posted
It's not surprising but I don't entirely blame Amtrak for this. It's clear that Amtrak is micromanaged by the US government and until that stops Amtrak is not a realistic option for the shorter runs.
Is it true that the diner is down to one person in the kitchen now?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
While some around here could be surprised to learn I hold this viewpoint, Mr. Selden is a voice of reason within the rail passenger advocacy community.
He clearly points out that within the RPSA 70, the Amtrak formulating legislation, nowhere is it stated that Amtrak has the exclusive right to operate intercity passenger trains. The only parties that are precluded are the railroads, or their successors, who surrendered their franchise to operate intercity passenger trains under their contractual relationship with Amtrak.
Therefore, a locality that has a stake in operating short distance trains, Corridor and otherwise, i.e. "one a days', are free to choose an operator other than Amtrak. California has adopted a trade name for their funded services of 'Amtrak California'; think how easy it would be to substitute a new trade name of, say, "Intercity California" or "IC" (Canadian National is clearly phasing out that moniker for their former Illinois Central lines). There could well be local sentiment of "hey we're paying for these trains; shouldn't we be in control of their operation and marketing?".
Of course, I would hope that the local sponsoring agencies would realize that an outside contractor is not always a panacea. Lest we forget, LAMTA kicked out that French concern they contracted with and are back with Amtrak to operate their Metrolink trains. I understand the Boston MBTA has had second thoughts about doing so, and Caltrain (Bay Area) never did.
All told, the events in Indiana Mr. Selden notes, will be "sport" to follow.
TBlack Member # 181
posted
quote: I understand the Boston MBTA has had second thoughts about doing so
Keolis has only been running the MBTA trains for a month, so it might be a little early to make judgments.
Selden's description of possible working partnerships between train owners and train operators is intriguing. I'm not familiar with the Alaska operation, but he seems to feel that it works. Could be the salvation of some of the LD trains? Tom
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Aside from enthusiasts, pass riders, excursionists, and the small number for whom the Long Distance trains represent reasonably convenient and reliable point to point transportation, Amtrak needs them most to garner the necessary political majorities to support that big regional operation that does provide meaningful transportation to many.
With the possibility that other locally funded regional operations could no longer be identified with Amtrak, that thin visibility could be further reduced. As such, Amtrak would be unwise to separate themselves from the marketing and on board staffing of the LD's.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
Selden's writing is usually so full of ancient grudges, manipulated statistics and philosophical conjectures that it's difficult to take his conclusions seriously; but, in this case, he's basically right: it's time to move on from the old Amtrak model and build a better national passenger rail system by allowing the states to design, build and control their passenger rail services.
I can't find any factual source to confirm Selden's claim that "aggregate ridership in the UK is nearly triple what it was just before the breakup of the suffocating British Rail monopoly", but the franchising model has been tinkered with for nearly 2 decades and many of the early kinks and service meltdowns have been figured out and passenger rail service is growing in Britain. However, Selden seems to ignore the fact that there has been a massive government investment in British rail infrastructure that has increased the number of trains, benefited OTP and lowered travel times. Until the USA is willing to make the needed infrastructure investments, if your train is stuck in a siding in the middle of Montana for 3 hours, it won't matter if the train is operated by Amtrak or Holland America--your trip is going to suck.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: I can't find any factual source to confirm Selden's claim that "aggregate ridership in the UK is nearly triple what it was just before the breakup of the suffocating British Rail monopoly"
It does sound far fetched, though reports on this page suggest a 50% increase in passenger-miles since 2002 (the railway was privatised between 1994 and 1997).
I also happened to notice the subsidy overall dropped by 40% since 2009, though everybody complains about the ticket price increases.
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: Until the USA is willing to make the needed infrastructure investments, if your train is stuck in a siding in the middle of Montana for 3 hours, it won't matter if the train is operated by Amtrak or Holland America--your trip is going to suck.
Yep, and not just a few mil here, a few mil there. It's like being given a tin of paint, a few vases of flowers, and told to improve the network with it.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
There are some interesting reports and publications available at this website. (It looks like British rail ridership has increased 73%, although I'm sure Selden has a different measure that explains his number.)
Amtrak has been using the same business model (the one imposed by Congress in 1971) for over 40 years. No successful business goes 40 years with the same business plan. Amtrak's new job should be to help the states plan and build successful short haul corridors. States that want to have the benefits of modern rail transportation systems should be able to rely on Amtrak for help with feasibility studies, plan creation and agreements with host railroads to build the systems, but it's time for Amtrak and Congress to realize that the 1971 business model is outdated.
Amtrak didn't build the Cascades Corridor. WSDOT and ODOT planned the corridor to make it easier, faster and safer to travel between Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver BC. ODOT and WSDOT created the vision, made the plans, bought the equipment and kept the system running. When the federal government finally made a significant initial investment in off-NEC rail corridor funding, WSDOT stepped up and received a good chunk of money to improve the Cascades service. The perfect role for Amtrak would be to work as a provider of knowledge and experience to states trying to build an effective, self-sustaining and safe passenger rail system. The question of who drives the trains or serves the coffee in the bistro car shouldn't be Amtrak's to decide.
I'm still a supporter of most LD routes, but it is time to find ways to improve efficiency. If Holland America can run the trains more effectively than Amtrak, I don't have a problem with giving the subsidy to HA instead of Amtrak. HA and other private providers will have a few problems, but at least they will be willing to innovate and learn from the experiences. Amtrak's latest innovation on LD trains is what...the Cross Country Cafe?
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I agree with all of your comments, Vincent.
I like Mr. Selden's idea of (Indiana) Amtrak providing the engineers and conductors, with Corridor Capital marketing, staffing, catering, and operating internal train services. Sounds like passengers would benefit. However, what would it cost? Would the train ticket price increase dramatically?
With regard to the Cascades, could the Oregon and Washington DOT's completely divorce themselves from Amtrak if they contract out to a private interest to run the Cascades?
Richard
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
I'll re-post Senator Harry Reid's comment about Amtrak in this thread because I think it's relevant to this topic too:
quote:“(California Gov.) Jerry Brown and I spoke recently about our trains,” Reid said. “We both have a vision of high-speed rail in America. Amtrak is not high-speed rail. It’s an antiquated system, and I’m glad we have it, but it’s not very good.”
The future of passenger rail in America is high speed. Is Amtrak going to be the agency that builds HSR? Or is Amtrak going to be the agency that runs a bunch of "antiquated" trains into the ground? It's time for Congress to decide.
So far, we see off-NEC plans emerging for HSR in California, Florida and perhaps Texas and Nevada. Amtrak hasn't been involved in any of those off-corridor efforts. Is that the future of Amtrak?
mr williams Member # 1928
posted
Can't really see how HSR could benefit Nevada other than to Las Vegas, a subject which has been discussed to death through most of the 12 years that I have been a member of the forum but still without any sign of progress!
There could certainly be a market for additional services to Reno but the geography of the Sierra Nevada would surely make any HSR project in that area either impractical if not physically impossible?
posted