SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:43 am
And the law now gives them permission. Several LD routes are available to be run by a private company, and the private company would be subsidized. No Class I had expressed interest. I don’t get it.
I'm not sure why you don't get it. One of the first posts I made on this board in 2011 was in response to the thoughts in your
Contracting out the long-distance trains thread. I mentioned
ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:23 pm
Sounds interesting, except for one thing. Liability. The host railroads have been offered the chance to run the trains Amtrak operates on their territory. They remain uninterested because they really don't want the liability of passenger service.
If they took over the service, there would be no shield between them and liabilty.
It's one of the things that saves Amtrak.
Furthermore, you started the
Turn ownership and governance of Amtrak over to private RRs? thread in 2013. It was a pretty bold idea but still had a problem that you stated is a valid point:
ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:29 pm
While your basic line of thinking is honorable, I'm still not sure how you think adding another layer of hands in the pot will increase efficiency. If anything, there is another (possibly) obstructionist layer of muddle to plow through that will still have to answer to the Feds for the subsidies. When you say turn it over to private railroads, which ones are you talking about? The major class 1s or any private railroad that may want to buy stock? What makes you think a freight company will add efficiency to a passenger operation which has far more regulations and moves a different product? If they thought they could do it, why did CSX, who received the full operating costs of providing MARC passenger service say they didn't want the service they provided for years? N&S had the chance to snatch up the VREs and in the end, didn't even put in a bid (which kind of surprised me.)
If operators don't want passenger service on a state level with their costs all but guaranteed, what makes you think they'd want to take on Amtrak's woes, particularly if they have to answer to the ground rules of Congress?
Like it or not, the current CEO has attempted to make changes to the system and operations. Congress has rebuffed a lot of the things that were floated. Why would a freight operator want the increased regulations, increased scrutiny, increased costs, and increased liability to move a product (passengers) that has been proven to be a money loser and still have to answer to the whims of Congress?
Finally, the regulations and requirements keep intensifying, especially if you deal with passengers. I mentioned this in 2018's
Do Amtrak LD trains have a future? thread:
ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:22 pm
bdawe wrote:ThirdRail7 wrote: Additionally, freight wants very little to do with passenger services. They don't want the liability or the expense. This particularly true since there are different classes of certifications for passenger and freight.
Class 1s sure seem to operate a pretty substantial number of commuter operations for wanting so little to do with passenger services, including hundreds of trains per day on UP & BNSF Metra service, BNSF Sounder commuter service in Seattle (not a legacy operation), CP operated commuter services in Toronto & Montreal
Conversely, Conrail got out of the commuter rail service. CSX kicked out of their legacy commuter contracts (indeed, charging Maryland an additional million dollars a year if memory serves when they couldn't find an operator by the time the contract ran out) and when NS was offered the VRE service, they declined. They didn't even want the Manassas line, even though it is their territory.
Whatever happened to that provision that would allow a company to operate 3 long distance trains? Did that generate any interest from the freight operators?
I didn't see it mentioned on this board, but another freight operator is attempting to opt-out of commuter service. Behold:
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... o-readmore]
Attention, Metra riders: UP, commuter rail service are squaring off in court
Union Pacific wants Metra to take over direct operation of lines that carry 100,000 riders a day.
Please allow a few brief fair use quotes:
A contract dispute between Metra and its largest service provider has landed in federal court here, creating uncertainty over who will operate train lines that serve more than 100,000 passengers a day.
The legal battle pits Metra against the Union Pacific Railroad, which Metra currently pays about $100 million a year to operate the UP North (Kenosha), Northwest (Harvard and McHenry) and West (Elburn) lines.
Metra pays UP 100 million dollars per year to operate three commuter lines in the Chicago area. I'm not sure if that covers the entire cost of the operation but I would think it does cover the net cost of the operation.
It doesn't matter since UP wants out!
In a statement, UP makes it clear it wants out of that deal so that it can concentrate on its freight business.
“We are negotiating a new agreement that gives Metra direct responsibility for operating its commuter lines through a services transfer,” the company said in a statement. “This will allow Union Pacific to focus on moving customers' goods in and out of Chicago and across the nation.
The Class 1s do not see the profitability in a heavily regulated operation. You can not do the same things in passenger service that you can do in freight. This leads to more expenses, more costs and a ton of political interference.
Who wants that kind of aggravation?