Contracting out the long-distance trains

Thanks for the feedback.

Disclaimer: I am a Republican activist, and am very involved in the party. I am also a huge fan of railroads, and I've worked in the transit field. We need not only to protect the passenger trains that we have from being cut, but we need more, more and more passenger trains. I think that we need to think of new ways to accomplish these goals.

I really do not think that conservatives would balk as much at tax credits for private railroads as much as some do over subsidies to Amtrak. They can't claim that Union Pacific, for example, is Soviet-like, as they do about Amtrak. How often do you hear conservatives balking about tax credits for anything?

Plus one issue I see with Amtrak is that it doesn't have a large, well-funded lobbying base or the ability to make significant corporate donations to politicians, and unfortunately it seems to me that having a large lobbying base plus large corporate donations to politicians are key in getting anything done in Washington. Private freight railroads have both, and once they get a benefit such as new tax credits, they'd surely use their lobbying and donation power to keep them.

Good point re: liability. If private railroads could push for limitations of liability as part of tort reform, Republicans would totally go for that.

I just wouldn't want to give the job to Taggart Transcontinental (the railroad in Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged"). Not after what happened with "The Comet".

My question is: what would you do about road sharing? For example, the Lake Shore Limited operates on Metro-North, CSX, and NS. To whom would this train be contracted to? Would it require a route change?

There are other routes that have even more road changes that would simply throw this entire plan into the trash bin unless all the Class Is, and several Class IIs and Class IIIs could all reach agreements. That would be a lot of effort simply in the name of operating passenger trains along their current routes.

This thread recalls an idea that I had years ago and posted to this very forum (no, I'm not going to dig it up, but I'll recall it here).

Essentially it would break out Amtrak's LD system into several entities:

1. The freight railroads would assume the operation (Engineer/Conductor) of the train. Of course they would be paid for this service along with track usage. The railroads would also maintain (and possibly own/lease) the locomotives and the coaches. The freight railroads would be paid a specified amount for their services; any losses incurred could be taken as a tax credit.

2. "Amtrak", or whatever is left as a shell, government owned enterprise, would own the coaches, set the routes, and determine the reimbursement rates and pay the bills. Amtrak would also be the liable carrier and would assure that the host railroad is not liable for the passenger train operation.

3. A national reservations center would handle all ticket sales and work with local ticket agents to sell tickets. (They would work with the sleeping car operators as well, see #4.)

4. Sleeper cars would be entirely privately owned/operated affairs and would be responsible for their car ownership, maintenance, operations, sales/marketing/reservations.

5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

6. Any stations would be the responsibility of either the host railroad or local communities; they would be permitted to charge a Passenger Facility Charge (just as an airport does) and Amtrak and the sleeping car operators would be required to collect the PFC and return it to the station owner. (Or the stations could collect the fee themselves and simply require that the passenger provide proof of payment before boarding the train; I've seen this process used in at least one Canadian airport.)

The only federal responsibility is the coach service as the "essential travel" component of the national rail network. Thus the coach operation would not be required to earn a profit, but it would be required to minimize losses to its best ability.

Sleeping/Dining cars are on their own and not eligible for any reimbursement or subsidy. The dining car, however, would essentially "ride for free" in that it would not have to pay for haulage on the train. The sleeping cars would only have to pay for haulage to the extent of the cost of additional locomotives needed. So if a train needed only one locomotive, the sleeping cars too would "ride for free".

This assures that any federal tax subsidy is used ONLY for the essential travel component and does not subsidize "luxury" travel that is not afforded to other means of travel. It also opens up the potential of increased service rather than the bare minimum, cookie-cutter approach taken by Amtrak today. Railroads would be more visible and therefore have an incentive to provide good service to the public plus be able to show public goodwill, while at the same time eliminating any risk or expense doing so.

wigwagfan wrote:
1. The freight railroads would assume the operation (Engineer/Conductor) of the train.

So , with the advent of HOS being different for freight vs. paxs, they would need a separate pool to maintain pax vs. freight T&E crews. That in and of itself is very cost prohibiting to make it worth any value to the freight dogs.

I dont think liability would be a big issue for the class ones , they are big enough to self insure if insurance is to expensive .

wigwagfan wrote:5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

Wasn't the cafe car on one of Amtrak's routes contracted out to Subway or the like with disastrous results?

obienick wrote:

wigwagfan wrote:5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

Wasn't the cafe car on one of Amtrak's routes contracted out to Subway or the like with disastrous results?

Depends on whose side of the story you listen to, but pretty much I would say the union stopped the idea.

Cafe service on the Downeaster route is currently contracted out with excellent results -- decent food, decent selection, and prices generally lower than what Amtrak charges on the Northeast Corridor.

David Benton wrote:I dont think liability would be a big issue for the class ones , they are big enough to self insure if insurance is to expensive .

Liability is a MAJOR issue. It is very expensive and they don't want to self-insure. Amtrak is self insured and it hinders budgeting. Why do you think most contracted railroads operate as a consortium or subdivision of a major company?

It is to add layers to shield from liability.

As new service is proposed, the freight railroads insist they shoulder no responsibility for passenger liability. This is why a lot of people drop out of running service.They want to use the Amtrak model and a lot of private enterprises won't want to follow it. Who could blame them?

That being said, why would freight service want to pay benefits for crew members, train them and employ them ,while shouldering liability for a service that often "gets in their way?"

Greg Moore wrote:

obienick wrote:

wigwagfan wrote:5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

Wasn't the cafe car on one of Amtrak's routes contracted out to Subway or the like with disastrous results?

Depends on whose side of the story you listen to, but pretty much I would say the union stopped the idea.

You would be wrong. Once again, it was liability question that remained unanswered at the time. The conductor is in charge of the train. Does that put him/her in charge of the Subway employee? If not, who assumes responsibility for the Subway employee? Would the employee have to go to our training classes? Who assumes the burden if there is an incident on the train?

Subway pulled out after all these questions were asked and Amtrak insisted that Subway be liable for their employee on the train.

wigwagfan wrote:This thread recalls an idea that I had years ago and posted to this very forum (no, I'm not going to dig it up, but I'll recall it here).

Essentially it would break out Amtrak's LD system into several entities:

1. The freight railroads would assume the operation (Engineer/Conductor) of the train. Of course they would be paid for this service along with track usage. The railroads would also maintain (and possibly own/lease) the locomotives and the coaches. The freight railroads would be paid a specified amount for their services; any losses incurred could be taken as a tax credit.

2. "Amtrak", or whatever is left as a shell, government owned enterprise, would own the coaches, set the routes, and determine the reimbursement rates and pay the bills. Amtrak would also be the liable carrier and would assure that the host railroad is not liable for the passenger train operation.

3. A national reservations center would handle all ticket sales and work with local ticket agents to sell tickets. (They would work with the sleeping car operators as well, see #4.)

4. Sleeper cars would be entirely privately owned/operated affairs and would be responsible for their car ownership, maintenance, operations, sales/marketing/reservations.

5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

6. Any stations would be the responsibility of either the host railroad or local communities; they would be permitted to charge a Passenger Facility Charge (just as an airport does) and Amtrak and the sleeping car operators would be required to collect the PFC and return it to the station owner. (Or the stations could collect the fee themselves and simply require that the passenger provide proof of payment before boarding the train; I've seen this process used in at least one Canadian airport.)

The only federal responsibility is the coach service as the "essential travel" component of the national rail network. Thus the coach operation would not be required to earn a profit, but it would be required to minimize losses to its best ability.

Sleeping/Dining cars are on their own and not eligible for any reimbursement or subsidy. The dining car, however, would essentially "ride for free" in that it would not have to pay for haulage on the train. The sleeping cars would only have to pay for haulage to the extent of the cost of additional locomotives needed. So if a train needed only one locomotive, the sleeping cars too would "ride for free".

This assures that any federal tax subsidy is used ONLY for the essential travel component and does not subsidize "luxury" travel that is not afforded to other means of travel. It also opens up the potential of increased service rather than the bare minimum, cookie-cutter approach taken by Amtrak today. Railroads would be more visible and therefore have an incentive to provide good service to the public plus be able to show public goodwill, while at the same time eliminating any risk or expense doing so.

This sounds like key points of the 1997 Amtrak Reform Act. The problem then and the problem now remains the same. The more hands you have in the pot, the more opportunities you have for calamity. If all parties are not in complete agreement and harmony, how would you be able to get the train assembled, staffed and over the road?

This model is problematic with the limited outsourcing Amtrak currently allows. Who would you hold accountable if there was a small problem with a sleeper, in a passenger station and the host railroad refuses to help out because they have 3 hot shot freights in the vicinity?

The sleeping car company for having a car that has a problem?

The host railroad for not wanting to get involved?

The owner of the station for not having services available?

All this comes into play when you have conflicting interests and agendas.

wigwagfan wrote:This thread recalls an idea that I had years ago and posted to this very forum (no, I'm not going to dig it up, but I'll recall it here).

Essentially it would break out Amtrak's LD system into several entities:

1. The freight railroads would assume the operation (Engineer/Conductor) of the train. Of course they would be paid for this service along with track usage. The railroads would also maintain (and possibly own/lease) the locomotives and the coaches. The freight railroads would be paid a specified amount for their services; any losses incurred could be taken as a tax credit.

2. "Amtrak", or whatever is left as a shell, government owned enterprise, would own the coaches, set the routes, and determine the reimbursement rates and pay the bills. Amtrak would also be the liable carrier and would assure that the host railroad is not liable for the passenger train operation.

3. A national reservations center would handle all ticket sales and work with local ticket agents to sell tickets. (They would work with the sleeping car operators as well, see #4.)

4. Sleeper cars would be entirely privately owned/operated affairs and would be responsible for their car ownership, maintenance, operations, sales/marketing/reservations.

5. Dining cars would also be privately owned/operated.

6. Any stations would be the responsibility of either the host railroad or local communities; they would be permitted to charge a Passenger Facility Charge (just as an airport does) and Amtrak and the sleeping car operators would be required to collect the PFC and return it to the station owner. (Or the stations could collect the fee themselves and simply require that the passenger provide proof of payment before boarding the train; I've seen this process used in at least one Canadian airport.)

The only federal responsibility is the coach service as the "essential travel" component of the national rail network. Thus the coach operation would not be required to earn a profit, but it would be required to minimize losses to its best ability.

Sleeping/Dining cars are on their own and not eligible for any reimbursement or subsidy. The dining car, however, would essentially "ride for free" in that it would not have to pay for haulage on the train. The sleeping cars would only have to pay for haulage to the extent of the cost of additional locomotives needed. So if a train needed only one locomotive, the sleeping cars too would "ride for free".

This assures that any federal tax subsidy is used ONLY for the essential travel component and does not subsidize "luxury" travel that is not afforded to other means of travel. It also opens up the potential of increased service rather than the bare minimum, cookie-cutter approach taken by Amtrak today. Railroads would be more visible and therefore have an incentive to provide good service to the public plus be able to show public goodwill, while at the same time eliminating any risk or expense doing so.

This looks like a big privatization problem. One other thing, who is going to maintain the tracks and the equipment used to maintain them? To what standard or class of track would be maintaned? The freights or another company can downgrade the class of track forcing the passenger train off its property or onto another route, thus leaving passengers in some areas without service.

Let us not forget that Amtrak wrote most of the standards in maintaining rolling stock. Split that up and now it would be up to dozens of companies to maintain the equipment but to what standard?

ThirdRail7 wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:

obienick wrote:
Wasn't the cafe car on one of Amtrak's routes contracted out to Subway or the like with disastrous results?

Depends on whose side of the story you listen to, but pretty much I would say the union stopped the idea.

You would be wrong. Once again, it was liability question that remained unanswered at the time. The conductor is in charge of the train. Does that put him/her in charge of the Subway employee? If not, who assumes responsibility for the Subway employee? Would the employee have to go to our training classes? Who assumes the burden if there is an incident on the train?

Subway pulled out after all these questions were asked and Amtrak insisted that Subway be liable for their employee on the train.

If liability was the issue, why did the service even start? It lasted I believe exactly one day.

http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/1205/1205_7.pdf supports my memory.

And as others have pointed out, the Downeaster contracts out its food service. In addition, numerous other trains have non-railroad personal (such as National Park Service employees and volunteers) on-board. They seem to manage just fine.

Greg Moore wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote: You would be wrong. Once again, it was liability question that remained unanswered at the time. The conductor is in charge of the train. Does that put him/her in charge of the Subway employee? If not, who assumes responsibility for the Subway employee? Would the employee have to go to our training classes? Who assumes the burden if there is an incident on the train?

Subway pulled out after all these questions were asked and Amtrak insisted that Subway be liable for their employee on the train.

If liability was the issue, why did the service even start? It lasted I believe exactly one day.

http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/1205/1205_7.pdf supports my memory.

And as others have pointed out, the Downeaster contracts out its food service. In addition, numerous other trains have non-railroad personal (such as National Park Service employees and volunteers) on-board. They seem to manage just fine.

I thought it lasted a wee bit longer, but once the above questions were raised, it did turn a light on in someones head. As for the Downeaster service, I'm not sure what terms are in play.

All I can do is report what the logic was..at the time. I assume all questions and scenarios have been addressed by now, but at the time....they weren't.

If you happen to know the provisions of the contracts and liability issues, please post them, or PM me if you'd like. I'm very interested.