Crossing America By Rail?

Ken, I'm going to try. Last time I helped load and unload pumpkins for their Halloween trip.

 

Think we may be barking up the wrong tree. The railroads don't want the passenger business back. Not at all.

Not sure where you got extorted monies from the railroads. It was more like stole their passenger train equipment for pennies on the dollar in order to get Amtrak off and running. When this happened, contrary to popular opinion here on TB, ICC was not the culprit but the way out. It had to do with the fact, passenger business was not paying for itself. Very few railroads wanted to continue passenger service and made that known publicly. What ICC was looking for was a substitute and found it in Amtrak. Go back and read the Train Wig Wags of the time and you'll find some very interesting articles on the politics involved. And, those aren't/weren't 100% accurate... with their reporting.

Now back to the riders. Most would be riders of trains are looking for something different. As in, high speed trains. For example a two hour trip between LAUPT and Las Vegas. A 2 hour trip between the San Francisco Arena and Los Angeles. Similar to what you see in the North East Corridor but off the ground and by far faster. The same could be said of Sacramento to Los Angeles. So far the public taxpayer has been reluctant to fund such projects because flying is so darn convenient and the infrastructure is paid for. Did I mention, no I think one of you did...with taxpayers money.

Amtrak gave up one unique feature that should have remained in place. They gave up their first class status to run like any-other freight train. They run at the pleasure of the hosting railroad. Some are sympathetic and some are not.

My two cents.

 

Amtrak demanded money from all passenger-hauling railroads but those with the most meticulously maintained equipment. And the ICC was what was demanding that the railroads run more than twice as many trains as the government itself was willing to run.

These are facts.

I've heard a lot of people over a lot of years repeat a lot of times that railroads didn't want to run passenger trains any more, despite the fact that two railroads said just the opposite, and two more refused to join Amtrak, in 1971. What I haven't heard is anyone ask the railroads if they'd do it.

 

I very seriously doubt NS, CSX, UP, BNSF, CN, CP, etc. would wish to enter the passenger market. Think of the cost in staffing of trains, depots and management offices, new rolling stock, new locomotives and additional liability insurance which would be a staggering sum in this era. Adding passenger trains also causes dispatching headaches, compounds weather worries and by default, government will be present in every decision made, including fares.

Sorry folks, no Class 1 rail CEO is going to stand before shareholders, Wall Street analysts and bankers to decree that after 50 Years, they're re-entering the passenger business. Between PTC and PSR, senior managers and staffers have plenty enough to keep them working long hours just to keep freight in motion.

 

I'm not interested in a war of words here.

It is true that Santa Fe, Rio Grande and possibly Union Pacific considered maintaining their passenger trains. They were the most well kept-up trains and the service held to standard until the end. Possibly a few others like FEL and others in the mid-west and/or on the east coast.

Facts have a tendency to get misconstrued over the years and we loose touch with the times. Railroads just prior to Amtrak, is/was operating passenger trains in the red. "The expression "in the red" generally is used to describe a business that is operating at a loss." Most railroads were loosing money on their passenger trains. The freight business was more or less subsidizing the passenger business. That's a poor business model/profile.

The railroads didn't have monies to give the government and in most cases gave up their passenger equipment including dedicated passenger engines and train cars. For pennies on the dollar.

What actually happened behind closed doors and meetings between the I.C.C. officials and railroad officials may never be disclosed publicly. We may never know the real story.

My perceptions of what happened, as I watched on, may not be accurate but follows to a point what I read in our own Train Periodicals of the time. The New York Times and other wall street type authorship.

You ought to read what the Santa Fe President of the time said about Amtrak. He regretted selling off Santa Fe's passenger equipment to Amtrak for less then what they paid for it.

Again my two cents.

 

Yep, that was John Reed. I think that the Santa Fe sold a number of its cars to Auto Train, rather than be extorted by Amtrak.

 

If you're so certain that the freight railroads are anxious to get back into the passenger business, then explain what's stopping UP from implementing passenger service from Chicago via Omaha and Cheyenne to Ogden/Salt Lake City, and then one section southwest via Las Vegas to LA with another section northwest via Portland to Seattle? Another possibility would be north-south service from Minneapolis/St. Paul via Kansas City to Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston. Denver to Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston is a third option.

 

Are you putting words in my mouth? Please don't. Anyone who can read English saw that I said only that they should be asked, and that there will be as many different answers as there are railroads.

Isn't that obvious? I guess not. We know the government hates competition. As in, really, really hates competition. As in, jails people for decades for theft just for acting like tax collectors. As in charges drivers hundreds of dollars just for driving like cops. As in jails parents for acting like foster parents.

And non-Amtrak trains were never an exception. How far did the government go to squeeze out non-Amtrak members in the 1970s? Did they offer the Southern and the Rio Grande joint ticketing facilities, convenient connections, cooperative services at stations, anything at all but a chance to be isolated, ignored and hung out to dry?

And what, exactly, are you proposing? Something serious? Or an argument for argument's sake that a railroad should operate a few dribs and drabs, odds and ends, and get nothing for it? There's no hope of getting the government off their rails in your plan. There's no hope of publicity from a government-dominated media that roundly ignores the railroad's annual excursions that put the government's "service" to shame. There's not even a hint of restitution for the heavy toll exacted from them in the Railpax Act of 1970, to help them get started. There's no guarantee the government wouldn't change schedules as often as necessary to ensure connecting trains don't connect. What there is is every reason to believe Amtrak would do anything--even cut its own throat--to nip it in the bud. Bureaucrats have done that before.

Of course the UP management isn't dumb enough to jump off into something that half-assed.

All I said was the railroads should be asked the question. The answer could surprise us all. It really could. Are we really so wedded to the half-truth we've been told over and over and over that "the government ran (half of the) trains that (half of the) railroads didn't want to run" that we're afraid to ask a harmless question?

 

I would rather subsidize the partially profitable passenger rail routes through private railroads to gain efficiency of scale than cover the tab of a single government owned corporation managed by bureaucrats pretending to be executives.

Amtrak will never fix rail corridors they don't own or care about providing better service, only fulfilling their minimal requirements. I think the Boston to New York Acela proved that to be true. They can still be used to fill gaps, I wouldn't say it's an "either or" situation.

The FEC model can easily work in many places in the US, but it requires restoring pre 1960s travel times on a lot of usable routes that Amtrak abandoned or screwed up.

The TSA has made air travel unbearably obnoxious. Rising airfare costs have made cheap tickets rare or unreasonably restrictive. It's exhausting and uncomfortable, especially as airlines dump direct flights to all the places I fly. Rail has a market position, even without "high speed", if it can be unshackled from the welfare service routes.

Yes, you won't replace 1000mi+ air travel, but there's plenty of profit to be made by replacing the bus and car with a reasonable alternative. I would love to take a 3 hour train ride to Vegas in lieu of a 4 hour car ride, or a 5 hour airplane ride including hurrying up to wait at the airport.

 

Far be it from me to put words in your mouth.

However, most anyone who can read your statements might conclude from your insistence upon querying the freight railroads regarding their interest in resuming the operation of passenger service that you must have a reasonable expectation of their answer being in the affirmative.
Otherwise, why bother asking?

Also, note that the hypothetical passenger routes proposed for UP are largely unserved by Amtrak and, thus, would not pose direct competition.

 

Well, I say the railroads would be willing to do a lot to get the government trains off their rails. And I keep hearing, then why don't they leave the traditionally least-unprofitable long hauls to Amtrak, and risk irritating the government by running traditionally most-unprofitable short hauls around the edges?

I'd say its all or nothing. And since the government does not give up the power it has usurped easily, it'll take pressure from We, the People to convince the government to undo Amtrak.

If We, the People don't think we can demand the government get out of the way, or are uninterested in having better trains, then we won't have better trains. Only we can exert the pressure in this republic to make it happen. And if the rail fanatics, the only people who remember how much better than Amtrak trains can be, won't take the lead, then we're right when we say nothing will happen.

 

Now let's play nice.

The only way to better trains, on time, comfortable sleeping quarters and better meals will be to put our money where our mouth is. Just don't get to excited I don't have enough in my wallet to buy a ticket.

You could say I couldn't put any teeth into my comments!! Oral surgery and all.

I agree with most of the observations made here. So, I have no argument with anyone in particular.

Just that history can sometimes get misconstrued or rewritten in a manner that isn't factual. On the other hand what most reports from any time frame as presented...back when or said in the media, may not be the truth. Most of us will never know for sure. Who killed...so and so. Or who really sold the weapons and bought them with drug money. Sorry, I have no recollection...huunh? I did not have $Ex? Yep we've lived through some interesting times.

Anyway, not to worry it's all good and we are where we are and the likely hood of changing anything. Well, you're going to need some money and a solid organization behind you. I didn't say Politics? Did I? It's possible but you better be able to make a solid presentation, convincing and have all the right answers to please everyone served by said trains. Simply said, no riders, no trains.

Now an observation from, who else? Me! Since I learned how to tune in to You Tube, Virtual Railfan and follow the South West Chief and the stops it/they make. Amtrak is attracting passengers and the trains are not running empty. Speaking of which I better check to see when #3 gets into Flagstaff, AZ.,, and #4 gets into Barstow, CA. Got to get my Amtrak fix!

 

You're still comparing apples to oranges.

The sad thing is, a change could actually cause long haul trains to come back into style. The timing for that is perfect.

That is something the government can never accomplish--or could only do by brute force, in a fit of Green New Deal Destroy the Bad Jetliners pique.

 

Timing is right but the freight dedicated railroads, the passenger trains are operating on aren't the best of hosts. Or inclined to be. There would need to be some serious changes made. For example the passenger trains need to have top priority or first class status over the freight trains. The freight railroads will ask what's in it for them? They will be looking for cash to justify such a classification. The answer isn't going to be pretty...right now.

Yes, the government can force anything at anytime but that's not exactly the principal or platform I want my government operating from.

The only thing I want to point to as an example of what appeals to me, which is Japan, Europe and Britian. They've learned to develop train traffic and passenger trains to a tea. Play on words there but I think you can get my point. We could have the same thing. We both know who is going to pay for it. You and I.

I'll be out with my placard that says, "I love trains," girls, bikini's, all at the model railroad club. Say what? What? What did I say?

 

No, it's not that at all. It's the possibility of regaining the less-unprofitable long hauls, getting the government trains off their systems, revamping the approach, making things very new and truly different, getting publicity, turning the trains into billboards with their name on the sides, and possibly creating enough buzz over the new and different to drag passenger trains back into style. As opposed to maybe irritating the government by destroying their, "We run 'em because Capitalism won't" storyline for a disconnected, isolated, and probably short run for a handful of interested parties.

I'm not talking about trying to talk a railroad into offering a run, despite the reality of what the Crescent and the Zephyr went through in the seventies when they were isolated. I'm talking about giving railroads equipment (yes, such as it is), getting those foreign trains off their rails, and giving them the opportunity to try to create a complete paradigm shift.

You never offered a railroad that. I only wish you could have.

There were railroads that only joined Amtrak because they were forced by the ICC to run trains that nobody rode. Amtrak didn't answer to the ICC, and didn't run those trains. No one expects those trains to come back. It isn't that big a stretch if the imagination to suspect railroads might not be as afraid of passenger trains as we are taught that they were and are. No, they haven't contradicted the propaganda by saying so, and no they haven't defied the government by implementing isolated shirt hauls.

I don't blame them for that. Do you? Are we reading too much into it? If people lobbied Congress to curtail Amtrak by reversing the process used to create it, that could be a major consideration. In any case, it's a flavor of apple they've never been offered before.