Amtrak: Operating Deficit, Government Operation, etc.

gokeefe wrote: This change will also be the basis for legislative reconsideration of the Basic network.

Expansion, or elimination?

I think Congress will be in a position to push for some expansion. I'm not talking about whole routes. But I think modifications, extensions and potentially additional frequencies on existing service are all within the realm of possibility.

Much as I might hate to see it, because it's a proven money loser with no prospect of supporting corridor service, I do think the Cardinal will return to daily service.

I think these kinds of things make sense given that Amtrak will still need capital support. That will be the big carrot that Congress can (and I think will) offer to negotiate on.

Another one that would not surprise me would be the Three Rivers/Broadway Limited. The host railroad (NS) is amenable and Amtrak may have enough rolling stock in the near future now that the California order is being resolved.

Ohio really is a dead spot for Amtrak and I think they may try to address that through Congressional negotiations.

I would note that even though the Three Rivers would be a new "route" it would operate almost entirely on track miles that Amtrak already runs. Given those efficiencies that presents a different cost profile than restarting something like the Pioneer, Desert Wind or the Floridian.

Are you sure Amtrak is interested in National system expansion? It has multiple state clients supplementing its Federal funding finally. The last thing I’d want is to make the agency more dependent on a US government likely to arbitrarily cut their budget.

That said, I would like to see a daily Superliner Cardinal CHI-WAS, Sunset Limited, Montrealer with Boston connection, and single level Broadway-Capitol Limited (split at PGH) on the Amtrak National System wish list. Those are all stated goals, and some of them would increase Amtrak’s productivity per crew and per facility without much additional cost.

gokeefe wrote:I think Congress will be in a position to push for some expansion. I'm not talking about whole routes. But I think modifications, extensions and potentially additional frequencies on existing services........

Ohio really is a dead spot for Amtrak and I think they may try to address that through Congressional negotiations.

Ohio is a dead spot mainly because it lies halfway between Chicago and the East Coast, no matter which city on the East Coast is picked. It’ll always have service at the worse times - on an east to west route. To have services during daylight and the best times of day, a north to south route is needed instead. A train terminating in Cleveland or
Buffalo extending south through Columbus, Cincinnati, Nashville, Birmingham, Montgomery, to New Orleans would place trains in Ohio during daylight.
Whereas adding frequencies to existing trains may seem logical, it isn’t going to fix the problem of trains arriving in cites at midnight.

mtuandrew wrote:Are you sure Amtrak is interested in National system expansion? It has multiple state clients supplementing its Federal funding finally. The last thing I’d want is to make the agency more dependent on a US government likely to arbitrarily cut their budget.

That said, I would like to see a daily Superliner Cardinal NYP-WAS, Sunset Limited, Montrealer with Boston connection, and single level Broadway-Capitol Limited (split at PGH) on the Amtrak National System wish list. Those are all stated goals, and some of them would increase Amtrak’s productivity per crew and per facility without much additional cost.

I’m about 99% sure that the Superliners don’t fit under NYP but someone smarter then me can confirm. Also with a daily Cardinal I see no need for a Broadway Limited again.

sullysullinburg wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:Are you sure Amtrak is interested in National system expansion? It has multiple state clients supplementing its Federal funding finally. The last thing I’d want is to make the agency more dependent on a US government likely to arbitrarily cut their budget.

That said, I would like to see a daily Superliner Cardinal NYP-WAS, Sunset Limited, Montrealer with Boston connection, and single level Broadway-Capitol Limited (split at PGH) on the Amtrak National System wish list. Those are all stated goals, and some of them would increase Amtrak’s productivity per crew and per facility without much additional cost.

I’m about 99% sure that the Superliners don’t fit under NYP but someone smarter then me can confirm. Also with a daily Cardinal I see no need for a Broadway Limited again.

Meant CHI-WAS, thanks for pointing that out. It’s been a hard week.

mtuandrew wrote:Are you sure Amtrak is interested in National system expansion? It has multiple state clients supplementing its Federal funding finally. The last thing I’d want is to make the agency more dependent on a US government likely to arbitrarily cut their budget.

That's exactly the point. They're about to become independent of the government for operating dollars. They won't have to worry about arbitrary cuts to operating funds. Capital funding cuts? Totally insane ... No member of Congress is going to vote in favor of cutting construction projects and rolling stock acquisition from private companies across the country.

Amtrak is going to be in a position to negotiate service enhancements for increased capital funding. Why? Because they will have the money to do it themselves. It's a totally different dynamic. Absolutely unlike anything they've ever experienced.

It's interesting to note that Amtrak was not instituted in 1971 to "make money". In our capitalist way of thinking, though, it's a wonderful thing, isn't it? What government sponsored passenger rail system in the world makes money?

Rockingham Racer wrote:It's interesting to note that Amtrak was not instituted in 1971 to "make money". In our capitalist way of thinking, though, it's a wonderful thing, isn't it? What government sponsored passenger rail system in the world makes money?

Some limited examples in Europe come to mind. Eurostar in particular was always designed to be solvent.

electricron wrote:Ohio is a dead spot mainly because it lies halfway between Chicago and the East Coast, no matter which city on the East Coast is picked. It’ll always have service at the worse times - on an east to west route. To have services during daylight and the best times of day, a north to south route is needed instead. Whereas adding frequencies to existing trains may seem logical, it isn’t going to fix the problem of trains arriving in cites at midnight.

Being right between Northeast and Midwest does poses a problem for Ohio in long distance service, but I'm thinking perhaps another kind of service, instead of focusing on traditional LD and corridor (Chicago hub) service, how about an "east-west" Midwest service, such as a I-70 corridor route (shades of the PGH-STL National, a main Greyhound route to this day)? PGH is approx. 181 miles from Columbus (equivalent to NYP-Baltimore), 359 to Indianapolis (equal to NHV-WAS) and 602 to STL (the length of the Vermonter). There could be multiple daily trips (not all on the entire length) and both ends have connections to existing service.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

electricron wrote:Ohio is a dead spot mainly because it lies halfway between Chicago and the East Coast, no matter which city on the East Coast is picked. It’ll always have service at the worse times - on an east to west route. To have services during daylight and the best times of day, a north to south route is needed instead. Whereas adding frequencies to existing trains may seem logical, it isn’t going to fix the problem of trains arriving in cites at midnight.

Being right between Northeast and Midwest does poses a problem for Ohio in long distance service, but I'm thinking perhaps another kind of service, instead of focusing on traditional LD and corridor (Chicago hub) service, how about an "east-west" Midwest service, such as a I-70 corridor route (shades of the PGH-STL National, a main Greyhound route to this day)? PGH is approx. 181 miles from Columbus (equivalent to NYP-Baltimore), 359 to Indianapolis (equal to NHV-WAS) and 602 to STL (the length of the Vermonter). There could be multiple daily trips (not all on the entire length) and both ends have connections to existing service.

The problem with a shorter route, from Pennsylvania to Missouri via Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, is finding states to subsidize it.
Missouri already subsidizes trains between KC and SL, and are not likely to subsidze a train that may reach 1 mile into the state.
Illinois already subsiidizes many trains from its Chicago hub, it's not going to subsidize a train that bypasses Chicago.
Indiana already subsidizes a train between Chicago and Indianapolis 4 days a week and is constantly trying to find ways to reduce its costs, it isn't likely to subsidize another.
Pennsylvania already subsizes many trains, it's not likely to subsidize another that might reach into the state less than 50 miles.
So that leaves Ohio, and they balked at subsidizing a train running north south in plain daylight between its three largest cities. There's no way they are going to subsidize a train to Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Chicago, or Detroit.
In conclusion - your idea doesn't even seem possible - from any of the states your proposed train would run through.

gokeefe wrote:

Rockingham Racer wrote:It's interesting to note that Amtrak was not instituted in 1971 to "make money". In our capitalist way of thinking, though, it's a wonderful thing, isn't it? What government sponsored passenger rail system in the world makes money?

Some limited examples in Europe come to mind. Eurostar in particular was always designed to be solvent.

Fair enough, George. I have not heard, though, if they are--in fact--making a profit.

Rockingham Racer wrote:

gokeefe wrote:

Rockingham Racer wrote:It's interesting to note that Amtrak was not instituted in 1971 to "make money". In our capitalist way of thinking, though, it's a wonderful thing, isn't it? What government sponsored passenger rail system in the world makes money?

Some limited examples in Europe come to mind. Eurostar in particular was always designed to be solvent.

Fair enough, George. I have not heard, though, if they are--in fact--making a profit.

Neither does the phrase "likely to end" actually mean they are - in fact - making a profit.
Some newspaper rag takes the fact the subsidy percentage drops in half, from 10% to 5% of operating costs, and constructs a linear curve via a logical thought process into suggesting the subsidy percentage is actually heading towards 0% - when the fact is it is actually just 5%.
We live in constant changing conditions. I remember the US Federal budget actually breaking even on papaer around 20 years ago, when a Congress and a President in office reacted to a failed third party politician bid for President. That push to balance the Federal budget lasted just one election cycle, then it was off to the races again to SNAFU; over promising and over spending.
I guess they were afraid that third party politician would run again, so they took his issue away from him. But it was only a fleeting moment in history, change happen. Who knows, maybe in a few years time Amtrak subsidy will return to its average of 10% again, with changes like adding more unprofitable trains to its lineup.

Rockingham Racer wrote:It's interesting to note that Amtrak was not instituted in 1971 to "make money".

Go tell that to the railroads that were given Amtrak common stock as payment for their passenger cars .http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blo ... stock.html

Amtrak was created in 1971. In exchange for the passenger rail assets they donated—actually a collection of barely ambulatory antique coaches, sleeping cars, and diners—railroads relieved of their common-carrier responsibility for operating money-losing passenger trains received federal tax credits.
Four railroads, unable to utilize the tax credits, opted for an offer of 9.4 million shares of Amtrak common stock created specially—and only—for those four railroads. They were Penn Central (53% of the shares), Burlington Northern (now part of BNSF, 35%), Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific (now part of Canadian Pacific, 7%), and Grand Trunk Western (now part of Canadian National, 5%).