Passenger Trains > Do you want, long term, to have a national passenger network?

CCHAN006 reminded me of the Matt Rose interview in Railway Age, so I went back to study it.  I was surprised to see Matt Rose (former BNSF chairman) offer his views on Amtrak.  Yes, Amtrak is important to somebody living in North Dakota, but national policy needs to address its role if the taxpayers are paying for it

So much of this focus, because of the political nature of Amtrak, is on this investment. And so I would say a couple things. Public policy needs to determine, do you want, long-term, to have a national passenger railroad network? If you do, then you need to pay for it.Amtrak is not getting enough capital to renew its long-distance trains. And over time, you’ll have more and more service failures, you’ll be clogging up the national railroad network. That’s just the way things work when they age out. Some would argue that there’s probably a lot of money that instead could be spent in the Northeast Corridor to provide a lot of value for this economy and all the various states around it.I don’t think it’s for the railroads to make that decision at all. As long as Amtrak runs the national network, our job at BNSF is to run it as a premium service, which we do. That is what we’re instructed to do. And we’re always going to try and do everything we can to meet the performance standards.


https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/matt-rose-less-is-not-better/

Virtually all passenger rail operators get tax money. Nothing new there.

Posted from Android

Matt hit the nail on the head, it sucks Duna, Another_view, Anderson, and some others think otherwise!

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/19 16:36 by ProAmtrak.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually all passenger rail operators get tax
> money. Nothing new there.

I don't think that point in itself is the topic. There's no need to defend Amtrak or other American passenger rail operations needing subsidies, an old argument that only rankles the ideologues. 

It's sad for me to admit that former Florida Congressman John Mica actually had the right idea, when he proposed to privatize the NEC. If NEC is "profitable" and LD trains are "big money losers subsidized by the NEC 'profts'." then spin off the NEC, and have only the LD trains receive subsidies. It's only financially logical... assuming anything they do is logical these days.

I've been observing some nefarious advocacy here and elsewhere. I consider the "if you spin off the NEC, passenger rail in America will be dead" to be hogwash scare tactic. Call their bluff, spin off the NEC.

Doing a rigged survey to promote "contemporary dining" is disingenuous on Amtrak's part. They can continue to explore the cost cutting angle with the dining car cutback proposals, which on the surface seems like fiscal "responsibility." However, what are they really doing to sustain and even expand the LD train network whether it's tax payer funded or not? The end of Hoosier State exposed their fake "corridor support" agenda. Oh yeah, Indiana is not part of the NEC.

Matt Rose might be onto something, that Amtrak is simply scheming to get tax payer money without being held accountable, and they don't really care about their passengers, except on the NEC. You should know firsthand that Amtrak LD trains don't run empty, and many of them run close to capacity. Reservations are often full on dining cars, and good number of them are coach passengers, at least on Western LD trains. Well, maybe Amtrak is conspiring to create that illusion only when I'm onboard. :-)

The "sleeper car passenger privilege" narrative should also be called out.

If there is a part of Amtrak that actually makes money, I agree, spin it off. The question is, does the NEC make money if you include ownership and maintainence of the insfrastructure? And if the answer remains yes, then sure, let it become a capitalistic operation.

My question is, wasn't the NEC the main reason for the Penn Central's bleeding money?

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question is, wasn't the NEC the main reason for
> the Penn Central's bleeding money?

No, it bled money everywhere.

answer to question..yes

Posted from Android

No...  Do not want them on my taxpayer supported train...  Privatize.

---

Lark you just lowered the bar to subterranean levels. Who would provide insurance. No one end of story. No one is going buy the nec as well. Who could afford a bridge and a tunnel?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/19 00:06 by dan.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually all passenger rail operators get tax
> money. Nothing new there.
>
Virtually ALL transport companies get tax money. 

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's sad for me to admit that former Florida
> Congressman John Mica actually had the right idea,
> when he proposed to privatize the NEC. If NEC is
> "profitable" and LD trains are "big money losers
> subsidized by the NEC 'profits'." then spin off the
> NEC, and have only the LD trains receive
> subsidies. It's only financially logical...
> assuming anything they do is logical these days.
>
> I've been observing some nefarious advocacy here
> and elsewhere. I consider the "if you spin off the
> NEC, passenger rail in America will be dead" to be
> hogwash scare tactic. Call their bluff, spin off
> the NEC.
>
> Doing a rigged survey to promote "contemporary
> dining" is disingenuous on Amtrak's part. They can
> continue to explore the cost cutting angle with
> the dining car cutback proposals, which on the
> surface seems like fiscal "responsibility."
> However, what are they really doing to sustain and
> even expand the LD train network whether it's tax
> payer funded or not? The end of Hoosier State
> exposed their fake "corridor support" agenda. Oh
> yeah, Indiana is not part of the NEC.
>
> Matt Rose might be onto something, that Amtrak is
> simply scheming to get tax payer money without
> being held accountable, and they don't really care
> about their passengers, except on the NEC. You
> should know firsthand that Amtrak LD trains don't
> run empty, and many of them run close to capacity.
> Reservations are often full on dining cars, and
> good number of them are coach passengers, at least
> on Western LD trains. Well, maybe Amtrak is
> conspiring to create that illusion only when I'm
> onboard. :-)
>
> The "sleeper car passenger privilege" narrative
> should also be called out.

I have no problem with NEC operating profits cross-subsidizing the national network, not that I trust their bogus accounting that it does make a profit, but that is what has politically sustained Amtrak in Congress since 1971. Why does the NEC need a "capital" subsidy of $700 million in its appropriation ? Evidently, the NEC is not profitable. 

But now we have Chairman Coscia saying we can't do that anymore (it's "unsustainable") because the NEC has a $41 billion capital backlog, the national network need a re-investment after 40 years, while they fiddle with station agents and dining cars to suppress revenue and make a case for train-offs. So it is clear that NEC cannot remain under the same corporation as the national network. Therefore, spin-off NEC infrastructure to a separate entity such as Airnet-21 or a neo-USRA within FRA.

I would be fine slashing the annual NEC capital subsidy to the Trump Admin level of $325 million until that is done to call Anderson's fraudulent accouting bluff. 

The nation needs daytime trains as part of a comprehensive transportation system. However, with one possible exception, overnight trains are doomed. Reallocate that equipment and improve daytime corridors. Two daytime trains Charlotte-Greenville/Spartanburg-Atlanta and New Orleans-Mobile would make a lot more sense than the Crescent does now, for example. The exception is cruise trains, like the Canadian up north. I'd put the Auto Train in that category too. Not sure how many western LD trains could be converted to cruise trains but that's their future.

The NEC is the one place that I would advocate for a European-style arrangement with the government (FRA?) directly, not through some bogus quasi-corporation, owning the infrastructure and with the operation contracted out to one or more passenger operators.  Freight arrangements could stay as is.  The NEC is one of few places where the argument can be easily made that rail is a truly essential element in the total transportation network of an area.  Government investment in NEC rail infrastructure for maintenance and capacity creation should be evaluated against maintenance and creation of equal new capacity across all other modes, not in terms of "profit or loss" of the passenger business.  Whether the private passenger operators could truly turn a profit and thus be expected to pay some user fee or if they were loss-making and required a subsidy would be very interesting to see.

Just my thinking, so take your shots.

Gordon  

I've often mentioned that a national transportation policy for freight and passengers would likely engage many regional and local elements. A "NEC authority" comprising the stakeholders (states, cities, agencies, etc) might bring greater clarity to the crazy quilt of toll agencies, airports, etc in place.

Back in the 1980's and 1990's, the Council of Northeast Governors (CONEG) commissioned a study on taking over the NEC's infrastructure. Many of their recommendations have been authorized (HAROLD, Stamford center platforms, etc), others have not (cant deficiency on the Metro-North segment, for example).

http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=424608

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The nation needs daytime trains as part of a
> comprehensive transportation system. However, with
> one possible exception, overnight trains are
> doomed. Reallocate that equipment and improve
> daytime corridors. Two daytime trains
> Charlotte-Greenville/Spartanburg-Atlanta and New
> Orleans-Mobile would make a lot more sense than
> the Crescent does now, for example. The exception
> is cruise trains, like the Canadian up north. I'd
> put the Auto Train in that category too. Not sure
> how many western LD trains could be converted to
> cruise trains but that's their future.

Your proposal has no chances. That is up to the states and Class I access, not "comprehensive transportation" armchair philosophy. Most "corridors have no better a farebox recovery than most of the LD trains, and that goes for the Piedmonts too. They are of no use for going beyond their end-point boundaries. Given that the peak load points of the Crescent, Metoer, Lake Shore, Capitol Ltd, and the Zephyr east of Denver is on the overnight portions, to say they are "doomed" make no sense either. 

Overnight train in Europe are also making a comeback, despite "corridors' and real HSR.. 
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/19 07:14 by joemvcnj.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually all passenger rail operators get tax
> money. Nothing new there.
>

Much of Europe has a different approach, mandated by an EU directive.

The same entity may own infrastructure and provide service, but infrastructure must be financially and organizationally separate from service. The infrastructure must be available to all operators, whether they own infrastructure or not (most Train Operating Companies do not) on a non-discriminatory basis including non-discriminatory access fees. The fees for different classes of service may vary, but must be the same for all trains of the same class of service. Effectively, the rail network is a toll road. Except for capital to increase capacity, infrastructure pricing must cover the cost and profit of the infrastructure company. There are some essential passenger services, commuter and regional, that are considered essential by city and regional governments and operate with some degree of subsidy. Generally the essential service is advertised to prospective bidders. The award is generally made to the proposer of the lowest subsidy. Other services such as long distance, high speed, sleeper, and freight receive no subsidy. they must live on their revenue. (However, note that as in the US, trucking is heavily subsidized and rail freight is not).

It seems that separating infrastructure from service changes the picture. There are a lot of non-subsidized services in Europe.

It also seems that separating infrastructure from operation provides a substantial incentive for infrastructure companies to know how to maximize infrastructure utilization. The more trains operated (on time), the more revenue.

There is a good chance that "privatizing the NEC" will not have similar results.

TAW

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there is a part of Amtrak that actually makes
> money, I agree, spin it off. The question is, does
> the NEC make money if you include ownership and
> maintainence of the insfrastructure? And if the
> answer remains yes, then sure, let it become a
> capitalistic operation.
>
> My question is, wasn't the NEC the main reason for
> the Penn Central's bleeding money?




No Amtrak route / train has ever "made money". All have required subsidies.

Pennsy ran a lot of money losing passenger lines, with many ticket agents, etc.  The Northern Central  line from Baltimore to Harrisburg, ending in Buffalo, is one example. The service down to the DelMarVa is another.

joemvcnj Wrote:
>
> Overnight train in Europe are also making a
> comeback, despite "corridors' and real HSR.. 
>

Joe, you know this point holds no weight-- this board has discussed the topic ad nauseam (or should I say "ad nausea"?).  Trust me, I'm in Europe almost weekly, and I ride those trains.  Although I get lumped in the pile with the "Amtrak haters" who post on this forum, I do enjoy the frequent and RELIABLE rail service I experience across the pond, but these countries are about the size of one of our states.  These trains are pretty much what we would consider commuter rail in the US.  Seating is much closer, there isn't any diner or cafe car, and if you're lucky, some guy might come through with a snack cart selling warm sodas.

The overnight trains may be making a "comeback," but it's hardly beyond theory in most cases.  The recent news stories chronicle a DESIRE for return of such services, but few are in place so far, so it's really not possible to see any data yet on what success or lack thereof these services may experience.  I am happy to see it tried, and hope the subsidies required to operate such services are minimal.  As a firm supporter of corridor service in the US, I would love to see what European countries experience with "overnight trains," which is about as close as you'll see to LDTs outside of the US.

Speaking of overnight trains, that could be a model the US could embrace in a few corridors to facilitate business travel.  For example, we all know ridership on The Crescent drops off significantly south of Atlanta.  Most corridor travelers want to travel during the day, but a smaller number will do overnight travel.  So, equipment could be used on shorter runs during the day, and then once the short-range travel market wraps up for the day, run an overnight train with the equipment between a couple of points within reasonable (but longer than a corridor) distance, such as Washington, DC to Atlanta or Charlotte, NC.  

Yes, pie in the sky here, given funding and equipment utilization, but given the work I do with many clients in nearly every transportation mode, this is what someone looking to get the most revenue possible out of their equipment would be seeking.


 

Doomed is as doomed does. Let's see how many of the LD trains are still around in 20 years. I'll bet the answer is, no more than 2. The crap will hit the fan when Superliners and Amfleet II must be replaced. 

The increase in overnight European trains is numerically insignficant compared to daytime ridership overall. It's mainly a revolt against perceived CO2 emission and lousy customer service from Ryanair, Easyjet, and the other Southwest clones that fly intra-Europe.

Farebox recovery isn't very relevant in areas where the population is growing. Instead, the objective is avoidance of highway projects that cost $300M+ each. For example, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina keep pouring money into projects that widen I-85 -- but growth is outrunning the states' ability to pave. Most days there is at least one massive jam somewhere between Atlanta and Greensboro, some days more than one. Holidays, forget it. Business owners are complaining that trucks cannot provide dependable transportation anymore. The truckers are frustrated too. Neither the freight RRs nor the airlines are interested in short-haul. The best answer is to divert some short-haul vehicular traffic from personal autos to another mode. Passenger rail is the only answer, and population growth in some corridors is reaching critical mass. Meanwhile, revenue from gasoline taxes has peaked because of hybrids and electrics, and healthcare expenses are constraining the use of general state government income to cover interest payments on bonds for highway construction.