posted
This may be partially or entirely incorrect, but I read something, the other day, regarding pre-1971 thinking. With RPSA in 1970, some thought that Amtrak would not be a separate entity. The freights would operate the locomotive and other operational units, with Amtrak running the coaches, sleepers, and dining car. The freights would lease out the space for Amtrak's usage. You would then have a mixed train where Amtrak would thereby reduce its overhead and operating costs. True? I don't think the freights would have cottoned to that sort of idea.
Richard
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Richard, on A-Day the situation you outline was essentially correct. Amtrak had entered into "turnkey" purchase of service agreements with the member roads that were to operate trains. They had railroad owned equipment, railroad employed train, engine, and on board service crews. In the northeast, it was business as usual , elsewhere the train's looked the same, but there were a mite fewer of them out there.
Over the years, Amtrak gradually ordered their own equipment and assumed the activities to operate trains themselves.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
I've often thought the practice of retaining dedicated Amtrak engineers is likely to be expensive - possibly conductors too. In places like deepest Montana and Arizona they may get to drive one or two trains a day for a few hours at a time and then sit and wait it out until the next train comes along. Once the proverbial hits the fan, there are either no resources available because they're stuck on another train or out of service hours law, or Amtrak have to taxi in spare engineers. One hopes they don't have a spare in every one-train-per-day-per-direction crew change point. Any re-routes off scheduled trackage means a pilot is required.
The engineer doesn't much care whether he's hauling self-loading cargo, apples, cars, or oil tankers. (S)He has a train to handle appropriately, as directed by the conductor. So why not enjoy the resource pool of the host railroad with its spares and thus lower costs, without mentioning the U word?
Obviously major corridors like the NEC or the Chicago area is different as they have plenty of Amtrak trains and thus engineer pools.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I deleted the link, in my initial post, as it no longer allows you to read the entire article.
You might give it a try , in a search field, by typing in "How Washington Derailed Amtrak", by Simon Van Zuylen-Wood. You can read the entire article by filling data in the 1x only field. It is an interesting article on Amtrak from 1971 on.
Richard
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Unfortunately Richard, it looks like Mr . Google is stumped to find a way around this paywall.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
One quote from the Zulen-Wood article:
"Amtrak did keep losÂing money, but ConÂgress kept payÂing for it. (Haswell, disÂgusÂted with all the losÂing of money, evenÂtuÂally beÂcame a voÂcal critÂic of Amtrak.) The tenÂsion between Amtrak’s for-profit manÂdate and money-losÂing realÂity has alÂways dogged it. In 1997, ConÂgress manÂdated that Amtrak beÂcome self-sufÂfiÂcient by 2002 or get liÂquidÂated. It didn’t and it wasn’t. That same year, a govÂernÂment-comÂmisÂsioned group called the Amtrak ReÂform CounÂcil floated the idea of conÂtractÂing out the opÂerÂaÂtion of the NorthÂeast CorÂridor—the one part of Amtrak that acÂtuÂally makes a profit—to private bidÂders. This didn’t hapÂpen, either. Three years later, the board of dirÂectÂors—who are apÂpoinÂted by the White House and conÂfirmed by the SenÂate—fired then”“Amtrak presÂidÂent DavÂid Gunn, an iconÂoÂclastÂic pubÂlic-transÂit guru who had openly adÂmitÂted the comÂpany would nevÂer be profÂitÂable. (“The only good thing about the board they put in,” Gunn says today, “is that they were so inÂcomÂpetÂent, they couldn’t even kill the place.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have to think that David Gunn made the fatal mistake for a bureaucrat...he tended to be honest. I think he is now in his late 70's and living in Nova Scotia. If younger, I wonder if he would be considered a successor to Mr. Boardman?
Richard
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Up to the point where the nascent US Postal Service ended the Railway Mail Service, passenger traffic departments lost money, but it was a manageable loss.
Then came the end of the RMS. That was the point where trains had no freight support at all. Hotshot fruit movements had been moved to the freight departments of the railroads, and they simply used second section operations of passenger schedules to move their stuff.
Add to that the speed of the airplane and the flexibility of the auto, and the result was the situation in 1969 which caused Congress to consider and pass RPSA 70.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Wasn't there some talk, Mr. Pullman, a while back concerning allowing Amtrak to handle some mail service in the Northwest. Possibly via the Cascades. Can't remember.
There used to be some thought regarding the possibility of distributing mail by NEC trains. I don't think USPS distribution centers could have handled the job and remain open and functional. I believe former Amtrak president George Warrington thought mail service could help subsidize Amtrak costs but that never worked out. I read where some Amtrak trains had to sit parked for long periods of time waiting for mail cars to be added.
I do wonder, in select areas, if REA could make a comeback? I'm thinking of rural areas, such as towns along the Builder, Zephyr, and SW Chief routes, where easy access by UPS or FEDEX might be limited.
posted