity and decline.

 

[jruff001]

I think one of the problems with PRJ and the American Orient Express was that they both required being hooked onto an Amtrak train. I think it would have been better if PRJ and the AOC would have been powered by its own locomotive. It could have allowed for an independent timetable. It would avoid the cost charged by Amtrak for the hookup.

It would also have allowed the host railroads to refuse to operate those trains over their rails since they weren't part of an Amtrak train.

But to be fair, that was when flying was still fairly new. The climate has changed a lot since then, figuratively and literally.

Yes, the airline climate has grown even worse for passenger trains since deregulation in 1978 - (relatively) cheaper air fares and lots more airlines with lots more flight choices.

 

[Cal]

Yes, the airline climate has grown even worse for passenger trains since deregulation in 1978 - (relatively) cheaper air fares and lots more airlines with lots more flight choices.

But also long security lines, increasing the number of seats while decreasing amenities, and airline meltdowns could help.

 

[jis]

But also long security lines, increasing the number of seats while decreasing amenities, and airline meltdowns could help.

And what makes you think private rail operators won't behave exactly like private air operators when it comes to number of seats and amenities?

 

[Cal]

And what makes you think private rail operators won't behave exactly like private air operators when it comes to number of seats and amenities?

I didn’t say that they wouldn’t. But they have an opportunity to offer a better service that people will prefer over airlines current poor service. Maybe if one does start it won’t, but the point is that it could.

 

[MARC Rider]

I didn’t say that they wouldn’t. But they have an opportunity to offer a better service that people will prefer over airlines current poor service. Maybe if one does start it won’t, but the point is that it could.

As someone who flew before and after airline deregulation, I can say that service levels for coach class passengers has declined steadily. The slope of the decline steepened after 9/11, but the trend remained the same. I read article after article of writers asking why nobody offers an intermediate level of service at a higher price that's not insanely higher, but, with the exception of "economy plus," really nothing has been done. And all "economy plus" gives you (at least for US carriers on US domestic flights) is a little more legroom. All coach passengers (even in "economy plus") still has to deal with all the nickel-and-dime charges, poor service, security lines, and other stuff that makes flying unpleasant these days. It is clear that there is no business reason why private-sector airlines need to offer good service to coach passengers, and so they don't. I suspect the same is true for rail passengers as well, whether the trains are run by a government-owned company or a private company.

 

[jruff001]

But also long security lines, increasing the number of seats while decreasing amenities, and airline meltdowns could help.

Sort of agree with you about security lines, although I have TSA Pre-Check and can always breeze through, and even without that the lines are usually not that bad these days.

Decreasing amenities? Also happening on Amtrak. There are plenty of posts here complaining about how coach passengers do not have dining car access, how the Texas Eagle no longer has a lounge car, how terrible the Flex Dining food is, etc.

Meltdowns? LOL, Amtrak's regular meltdowns pale in comparison to the airlines'. When is the last time a flight from (say) Chicago to San Francisco had to land in Salt Lake City and the passengers were told, "Oops, due to traffic / weather in Nevada, you have to take a bus the rest of the way." Or due to a bridge fire in northern California, all flights between Seattle and Los Angeles are cancelled for the next four months.

 

[TheCrescent]

Sort of agree with you about security lines, although I have TSA Pre-Check and can always breeze through, and even without that the lines are usually not that bad these days.

Decreasing amenities? Also happening on Amtrak. There are plenty of posts here complaining about how coach passengers do not have dining car access, how the Texas Eagle no longer has a lounge car, how terrible the Flex Dining food is, etc.

Meltdowns? LOL, Amtrak's regular meltdowns pale in comparison to the airlines'. When is the last time a flight from (say) Chicago to San Francisco had to land in Salt Lake City and the passengers were told, "Oops, due to traffic / weather in Nevada, you have to take a bus the rest of the way." Or due to a bridge fire in northern California, all flights between Seattle and Los Angeles are cancelled for the next four months.

Agreed. And private-sector carriers have significantly improved first class in recent years: first class on American Airlines is pleasant, and first class on Brightline is fantastic.

First class on the Crescent- sorry, I’m rolling on the floor laughing.

 

[Cal]

Sort of agree with you about security lines, although I have TSA Pre-Check and can always breeze through, and even without that the lines are usually not that bad these days.

Decreasing amenities? Also happening on Amtrak. There are plenty of posts here complaining about how coach passengers do not have dining car access, how the Texas Eagle no longer has a lounge car, how terrible the Flex Dining food is, etc.

Meltdowns? LOL, Amtrak's regular meltdowns pale in comparison to the airlines'. When is the last time a flight from (say) Chicago to San Francisco had to land in Salt Lake City and the passengers were told, "Oops, due to traffic / weather in Nevada, you have to take a bus the rest of the way." Or due to a bridge fire in northern California, all flights between Seattle and Los Angeles are cancelled for the next four months.

I think we’re talking about private-companies, not Amtrak. Look at Brightline, they have taken the time to make a nice service that contrasts to airlines. Airlines will probably never bother improving by much, but if private rail companies offer a service that contrasts from airlines they might be able to attract people.

 

[jruff001]

I think we’re talking about private-companies, not Amtrak. Look at Brightline, they have taken the time to make a nice service that contrasts to airlines. Airlines will probably never bother improving by much, but if private rail companies offer a service that contrasts from airlines they might be able to attract people.

And I truly wish Brightline well on its densely populated, 75 mile Miami to West Palm Beach line. But that is hardly "long distance," and I don't think any airlines offer MIA-WPB flights?