Fred Frailey Column - Trains (dot) Com

There will be no significant long-distance train cuts; suggestions of this are merely habit from people with 1970s thinking.

Now, the perennially troubled Sunset Limited and Cardinal may be publicly threatened; Amtrak has already stated that they want them to run daily (but could not get cooperation from UP and CSX without providing large bribes), and threatening to cut them may be the only way to get the funding and congressional power to get them to run daily.

It would make no business or political sense whatsoever to even suggest cutting any of the other remaining long-distance trains. If anything is cut it would be the corridor trains which lack state funding, which Congress has been pressuring the states over for several years now.

If Congress goes fully stupid and cuts Amtrak below operating budget levels, expect Amtrak to refinance its debt (at record low interest rates). Personally I don't expect a budget this year at all, just a long sequence of continuing resolutions, hence no such crisis.

neroden wrote:Personally I don't expect a budget this year at all, just a long sequence of continuing resolutions, hence no such crisis.

The Senate did pass a Transportation and Housing budget bill this past week.
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/11/02/ho ... ding-bill/

The Senate bill proposes "$544 million for Amtrak operations and $937 million for Amtrak capital projects." The bill now goes to the House which has until November 18 to act on it or pass another continuing resolution.

Apparently a joint House-Senate Conference Committee has already started working.
http://asbmbpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... ll-begins/

The conference is slated to end next week, and both chambers are to hold final votes on the measure by Nov. 17, only a day before the continuing resolution that is keeping the government running expires.

Another short-term continuing resolution is expected to be attached to minibus bill to keep the government running through mid-December while Congress continues negotiations.

We could have a transportation budget by November 18th!

neroden wrote:It would make no business or political sense whatsoever to even suggest cutting any of the other remaining long-distance trains.

I think this point of view only makes sense if we assume that the states wouldn't step in with their own funding for these trains. Given the relative importance, especially of the Empire Builder I would think this could actually happen on at least some routes.

Obviously the shorter distance intra-state corridors are likely going to be proof of this concept in the near term.

At Amtrak in Chicago at least, there are talks about cutting long distance service. The big threat management has been making recently during our briefings is making the California Zephyr tri-weekly.

I'm just going to say this: Amtrak is a public service, its point is to provide transportation, not make a profit. How about we focus on improving the public service aspect and worry about the profitability when it has competition from other national passenger rail services.

As one of the more-senior members here, I cannot help but draw another paralell from the writings of another Trains columnist, the late John G. Kneiling

Despite the generally hostile reception by the railfan fraternity of his time, the revived rail industry which began emerging 25 years ago bore a strong resemblance to the predictions outlined in Mr. Kneiling's colums, articles, and book.

The creation of Amtrak represented the largest single rail-related issue in which the general public took an interest in this writer's lifetime; deregulation is, at best, a distant second.

And I remain convinced that the relative decline of the United States vs. other industrialized or emerging economies, coupled with the increasing scarcity of industrialization's principal feedstock and the dissemination of a better understanding of economic issues by the general public, is going to doom much of the politicans' window dressing.

The good news in all this is that those same trends seem likely to stimulate the indusry's recapture of a larger portion of freight trafic, possibly over shorter distances ... and that, in turn, could justify a rebuild of our rail system, particularly between and on the fringes of the corridors, and could, except for the demise of branch lines and "retail railroading", lead to developemnt of a rail network that would oustrip that of the industry's previous high-water years 1915-1945.

Mr. Kneiling understood what some of us take a long-time to grasp .... that the ability of politically-driven pressure to prop up a failed technology is both limited and overstated.

electricron wrote:
Amtrak's mandate since its begining is to provide a "national" intercity train service. Dropping long distance trains means dropping "national" train service. You might as well just kill Amtrak altogether. Regional trains services can be performed by regional agencies, a "national" train organization wouldn't be needed.

Tip of the hat for this nugget of truth. It is more likely that we are seeing Amtrak enter the "Circling the Drain" segment of its lifecycle. The signs are there if you can handle the truth as noted by electricron's post and Frailey's article. Boardman's letter is just bureaucratic smoke and mirrors to soothe the masses.

2nd trick op wrote:And I remain convinced that the relative decline of the United States vs. other industrialized or emerging economies, coupled with the increasing scarcity of industrialization's principal feedstock and the dissemination of a better understanding of economic issues by the general public, is going to doom much of the politicans' window dressing.

I don't always understand why so many people believe the "nation in decline" narrative. "Distress" certainly seems very appropriate for many of us. "Decline" however implies some kind of permanent downward trend. While it is certainly true to say that there is a growing income gap and all kinds of other problems, the problems manifesting themselves in rapidly developing countries are indeed severe.

By no means does China have a bright future ahead of it at all. Their population policies have collapsed their workforce in the space of a single generation, they have an imbalance of men to women, and their own government continues to oppress and stifle an ever more intelligent, educated, expectant and free citizenry. In the blink of our lifetimes we are likely going to see China go from a developing nation to something akin to Japan as a stagnating nation unless or until the Chinese decide to throw out the Communist regime.

On top of all this China's (and most other developing nations, to include India especially) environment is on the brink of major disaster. Due to vast and persistent pollution and wasteful usage northern China is about to run out of sources for clean water so much so that desalinization has more serious investment there than anywhere else in the world. Air pollution and smog blanket all major Chinese cities and respiratory disease and early morbidity literally suck the life out of the people who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare or that of their surviving elders, who by the way have no health insurance or elder care provided by the government.

On the other hand in our own country we have spent the last 40 years (and then some) ensuring clean air, clean water, great healthcare, and in general a seeing to it that a better life for our children is at least still in reach if not this year or decade then certainly in the not too distant future. The day the Chinese water merchants show up on our shores seeking to buy our clean, safe, and renewable water will be one in a series of seminal moments that will mark the reversal of the capital flows that have created the economy that will someday be our largest customer and has the potential to make us or our children very very wealthy.

As someone who has served the nation in a foreign combat zone (Afghanistan), as well as lived overseas in Europe and having seen the utterly desperate plight of so many others and their truly bleak long term prospects I refuse to allow the narrative of "decline", "depression", or "despair" to take hold. We have been through too much, come too far and sacrificed too much as a nation to give up now simply because other nations are finally starting to fulfill their own potential.

The discussion of a rebuilt rail system is best exemplified in the rebuild now underway on Pan Am Railways which has seen or is seeing virtually every single main line they own rebuilt through private and (mostly) public funds.

2nd trick op wrote:Mr. Kneiling understood what some of us take a long-time to grasp .... that the ability of politically-driven pressure to prop up a failed technology is both limited and overstated.

I would continue to maintain that the states where Amtrak Long Distance service is most relevant will ensure that the service continues. In other locations the end of Long Distance service could very well end up seeing the creation of new state supported service in the long run. This is both overdue and for the best for passenger rail in the long run as rationally funded corridors will be the building blocks of high or higher speed regional or national rail networks.

Two comments:

The major schwackings of budget authority are coming. We cannot afford to borrow from our Chinese bankers 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Period.

As much as I believe in Amtrak, it's time for the various Corridors to form Interstate Compacts, get block grants from Congress, and let's roll up anything not under a Compact. No Yuma, no Moolah isn't necessarily true anymore. The Nation cannot afford it.

I believe amtrak missed a huge opportunity .that was too pick up the ball that was thrown to them and run with it . Increaaed ridership public and political support , even vice prez and presidential support , and most of all increased funding .a real chance to show what they could do , to increase service and ridership , and to increase efficiency

Sorry trying to get used to posting from phone while minding baby.
Instead we had columns from Don Philips repeatedly asking where the plans for growth were. We had Amtrak saying extra ridership was causing it to lose money , or require more. There was no talk of using extra funding and ridership revenue to gain productivity , to carry more riders per dollar .
I think amtrak and its supporters need to ask why its the political football it is , despite been a miniscule amount in the overall budget . I think some of the answers lie in the points I have raised here .

Here are a few thought-provoking questions.

1. What is a national railroad system? Does it have to operate nation-wide, or does it have to operate trains nation-wide? If it really has to operate trains nation-wide, we're in trouble. All [most] LD trains start/stop in Chicago and *do not* cross the country. I'm not arguing for true transcon monsters, just arguing that there's nothing that says Amtrak's true purpose is LD trains.

2. How much of a transportation necessity are Amtrak LD trains such as the Builder? I mean there is a lot of freakin space that the Builder doesn't cover out there in Montana and the Dakota, and somehow those people get by... This business of casting Amtrak as a necessity for rural dwellers is a load of garbage. South Dakota and Wyoming don't have any trains and they get by - we're not trying to sell those states, are we?

I don't hate LD trains, but I wonder how much more productive the Builder's five trainsets would be providing 3x/day service CHI-MKE-MPLS rather than providing "necessary transport" for a handful of Dakotans. Or how much more useful would the Sunset's 5-ish trainsets be if they provided 3x/day service NOLA-Houston-San Antonio?

Tadman wrote:2. How much of a transportation necessity are Amtrak LD trains such as the Builder? I mean there is a lot of freakin space that the Builder doesn't cover out there in Montana and the Dakota, and somehow those people get by... This business of casting Amtrak as a necessity for rural dwellers is a load of garbage. South Dakota and Wyoming don't have any trains and they get by - we're not trying to sell those states, are we?

Ridership data consistently show that the Empire Buildier is patronized by rural communities in those areas in numbers that are utterly disproportionate to population. In short people who live in those areas do in fact use the train, and they use it a lot compared to other similar communities elsewhere with "basic" Amtrak service.. I don't think that justifies continued federal funding but it would very likely justify continuation using state funding. I think if the states are willing to fund the Empire Buildier then it should run. I am sure they will be quite surprised at just how expensive an undertaking that would be but nonetheless those inefficiencies would also likely be the root for improvements.

Messrs. Dunville and O'Keefe make good points; what would of of great concern to me is the playing of this rural card. If that card is played too aggressively, what is to stop grass root advocacy groups in Dickinson ND and Grand Island NE from touting "Williston and Hastings got their train, we want ours".

Naturally, I suppose there is the faction that worships "The Vision" that one certain national advocacy group holds, but I think they largely populate other forums as some of them think we're "anti Amtrak" (or at least they thought l was during my terms "at the throttle") around here.

If any initiatives for additional LD's ever were to move forth (and I personally doubt that will be the case) best be prepared to lose some of the existing system. For lest we forget there is a silent party, the Class I roads, that have come over the past forty years to accept they made a "bad bet' during 1970 and, so long as the intrusion on to their property remains at levels that can be considered a "nuisance", they will accept the consequences. By consequences I mean that here are these (Amtrak) trains for which priority handling is expected, often running against the flow of their "pipeline" traffic, that very simply are hardly paying their way when viewed from an opportunity cost, i.e. how much could be earned from that "Z" train we cannot dispatch thanks to Amtrak, perspective.

If lets say an initiative to restore the City of Everywhere, or even the North Coast Limited, were to move forth, or even one to double the frequencies (to "two a day"; i.e. restore the Grand Canyon and the Western Star) over existing lines where Amtrak would benefit from economies of scale, then the industry's lobbying machinery goes to work, and up against the brute force of such, it would be time to order up the Adios drumheads.

disclaimer; author holds long positions CSX, KSU, NSC, UNP