posted
If RPSA '70 (Amtrak enabling) not been enacted OR had the Class I's declined to join up?
Also a corollary; was it wise that the Class I's by and large did join up?
Had RPSA '70 not been enacted, I believe intercity rail passenger service would have been limited to lines operated by Penn Central. PC was a ward of the state and is the only road over whose predecessor line operate the only service absolutely vital the the region's, if not the nation's, economy. The nature and scope of this service would likely have been the P-85 "Congo" cars plus the Budd Sleeper rebuilds (PRR & N&W) living on for as long as possible. There would not be Acela, nor electrification to Boston.
The California services simply would have been no happen - even if the region has shown adequate public acceptance of those presently existing.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Had either condition not have been met, we would have a few privately operated Rocky Mountaineer type 'cruise' trains (by a few I mean 2 to 5), perhaps even an Auto-Train, and then a number of short-medium haul corridors and commuter operations on the west coast, the midwest, and northeast US. Maybe Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina would have some short-medium haul service going as well.
There likely would be no Amtrak superliner cars. There might be a handful of organizations such as the 'Friends of the 261' and 'Roanoke NRHS Chapter' operating a few scenic excursions using lovingly maintained rolling stock from the 1940's and 50's every year.
Now, Mr. Norman, you have suggested here a number of times that the class I railroads were the victims of a bait-and-switch scheme regarding the Railpax authorization. That suggestion being that the railroads were either outright misled or, at the very least, allowed to believe that the whole Railpax 'experiment' would be done away with fairly quickly and that beyond the immediate financial relief from operating LD passenger trains, that the pesky things would go away altogether within five years or so.
More interesting to me than a discussion of where we would be today minus RPSA would be a discussion of whether the railroads were intentionally duped into believing Amtrak wouldn't outlive the 1970's OR if some unforseen event (say the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo) by itself completely changed the winds of fate and forever shredded Amtrak's death warrant.
In other words, in light of the post-2012 election analysis, I can't help but wonder if the Class I CEO's in the early 1970's were working with skewed information and believing what they wished to be true......... or if what was true regarding the longevity of the long-distance American passenger train shifted radically between 1971 and 1975.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, David, are you suggesting that the "Railway Age" movers and shakers of 40 plus years ago lived in a "bubble."? Funny how we all listen to and believe only what we all want to, isn't it?
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Now, Mr. Norman, you have suggested here a number of times that the class I railroads were the victims of a bait-and-switch scheme regarding the Railpax authorization. That suggestion being that the railroads were either outright misled or, at the very least, allowed to believe that the whole Railpax 'experiment' would be done away with fairly quickly and that beyond the immediate financial relief from operating LD passenger trains, that the pesky things would go away altogether within five years or so.
Mr. Presley, your corollary is certainly interesting and I will address when I have thoughts formulated. But to address your captioned, you show complete understanding of my position regarding such.
First, all too much of the industry (like my road) was desparate, and the "strongs", that were hardly as strong as they are today, were willing to go along with it out of respect for their weaker brothers. After all, they interchanged traffic with the weaks. Burlington Northern did not serve strong rail traffic Milwaukee, they needed my road for access to the traffic generating industries.
What if the Erie-Lackawanna folded? where's your competitive North Central E-W route (B&O was there; mighty circuitous to the New York area).
In short, the weaks had skin in the game so far as the strongs were concerned.
Likely there was belief that the whole thing away from the NEC would fold in five years. "They told us that under the table" the LD's were simply a means to ensure they were discontinued in an orderly manner, i.e. don't kill NY-Chicago until you've killed the Western connections. Don't kill the Atlantic Coast trains so long as the equipment can be patched up and there is a "cookie jar cash positive" in place (that existed on A-Day Eve for the SCL; they darned near didn't join up).
"After all, we sure tried (the roads did; honest). What do they know about the business we don't?".
"If we couldn't make money at it, how the devil will they short of abrogating our existing labor agreements" (luvvit; a Certified Locomotive Engineer working for Wally World wages)?
I wish I knew a more tactful way to express it, but "the industry got conned".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike: So, David, are you suggesting that the "Railway Age" movers and shakers of 40 plus years ago lived in a "bubble."? Funny how we all listen to and believe only what we all want to, isn't it?
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the movers and shakers of the railroad industry 40 years ago lived in a bubble.....
I'm merely grasping for a reasonable narrative to explain how it is the railroads willingly signed on to something in 1971 which has kept the long-distance American passenger train rolling well into the 21st century. So much contrary evidence would lead us to believe that there is no way the railroad CEO's would have 'gone for it' if they thought their roads would still be dealing with passenger trains 40 years later.
Was it an intentional 'duping' of the best minds in the industry and, if so, how did those rascals over at Railpax pull it off?
The only other possibility is a radical shift towards keeping the passenger train in the political climate shortly after most of the class I's signed on......
And a reasonable narrative explaining which and how would be really interesting!
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no way the industry would have signed up had they known they would be stuck with intercity passenger trains forty years later - and counting.
I can't verbatim this one, but I know the gist was on my road was when they learned the Superliners had been ordered, the reaction was "good Lord, we will be running those trains thirty five years from now".
It's forty plus.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the Class 1 railroads were duped, but maybe a bit naive. A solution had to be found for the staggering losses on passenger service. Trains could only be discontinued after a lengthy and often unsuccessful appeal to the ICC. The catalyst was certainly the bankrupt Penn Central that was could no longer tolerate its $100 million annual loss on passenger business. All other railroads had the same problem but to a lesser degree.
The railroads seized on the government's solution of quickly eliminating those huge losses. I don't know that there was any real concern (or realization) of what it meant long term. Help was needed now. Even if they had known that the passenger problem would continue to affect their operations, I don't think they could have afforded to stay out. And those that did, caved in the end.
I think David has it about right as to what today's passenger picture would be like without Amtrak.
Another interesting question might be; what would the passenger picture look like if the government established Amtrak only as an administrative and financial entity with the railroads responsible for operations. This assumes the railroads were appropriately compensated for the their share of the operations.
Certainly those in Southern Ry HQ thought they could do a better job and I think those that rode their trains before they finally joined Amtrak would concur. After all, running one or two trains a day isn't that big a deal if you're made whole financially. Other roads, like the SCL and ATSF, had similar feelings but couldn't handle it financially.
Hays Watkins, Chairman of Chessie/CSX said in his 2001 book 'Just Call Me Hays' that if the railroads had been permitted to eliminate the trains that Amtrak did on Day 1, "We would probably still be in the passenger business today and, I believe, the nation would have far better service."
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting point Palmland - what if Railpax was not in the business of operating the trains but instead funneling the subsidy dollars directly to the freight railroads for continuing to operate their own 'most essential' trains. That might have worked better.
Also, what of the folks at Amtrak who energetically set to work 'turning the thing around' and trying to put out trains 'worth traveling again'? Surely these people were serious about their efforts...... perhaps even felt a missionary zeal about making it work.
What if they were merely shills in a game intended to bring about the orderly end of the American long-distance passenger train? It's doubtful that the company would have recruited the talent it did if a darker intent was known.
Exactly what was the intention of this Amtrak thing among the insiders? How did it evolve in the first 5-10 years, and who knew what when? All interesting grist I think.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Also, what of the folks at Amtrak who energetically set to work 'turning the thing around' and trying to put out trains 'worth traveling again'? Surely these people were serious about their efforts...... perhaps even felt a missionary zeal about making it work.
I signed on to Amtrak during its 9th birthday, and I definitely felt a "missionary zeal" among many co-workers, at all levels. Sadly, that zeal slowly dissipated, as the years went by until my leaving in 2003. I logged 7 years in the HRD as newhire trainer during that time, and we tried to inculcate the newhires with a sense of pride-- in working for an iconic American industry with rich history- operating passenger trains.
Some picked up on this sense of pride and became stellar workers. Later on, we seemed to get people who just wanted the JOB, and could care less about the "glories" of being in a very unique industry.
Today, from what I experience when I go out there on the trains- the old school "rails" are mostly gone, and I don't see much zeal or pride these days. Sure, there must be exceptions.
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the time that Amtrak has existed, Europe, Japan and China developed enviable passenger rail systems. Without Amtrak, there could have been considerable political pressure for the US to do something, especially when gas prices and availability were unpredictable.
Perhaps Amtrak gave us just enough of a system to avoid coming up with a more expensive solution. From the Class I's point of view, the small inconvenience of handling a few people trains provided a predictable future, as opposed to becoming involved in a political debate on how to provide a national passenger rail system.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those of us around here who were employed within the industry on A-Day holding non-Agreement positions (myself and one other I know of - but let him choose to come out himself) all knew first and foremost knew the industry was desperate for relief - even so desperate that Amtrak's "up front" payment (when I was "in", Amtrak would pay by wire transfer on the 5th of the month, an advance for operating the services contracted for that same month) was a factor. The low hanging fruit was at hand for Tantalus.
That the roads were about to sign a Faustian pact with the devil was not of concern - definitely not to a "weak" like my road.
I'm hardly the first observer to note that any private sector entity doing business with the government is like doing business with the mob - let 'em in; good luck getting them out (probably many in the health care industry are now coming to hold that same sentiment).
Now to shift gears of sorts and address the point made by Messrs. Palmland and Presley. Lest we forget, the "turnkey" purchase of service model they set forth was, in essence, what prevailed on A-Day and was only fully phased out during 1983 with the assumption of Conrail Operating Employees (T&E). To continue, try to think of how many instances is a government service provided directly to a "consumer" by a private party. To me, two come to mind - hospitality facilities at National Parks and administration of Medicare benefits for Railroad Retirement annuitants. Look at all the others that could potentially be contracted out to the private sector - Medicare administration for all, administrative enforcement (not criminal) of IRS matters, AFES (PX, BX) and commissary activities on military bases, etc. Perpetual contracting with the railroads to operate passenger trains simply would not be. Sure there would be variety (can't wait for the Santa Fe French Toast or those spices in which the L&N seasons their steaks), but there would not be the uniform service "the best surprise is no surprise" that Amtrak aspires (and "a lot of the time" succeeds) to deliver.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any french toast in the diner beats the 'sweet potato pancakes' now being served on the northbound Crescent.....
But seriously - in the late 60's was there any other alternative being seriously floated? In retrospect it seems that Railpax has achieved much of what it intended. There are just enough passenger trains out there for those who really want to make the effort to ride them. The Railpax plan now seems a wry plan to at least forestall the need for any direct bailout going to the freight industry......
More positives than negatives perhaps?
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest that the RR's, the large ones anyway, were neither conned or duped; and that the politicians were neither shrewd nor had a long term plan (when did politicians ever see beyond the next election.
Santa Fe, my employer, retained very fine passenger service to the very end although it was forced to combine trains after the US Postal Service took away the mail revenue. Its CEO Mr. John Reed took special pride in Santa Fe's trains and that pride translated down through the ranks. The financial realities dictated by the ICC's refusual to allow discontinuance of some trains (they disappeared with AMTRAKs creation) and the post office revenue loss forced Santa Fe to join. Because it had some of the best equipment Santa Fe also benefitted by selling it to AMTRAK.
Mr. Reed is years later quoted: "The excellence of the Super Chief provided a symbol of 'Good Service' that had a most affirmative public relations impact ... The discontinuance of that service has left a void that has not been filled. As one who was exposed to Santa Fe passenger service starting as a small tot in the 1920s it has been a bittersweet experience to have participated in both the creation of that excellent service and then to have presided over its discontinuance. We are at least left with wonderful memories of those ' golden days' that will probably never be seen again".
Santa Fe and now BNSF continued to provide quality service to AMTRAK. However fiscal realities must still be dealt with hence the possible re-route of the SWC.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With hindsight, enactment of RPSA '70 (Railpax initiative) did not impact the financial health of any road. Penn was already gone; Erie was "out" before they went, my MILW petitioned some six years into the Amtrak-era, and the strongs only became a bit stronger.
Obviously, had Staggers come about ten years earlier, there would be no discussion, for there would be no Long Distance trains. Likely anyone in railroad management today holds same. Somehow someway something would have been cobbled together to maintain Boston-Wash service, but would it be the preferred means as it is today?
As I've often noted here no locally funded Corridor would have developed. And even the most cherry picked LD anyone thinks of, i.e. NY-Chi; it runs over Penn Central rails, would have been.
Obviously "pro bono publico" has been served by RPSA '70, and for those who think of the public first and corporate profits last, society has benefited. My personal objections, namely the bait and switch (I was there on A-Day not high up but still walking the same halls and using the same washrooms as those that were; they were to be gone, or at least going going, in five years, The Carter Cuts might actually had some believing it was going to happen after all; albeit nine years instead of five) and encroachment on to rights of way without proper compensation, would of course be alleviated if the latter point could be addressed.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Mr. China, I wish to congratulate you for part of an outfit that could only be called "the best in the business". You "ran'em right" and di so until "The End".
It should be of interest that I once learned from a source that only could be called informed that the Santa Fe darned near stayed out of Amtrak. The issue they were concerned about was access to Chicago Union Station and that they would come in there under the CUSCO 1919 tenancy agreement, which requires a tenant to pay the fixed costs such as debt service, but did not provide for participation in the non-operating revenues (the ground leases from the four buildings and the former Post Office). They thought that Amtrak would consider this "unconscionable" and would never pay them. However, they first "ran some numbers" and found to be sole user - and a tenant as well - at Dearborn would also be a "pretty penny". Then Amtrak stepped up and informed ATSF "they'd be whole" under Section 4.4 of the May 1 Agreement. They were "in".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two or three different directions that my response could go and I'm working with just a few minutes so forgive for being 'disjointed' if you will -
Item 1) From what I have read and gleaned from paying attention to what those who were 'there' have said and/or written, it would seem that both Santa Fe and the Seaboard Coast Line struggled with the decision to join Amtrak and that both, given just one additional incentive, may well have turned Amtrak down. Perhaps had Santa Fe been able to get more favorable terminal arrangements in Chicago...... perhaps if SCL had been allowed to drop a pair of secondary trains which they otherwise would have been stuck with until at least 1975.
Item 2) In the case of Southern Railway, the one little 'extra' incentive was likely signing subsidiary Central of Georgia up for Amtrak. By shedding the Nancy Hanks and a small sliver of the City of Miami, Southern was able to economize just enough to make it possible for them to go it alone with the Southern Crescent and a handful of secondary trains which started coming off one by one after January 1, 1975.
Item 2A) This shrewd manuever from Southern...... and there were many shrewd manuevers from Southern...is really important in terms of what I can bring to the table in a discussion like this. I am a shade too young to have had the opportunity to experience the great Santa Fe trains or the trains of nearly every other railroad. However, when I did reach teenage hood and began riding passenger trains in the mid-1970's, it was the last remnants of Southern Railway's Piedmont, Asheville Special, and even the Southern Crescent that I had the opportunities to experience. I have a point of reference for how things were 'just before Amtrak' even though Amtrak had already come for train riders most everywhere else.
Item 3) Finally - one of the most fascinating elements of the entire passenger train debate for me is what was going on in the 1960's. I wasn't content just knowing that this was the decade when most every railroad which had not already given up finally soured on the passenger train. I wanted to know how it looked as things fell apart. What order the individual trains on various railroads stopped running, etc. That's where collecting public timetables from the 1960's and up until A-day became a hobby. The answers I sought are pretty much all in there. Recently I was killing some time before evening gate duty at a high school football game by poking around a train show at the fairgrounds. I bought two timetables from the fall of 1970* from him and in chatting the vendor told me that hardly anyone is interested in the old timetables these days. He said "the basic information such as routes and mileages is mostly online now..... you must be looking for something deeper than that given how long you looked at them before buying....."
Some truth there I suppose.
*And if anyone here is interested - one of those timetables was from the L&N, the other from Southern. The Southern timetable is the only one I have ever found issued AFTER trains 3 & 4 had their point of origin shifted from Greensboro, NC to Salisbury, NC BUT before their connecting trains 5 & 6 lost their sleeper and were shifted from it's traditional overnight schedule to the day schedule it ran by A-day just a few months later.
But I digress......
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it was Section 4.4. Jointly Owned Terminal Companies that saved the day with Santa Fe. Here is the key language of that provision from the May 1971 Agreement (typed by GBN):
quote:For such access and services NRPC, during such period, will pay to Railroad the costs thereof (exclusive of costs related to ownership) reasonably and necessarily incurred by Railroad under then existing contracts relating to such terminals....including any increased allocation of such costs resulting from reduction in use of such terminals at or about May 1, 1971
The key that excepted Santa Fe from the debt service was "ownership". Although the 1919 Agreement required payment of debt service and other costs such as real estate taxes, Santa Fe (as was GM&O) NOT an owner; therefore they got a complete 100% ride from Amtrak.
Trust me "I was there"; 4.4 was the source of much litigation between Amtrak and every Terminal Company into which they operated. "is this ownership" "is this non-operating income" "are station concessions operating or non-operating". A lot of lawyers with their meters a tickin' addressed those points. While aestheticists cried, Amtrak was indeed wise to get out of those barns as quickly as they could. Within two years after A-Day, they were gone from Cincinnati followed in fairy short order, Jacksonville, St Louis, Kansas City, and Richmond. That Amtrak has returned to several after the buildings passed from railroad interests meant they hardly did so under the onerous terms of 4.4, but rather under give and take bi-lateral negotiations with the non-transportation owners of the property.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What also need to be noted is that other than such roads as Southern, Union Pacific, and Santa Fe, most railroads were literally falling apart by the mid to late 1960's. One way to gage this is to grab old AREA bulletins and look at the rates of rail and tie installations. When your tie installations several years running assumed something more than around a 25 year tie life and rail installations about 50 to 60 years, your track is deteriorating. (The current wood tie is much better now than then thanks to a 30 year plus test of various treatments by Southern Railway.) (Milwaukee's rail installation assumed several 100 years of life. I do not remember the numbers for ties, but it was low.) A lot of roads were pulling up second mains not because of improvements in the ability to haul traffic on one track, but because of desperation for the materials to keep the remaining tracks from falling apart.
Along with this went the cutting back on expenses to keep passenger trains and facilities above slum conditions. Even Southern was guilty of this one once you were away from the Washington to Atlanta corridor. As a regular rider of the Tennessean in the mid 1960's, I saw the equipment get older and less well maintained, the stations get grungier, and the passenger volume drop significantly. It also became a piggyback train with a couple of coaches somewhere in the middle. On one of my rides the train stalled on Raccoon Mountain because the train had 20 cars and the engines had no sand. It was finally pushed to the top by the engines off a following L&N freight train. I could go on, but I will quit and go to lunch, and then come back and do some real work.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
