Do Amtrak LD trains have a future?

SouthernRailway wrote:

ryanov wrote: There are monied interests that want trains eliminated, and apparently a large percentage of the railroad.net audience is happy to help them do their bidding. I guess this site never billed itself as pro-railroad, so maybe that was my mistake.

Sounds like you get your railroad news from Alex Jones at Infowars. "Monied interests" opposing trains sounds like a conspiracy theory.

You really think suggesting that there is money behind squashing passenger rail is a controversial idea? What happened to the streetcar? Why did George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak entirely? It's done under the guise of preventing the waste of taxpayer money, but it's pretty easy to see that the treatment of passenger rail is significantly different than many other larger government expenditures.

SouthernRailway wrote:Of course most everyone on this site is interested in railroads and is "pro-railroad" in that most everyone likes trains and wants more of them.

You could have fooled me. You have a number of old-timers here who appear to have come around to the attitude "train travel was nice when I used to do it, but hey, I don't ride it anymore so shut it down," a certain group that is fine to stand by the side of the tracks and film whatever goes by but has no particular interest in what happens on board the actual trains as a paying customer, and then a growing group that apparently have amnesia and have forgotten that passenger rail just is not able to make money in the US -- it seemed just a few years ago as if everyone understood that, given the subsidies provided to road and air. We had private sector railroads that wanted out, and we have private sector railroads today that don't want in. Yet, something about this board appears to have shifted anyway.

SouthernRailway wrote:Some of us, such as me, would prefer to free Amtrak and other passenger rail from the shackles of government, and don't see a need to use money inefficiently. That doesn't make me or others anti-rail at all; I'm as pro-passenger train as anyone else. I just think that if there were a way to free Amtrak and other passenger rail systems from the annual need to beg for funds from an often-hostile government, they'd be better off, in part because they wouldn't be micro-managed by "deplorables" who have no idea how railroads work. I haven't found a way to do that, but to the extent that running Amtrak more efficiently reduces the need for tax dollars, without cutting into the number and frequencies of trains or the basic service I get, fine. So to the extent that I can still get a hot dinner on my Amtrak long-distance trips, if it costs zero in tax dollars, great!

Quite obviously what you're going to get is downgraded service with very little impact to how much Amtrak needs from the government to operate. I think that's reasonably clear.

Meanwhile, you've got stuff like this going on (I really hope that no moderator censors this post just because it's espousing a different religion in here than the prevailing one -- it's just as valid a criticism as any of the rest of this):

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

So I don't think it's out of line to suggest that there are government expenditures that apparently are just fine -- perhaps in service to corporate interests -- but any subsidy to literally eating on Amtrak is just extravagance. That's some paradigm.

From a later post:

SouthernRailway wrote:Amtrak cannot make money. Period.

I'd think that introducing private operators into the passenger rail business, but subsidized by government, could reduce losses, at least somewhat.

In any event, government-run/owned enterprises typically are less efficient and lose more money than their private-sector counterparts. I see no reason why Amtrak would be an exception to that general rule.

That's a thing that people say. I don't see a whole lot of evidence to that effect, especially when the government is still paying the bills (which "Amtrak cannot make money." would seem to dictate). Private-sector companies do seem really adept at a certain kind of efficiency: taking as much money out as they can while providing the absolute bare minimum (or below it) of whatever they're supposed to provide. One example would be the ill-fated privatization of the NJ DMV services in 1995. There are many others. There may be some examples of successful privatization too (many posters on her talk about the Downeaster food service -- without a lot more information, who knows). But it's flat out not a given that private companies are more competent or efficient than the government.

The Palmetto and the Auto Train both come close enough to "making money" to say "they make money" *

Virginia trains are LDs in every way that matters to customers:
- Williamsburg/NPN train run overnight on the NEC
- Roanoke trains run 15 hours (if they get to VaTech/Radford they'll run 16).
These are also cash flow positive (and pay for their capital, per PRIIA)

So Amtrak can make money on LD trains, just not the ones we usually think of.

*as long as you drop some asterisks on what costs you allocate.

Arlington wrote:The Palmetto and the Auto Train both come close enough to "making money" to say "they make money" *

Virginia trains are LDs in every way that matters to customers:
- Williamsburg/NPN train run overnight on the NEC
- Roanoke trains run 15 hours (if they get to VaTech/Radford they'll run 16).
These are also cash flow positive (and pay for their capital, per PRIIA)

So Amtrak can make money on LD trains, just not the ones we usually think of.

*as long as you drop some asterisks on what costs you allocate.

The Virginia and North Carolina subsidized trains are not long distance trains.
While there isn’t much difference in services provided aboard between them and the Palmetto, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train which requires no State subsidies, because it travels the legislative set 750 miles.

electricron wrote:The Virginia and North Carolina subsidized trains are not long distance trains

You are correct, if viewing the world through PRIIA. They are, however, trains that go long distances, they just happen to not meet the legal definition of "operating 750 miles as of 2009"

I introduce the NC/VA here (and group the Palmetto with them) as a way of showing that there's nothing inherently un-economical about
- trains that go far
- trains that run for a long time
- trains that run overnight

Trains meeting these tests can and do have a stable future.

That, in 2009, they happened to make a basket full of basket cases and call them "The LDs" may mean that basket cases have a turbulent future, but it is not proof that long, far, or overnight running is inherently turbulent.

ryanov wrote:....a growing group that apparently have amnesia and have forgotten that passenger rail just is not able to make money in the US -- it seemed just a few years ago as if everyone understood that, given the subsidies provided to road and air.

I'm calling baloney on this; Many railroads made handsome profits during the first 70+ years of railroading. How much are the subsidies for roads? 10¢/mile? That's not that much. I have no idea what the subsidy is for air travel, so I can't comment on that. All the railroads need to do to achieve profit is to be some combination of faster, cheaper, or more convenient than their competition.

ryanov wrote:Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Now that's a subsidy! The various state workforce development/unemployment departments should run job fairs and invite Walmart workers & other underemployed to help them find better paying jobs!

ryanov, if monied interests are out to squash passenger rail:

Who are these monied interests?

What financial benefit do they get from squashing passenger rail?

Why haven’t they succeeded?

To your doubts about government-run enterprises being less efficient than private ones:

Try Google. There are slews of studies out there by economists of all stripes. Do some basic research.

The rest of your post is rambling.

Interesting article regarding road subsidies. https://www.citylab.com/amp/article/534327/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It should be noted that local governments especially often dip into their general funds for road projects. The overall situation for roads has worsened as cars become more fuel efficient and inflation has been on the rise. Every year the percentage of road funding coming from general funds that all taxpayers subsidize increases.

As for air I’m not sure about what the direct subsidies but airlines do have certain special protections the federal government has setup. Additionally airports are constructed/run by government or quasi-public entities. While user fees cover a portion of the costs subsidies are usually required especially for big construction projects. Also tbe Government helps out by taking care of air traffic control and the FAA. This leaves the airlines free to just operate planes.

Like with rail user fees help cover the cost of air and road travel but do not cover it entirely.

If you really took the time to calculate how each transportation method is subsidized who knows how much it would be for each one. Probably nearly impossible to know for sure as people may have differing opinions on what counts as a subsidy.

SouthernRailway wrote:ryanov, if monied interests are out to squash passenger rail:

Who are these monied interests?

What financial benefit do they get from squashing passenger rail?

Why haven’t they succeeded?

To your doubts about government-run enterprises being less efficient than private ones:

Try Google. There are slews of studies out there by economists of all stripes. Do some basic research.

The rest of your post is rambling.

Koch brothers. Nashville.

andrewjw wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:ryanov, if monied interests are out to squash passenger rail:

Who are these monied interests?

What financial benefit do they get from squashing passenger rail?

Why haven’t they succeeded?

To your doubts about government-run enterprises being less efficient than private ones:

Try Google. There are slews of studies out there by economists of all stripes. Do some basic research.

The rest of your post is rambling.

Koch brothers. Nashville.

Yes, you are right that the Koch brothers opposed transit in Nashville and succeeded.

They oppose everything “left-wing” and are conservative.

But this is the Amtrak forum; who are the monies jnterests opposing Amtrak and why haven’t they succeeded in getting rid of Amtrak in 47 years?

ryanov wrote: You really think suggesting that there is money behind squashing passenger rail is a controversial idea? What happened to the streetcar? Why did George W. Bush try to zero out Amtrak entirely? It's done under the guise of preventing the waste of taxpayer money, but it's pretty easy to see that the treatment of passenger rail is significantly different than many other larger government expenditures.

Which "monied interests" were pushing Bush (and Clinton and Carter) to reduce Amtrak subsidies? Perhaps they simply didn't care about rail or, in the case of Bush, had an ideological opposition to certain kinds of government spending? The Koch brothers certainly weren't behind Carter and Clinton.

ryanov wrote: You could have fooled me. You have a number of old-timers here who appear to have come around to the attitude "train travel was nice when I used to do it, but hey, I don't ride it anymore so shut it down," a certain group that is fine to stand by the side of the tracks and film whatever goes by but has no particular interest in what happens on board the actual trains as a paying customer, and then a growing group that apparently have amnesia and have forgotten that passenger rail just is not able to make money in the US -- it seemed just a few years ago as if everyone understood that, given the subsidies provided to road and air. We had private sector railroads that wanted out, and we have private sector railroads today that don't want in. Yet, something about this board appears to have shifted anyway.

Who? Name names of posters who fall into this category.

ryanov wrote: Quite obviously what you're going to get is downgraded service with very little impact to how much Amtrak needs from the government to operate. I think that's reasonably clear.

Clearly you haven't read my posts. Check out the thread about "why isn't Amtrak enhancing its first-class products.

ryanov wrote: Meanwhile, you've got stuff like this going on (I really hope that no moderator censors this post just because it's espousing a different religion in here than the prevailing one -- it's just as valid a criticism as any of the rest of this):

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, that's true, but that is not rail-related.

ryanov wrote: That's a thing that people say. I don't see a whole lot of evidence to that effect, especially when the government is still paying the bills (which "Amtrak cannot make money." would seem to dictate). Private-sector companies do seem really adept at a certain kind of efficiency: taking as much money out as they can while providing the absolute bare minimum (or below it) of whatever they're supposed to provide. One example would be the ill-fated privatization of the NJ DMV services in 1995. There are many others. There may be some examples of successful privatization too (many posters on her talk about the Downeaster food service -- without a lot more information, who knows). But it's flat out not a given that private companies are more competent or efficient than the government.

People say it because it's generally true. Do your research. In general, private enterprise is more efficient than government. Not in all cases, but in general, and privately-owned companies are generally more efficient than government-owned ones. Put down Das Kapital and do current research--even Google has slews of articles and studies on this. In the rail industry, compare US freight railroads to European government-owned ones; US freight railroads are much more efficient and provide better service at lower cost.

mtuandrew wrote:But is there demand for Chicago-Traverse that wouldn’t be better suited to coach buses? And if there is, why would Amtrak be the best operator for what seems a boutique “dinner train minus dinner” service to a town of rich vacationers? This if anything seems like the perfect place for an IPH-like block of cars on the rear of an Evening Blue Water, cut off at Durand and hauled north by GLC.

I also can’t imagine Michigan taking well to a train to Traverse or Petoskey that originated in Chicago, rather than either AA or Detroit. Charlotte-Asheville or Raleigh-Asheville is a different story, if we are talking NC.

First, you have to look at this from the perspective of a net positive on Michigan's economy funded by that state, not a social good for moving Michigan citizens about the state. Once you look at it this way, it makes sense to dip into the immensely large and prosperous population of greater Chicagoland. Detroit is much smaller and it's just churning in-state dollars.

Second, calling it a dinner train minus dinner completely gets it backward. A dinner train is totally for the experience. You could run it through a cornfield or iceberg. An overnight-only train is all about seamless transport with little regard for experience other than sleep. It must be run to a destination.

Finally, a coach bus will never cut it. People paying for vacation in Fort William or the famous Scottish golf courses where the British Open is held are not interested in stuffing into a bus for 8 hours, and neither are people who own a $500,000 boat in Traverse or Harbor Springs.

For decades, the Brits ran trains like this as "motorail", which was a more basic auto train. This could also be a useful concept here, where vacationers want their car in places like Aspen, Traverse, etc...