Does anybody know about this company ? And why on earth would IT ne interested in RAIL routes ??

I also heard that at least four BRITISH companies have "hinted" that they would like to "bid" on passenger-service here ?

How many out there REALLY believe that they WOULD be private companies who would definitely be interested in some or all of Amtrak's routes ?

Here is my most important question :

WHERE does American FREIGHT-RAIL fit into this whole "scenario." We all know it always has been a MAJOR "stumbling-block" to Amtrak's "success."----along with OTHERS , of course .

Does anyone else agree with me that until the freight-rail companies are prepared to FULLY "embrace" passenger-rail service on their tracks , passenger-rail service in this country can NEVER become a major mode of transportation.

I can not help but think that if ONLY (over the years) the private freight-rail companies would have welcomed and fully supported passenger-service on their tracks , Amtrak WOULD be a major "player" in the transportation market. There are some good minds in freight-rail. If only those minds would have considered ways to help Amtrak PROSPER instead of just the opposite.
Unfortunately, the relationship between Amtrak and freight-rail has always been us vs. THEM.

Now, I hear of a FEW freight-rail execs who DO fear that Amtrak COULD be "no more" and want to jump on the "band-wagon" to see if somehow , someway Amtrak might be saved. "Too little, too late."

Mark my word, freight-rail will "woe" the day that Amtrak goes "down." All this will do is funnel-off MORE funds for planes and cars, and TRUCKS----the latter of which could , slowly but surely , make FREIGHT-TRAIN "dinosaurs" , just like passenger-trains.

Charles Moneypenny, the only ARC member who voted against the plan, asked pretty much the same thing. He said something like "What happens if we give a party and nobody shows up?"

The Executive Director, Mr. Till said he had sent a letter to British railroad companies just a few weeks ago asking about their interest. Moneypenny criticized that move as being too little too late. He said they should have done that a year ago before any plans privitization were drawn up to see if it was actually realistic.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

However, if Connex offer to run your trains, tell them NO! GNER is okay, Chiltern are good, Virgin are in a state of flux with a mixture of ancient and brand new rolling stock, so they're hard to call.

But one big drawback is through fares. Who would want to pay for, say, three different tickets to three companies just to go from Boston to LA? They got around that here by making every operator sell through tickets to other operators - but that excludes special/promotional fares normally.

I'd agree though, breaking up Amtrak is not necessarily the answer.

AMTRAK has always been starved for money, and the mandate to make a profit is simply impossible to attain, and results in the poor service its customers now experience.

I find it interesting that in the most recent issue of Trains an article outlined a strategy for expanding AMTRAK's express service. While these new trains would carry passengers, the expansions were not in the most populated areas of the country, where expansion of PASSENGER service would appear appropriate. The article spoke of the Pennsylvanian departing Chicago at an ungodly time in the morning, because its principal purpose is to haul express, not passengers. Under the mandate to make a profit, AMTRAK developes mail and express service in preference to passenger service, while it knows it cannot make money on even on an incrmental basis.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLC:
You can privatize AMTRAK all you want, but don't expect the private carriers to make a profit without a subsidy.

---

Actually the ARC said pretty much the same thing. However they want Congress to tie subsidies to ridership figures on individual trains to encourage good marketing and service practices. If I understand the ARC position correctly, the more riders a train can attract the larger the subsidy it would receive. That would not be a bad deal for for most interstate trains that already run pretty full as it is.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TALKrr:
I can not help but think that if ONLY (over the years) the private freight-rail companies would have welcomed and fully supported passenger-service on their tracks , Amtrak WOULD be a major "player" in the transportation market. There are some good minds in freight-rail. If only those minds would have considered ways to help Amtrak PROSPER instead of just the opposite.
Unfortunately, the relationship between Amtrak and freight-rail has always been us vs. THEM.

---

If Amtrak were ever to be broken up, with trains routes taken over by a variety of totally imexperienced operators, those same freight railroad officials (who have traditionally viewed Amtrak as an unwelcome tenant) are really going to miss dealing with a single, professional passenger railroad. Amtrak, for all it's shortcomings, at least knows how to run it's trains (excepting the fact it sometimes falls short on this...) on a variety of freight shared routes. I can just imagine the service meltdown which could occur while a bus, airline, or other transit company (though well intentioned) goes through a "learning curve" with regard to how passenger trains "work". They are not buses on tracks, or airplanes without wings. Amtrak is a railroad, and must be run like a railroad.

Then, of course, there are problems with who is going to bid on the worst performing routes, possible duplication of facilities and overhead, and regardless the outcome the need for continued subsidies (of some fashion) to support the system. I can't help but feel that Amtrak - properly managed, funded, and authorized - cannot do a better job of this than most (perhaps all) of the suggested alternatives. Some proposals I've seen are basically trying to re-invent the wheel, merely substituting one federal agency (Amtrak) for another.

The National Passenger Rail Transportation Act of 1970 came into being because the railroads wanted out of the passenger business.

Outside the various Corridor routes, where rail service is really long distance mass transit, the only chance for survival of rail passenger service is at the "super-premium cruise" level.

If I were Dick Davidson of the Union Pacific, the only things I would take from the Amtrak breakup west of the Mississippi would be:

The Coast Daylight (read LA-SF portion along the Pacific Coast) as a super-premium cruise.

The Mail and Express Operation. I'd move it into my freight department, and just like Amtrak, charge first class prices for first class freight service.

Otherwise, send the cars to the torches.

As an aside, do I want to see this? Heck, no. I do think, though, that the Big companies will see Amtrak off with not even crocodile tears.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC2001:
If Amtrak were ever to be broken up, with trains routes taken over by a variety of totally imexperienced operators, those same freight railroad officials (who have traditionally viewed Amtrak as an unwelcome tenant) are really going to miss dealing with a single, professional passenger railroad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PullmanCo:

Outside the various Corridor routes, where rail service is really long distance mass transit, the only chance for survival of rail passenger service is at the "super-premium cruise" level.

---

American Orient Express already does that, albeit on a small scale. By the way, AOE relies on Amtrak to negotiate track access rights.

Resorting only to luxury trains would defeat the purpose of passenger rail, which is to offer an alternative to driving or flying for the masses, not just the wealthy. Take a look at any overnight train. The majority of passengers on a given train are sleeping in coach. These people are using long distance trains as basic, affordable transportation, not sightseeing or cruising. There is definitely a market for this service.

The problem, as I see it, is the lack of coordination between the federal government, the freight railroads, and Amtrak. Each seems to be doing their own thing with no regard for the others.

The basic concept of both long and short distance passenger service is sound. It is the implementation that we have screwed up. To paraphrase a popular campaign slogan, "It's the infrastructure, stupid." The federal government needs to help the freight companies expand the infrastructure to enable passenger and freight trains to coexist peacefully. This will benefit both freight and passenger services. If the freight companies were to get such support I'll bet they would be more willing to allow Amtrak trains to run properly. Incentives are wonderful things.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

The exceptions were the Southern, which kept running the Crescent, and the D&RGW, which kept running the California Zephyr remnant. Both joined Amtrak, true, but they joined AFTER their statutory running period, after they did their ICC train-offs, and after the "initial entry fee" of Amtrak.

Everyone else was only too glad to shut down the passenger traffic department. Don't believe that? Go find a 1972 annual report ...

As far as subsidies go, the Federal Land Grant Act in the 1860s and the CONRAIL act in the 1970s were major investments in the infrastructure. Post 9/11, there are lots of competing demands for Federal dollars. If it cannot be tied to recession recovery or wartime protection, it's not going to happen.

Assuming the financials are moderately supportive, the short haul operations on either coast are safe. The long poles in the tent are the long haul operations. Here, the historic systemic flaw is Amtrak's inability to run a money-making super-premium mail and express operation. I'm not a lawyer, and I do not remember how much of Amtrak's enabling legislation went into this side of the operation. IT WAS, however, the money-making part of just about every passenger traffic department before the fall of 1967, when the Post Office took mail off the rails.

Amtrak's hopes for survival right now are political inertia that keeps its basic funding and improvement in their 1st Class super-premium freight operation.

All that said: I've traveled the CZ and the Grand Canyon (#s 3/4 as they work these days)4 times in the past five years. The CZ is a good train, the Grand Canyon deserves to lose its Chief trademark from BNSF.

That's my $0.02. YMMV.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Toy:

The problem, as I see it, is the lack of coordination between the federal government, the freight railroads, and Amtrak. Each seems to be doing their own thing with no regard for the others.

The basic concept of both long and short distance passenger service is sound. It is the implementation that we have screwed up. To paraphrase a popular campaign slogan, "It's the infrastructure, stupid." The federal government needs to help the freight companies expand the infrastructure to enable passenger and freight trains to coexist peacefully.

---

------------------
The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations