Why isn't passenger service profitable?

This is a layman's question, and it may have been asked before, but if so, I'm not aware of it.

I have read for years that passenger rail service is a money-loser. This is true not only in the U.S., but (I gather) in other countries as well. My question, simply put, is "Why?" I presume it has to do with overhead ---especially, perhaps, the costs of liability insurance and ongoing track maintenance. But has this always been the case? Was it so back in the '50s, when U.S. railroads began eliminating passenger service on a widespread basis? Or was that chiefly because they had lost passengers because of competition with cars and planes?

I plead ignorance regarding this. I have a hard time believing that railroads can run freight trains profitably but that Amtrak can't wean itself off the government because it can't turn a profit. (I would add that Amtrak took over passenger operations because the railroads themselves had the same complaint.)

As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "'Splain!"

Passenger rail is not profitable for several reasons, a railroad has to maintain its entire operation and cost can not be competitive with roads or air where there is no overhead other than airport fees and road tax and tolls.
a passenger train needs to run its schedule if its full, half full or empty, not only during rush hours but anytime.
Rail because its not a dedicated passenger system can not compete time wise with other modes of transportation.
The freights they slow you down, but You can't get rid of freight as those guys own and pay for the track upkeep more than any passenger.

Profitability has nothing to do with the level of subsidization. Yes, bus, automobile and airplane travel is subsidized, as is Amtrak and every commuter rail I know of. There are other factors involved:

• An automobile is a private investment in road travel. The taxing authority only has to pay for the roads. It doesn't have to pay for the automobiles as well. Railroads need to pay for and maintain their own coaches.

• Freight doesn't complain when it has to go into a siding to let a higher priority train through.

• Freight doesn't need a conductor.

• Freight gets paid-for through invoicing, not by selling every four square feet in a car one by one.

• Freight doesn't have to be loaded and unloaded every 5 (or fewer) miles.

Railroads are not an appropriate technology for passengers (although I'm sure that Irish Chieftan would disagree with me). Dual-mode transport, using guideways AND roads for cars AND busses, forming ad-hoc trains is more appropriate. For example, the RUF

RussNelson wrote:Railroads are not an appropriate technology for passengers

Heh, I don't forsee any controversy arising from that statement, no-siree

Anyway, I do remember reading that many passenger services on the US railroads were unprofitable by the 1940s (well, mainline services - lots of the branchline and backwoods services disappeared during the Great Depression. The passenger services were maintained for promotional & publicity (well, that and the public service requirements and the hoops required to jump through before a train-off/service reduction could occur).
This is one reason why the railroads started replacing their trains with 'streamline' diesels (cheaper to operate over the long run, in addition to the promotion value of shiny new toys). It also explains the popularity of the Budd RDC of the time (considering their value and utility even at this late date, too bad Budd didn't build a 1000 more...)

In New Zealnd ,long distance passenger trains are not subsidised by the government . They return a smalpofit to the rail operator .
BUT:
- the carriages are 50 years old .The passenger revenue does not capital cost of replacing them .
- I'm sure the operator does not allocate full costs .
- im not sure if they have a special deal with th track owner for passenger trains .
- some trains have high tourist loads , allowing higher prices , and load factors .
-staff are very cooperative and flexible regarding sharing of onboard duties .Without this im sure there would be no trains .

Simple answer--- in most instances, passenger carriers simply cannot charge enough in fares to offset the cost of operating, let alone to make a profit. This is true, today, of most fixed route passenger carriers, not just passenger railroads. No big city transit system makes money, and, in the U.S. most of them are operated by some form of government entity. The Airlines, as a whole, are in serious financial trouble ( and how many U.S. Airlines that were flying in 1971---the year Amtrak began operation--- are flying today?) And even Greyhound's profitability, if it exists at all, is marginal. Carrying people on scheduled fixed routes is simply not a profit making enterprise.

Sir Ray wrote:

RussNelson wrote:Railroads are not an appropriate technology for passengers

Heh, I don't forsee any controversy arising from that statement, no-siree

I wish it wasn't true! I really think we would do better to push for new rail technologies that work better for passengers. Palle Jensen (the inventor of the RUF) has thought deeply about what would be required to have individually-owned vehicles running on a publicly-owned guideway. Rails don't work, for a bunch of reasons: 1) too easy for cars to fall off (RUF uses positive interlock). 2) too hard to make the transition from road to rail at speed (RUF is designed for exactly that). 3) catenary uses exposed high voltage (RUF has high voltage, too, but it's shielded). 4) at grade you have to worry about interactions with animals, people, and road vehicles (the RUF is raised). 5) rail has no position information (RUF guideway encodes the position of vehicles into holes drilled through the guideway). 6) rail traction and braking is limited by gravity and friction (RUF wheels compress the guideway and can brake at better than 1G).

Passenger rail can't beat the auto, so let's beat the auto at its own game. Let's create a rail (guideway) network that automobiles (RUF vehicles) can use.

I just got a PM from somebody who frequents these forums digging at me
for stating that many corridors are not suitable for passenger trains.
It saddens me today to realize that today the US just does not have an
adequate railroad physical plant.
I would love to see passenger trains on a fast and frequent basis between
Springfield and Boston, New York and Binghamton, New York and
Allentown, Chicago and Cincinnati and hundreds of other good and decent
corridor type markets all over the country.
Unfortunately the present railroad physical plants can not accomodate any
type of passenger train corridor type operations in most parts of the
country.
Some of the stuff that has been proposed on here is "hopeless" while
others could work if a huge commitment for funds to build and operate
such corridors were forthcoming from the state(s) involved but
unfortunately there has been little or no leadership in most areas in this
regard. Yes, I know Illinois/Wisconsin, Oregon/Washington, North
Carolina, California, Pennsylvania and Maine have put up some money to
establish or improve corridors and the results have been very good.
Just puting an item on here that something should work will not
accomplish anything. If you feel really strong about something working,
you will need to get wide scale support in the areas involved and most
important, get the local politicians involved.
Florida for one is way off track, yes, we have a decent commuter train
operation between West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami but our
state would be ideal just like California is for moderate distance corridor
type operations. It can't happen here without support from policy makers
and leaders who are not afraid to do it. We talk about congestion at the
Fort Lauderdale airport but we have railroads here that could with some
work and money be upgraded to handle a corridor type operation that
would ease the crowding at the local airports.
I am not negative but I am realistic and practical and if some of you do
not agree with me, I am sorry not about my position but that you do not
agree with me.
Finally, if you do PM me, SIGN YOUR REAL NAME, I do not acknowledge
any PM's that do not have a real name following them.
Noel Weaver

Actually, Noel, I have to agree with you. The sad fact is that, at one time, it would have been possible to upgrade the then existing rail infrasturcture in most of the corridors identified, but today, there is no infrastructure, in many of those corridors, to upgrade. We may be beyond the point of no return with regard to the "re-establishment" of meaningfull passenger rail service anywhere outside of the NEC and one or two other existing " rail corridors".

..... which is why I keep mentioning the RUF. The old infrastructure is gone and could only be reconstructed at huge cost. The RUF is elevated and doesn't interfere with traffic below; in fact it removes traffic from below. It has a smaller profile than the old elevated trains, which darkened the streets below. Why rebuild a 19th century technology in the 21st? If the time for trains has come again, why not use the newest appropriate technology?

RussNelson wrote:Railroads are not an appropriate technology for passengers

The statement is true; railroads are not an appropriate technology for moving people in the post WW2 world we've created for ourselves. Railroads radiating out of city centers propagated manageable sprawl. Highways and freeways made the sprawl unmanageable. In keeping with the spirit of this thread, both modes are net monetary losers; one more so than the other.

The RUF concept is interesting. It's not unlike a proposal made during the 1939 World's Fair. The point that privately owned vehicles would be operated by some outside control system or artificial intelligence makes it a nonstarter. There is no entity public or private which would stick their legal neck out for such a huge liability. Aside from that, as it uses rubber tires on a paved guideway, it has the same inherent inefficiencies as the automobile.

D.Carleton wrote:

RussNelson wrote:Railroads are not an appropriate technology for passengers

The statement is true; railroads are not an appropriate technology for moving people in the post WW2 world we've created for ourselves.

To take that one step farther, NO form of fixed route mass passenger transportation would be appropriate in this world for exactly the reasons given. Here in Columbia, we have a marginal bus system on which it takes three to four times longer to travel between two points than it does to drive. Columbia was developed in the late 1960's- and through out the 1970's ( and is still being developed today) and has a street system comprised of cul de sacs, streets which run in circles or semi circles, etc.---- anything but a grid system -----which makes establishing an efficient system of bus routes a virtual impossibility. Plus, few people, in this day and age, are willing to see their travel plans limited by bus schedules-- they want to come and go on their schedule, not a bus schedule.
Rail systems have an even greater disadvantage since once tracks are laid, it is extremely difficult to move them if their original location proves inadequate. Quite a hole we've dug for ourselves.

D.Carleton wrote:The point that privately owned vehicles would be operated by some outside control system or artificial intelligence makes it a nonstarter. There is no entity public or private which would stick their legal neck out for such a huge liability.

The privately owned vehicles are operated by themselves, communicating with other vehicles.

Aside from that, as it uses rubber tires on a paved guideway, it has the same inherent inefficiencies as the automobile.

The guideway is steel, basically a modified I-beam.The tires will be hard enough for efficiency, and soft enough for a smooth ride.

walt wrote:To take that one step farther, NO form of fixed route mass passenger transportation would be appropriate in this world for exactly the reasons given.

You're right! That's exactly why the RUF is not a fixed route mass passenger system. Here's how a RUF might get built:
Start with some route that is congested. Build a point-to-point RUF guideway over it, between two areas that would have high traffic, e.g. an airport and downtown, or a mall and downtown. Then you provide variable route maxi-RUF (larger than a van, smaller than a bus) vehicles to pick people up from various stops, and carry them to the other end of the guideway. It's essentially the same as light rail, except that the vehicles can leave the rail and can pick people up on demand.
On top of that you add personal RUF vehicles. This will add demand to extend the RUF guideway closer to people's houses.

Railroads aren't afraid to adopt new technologies. Why should we be afraid to adopt technologies other than rail?

Mr Nelson your Idea is way off course on a railforum.
I am sure there are plenty of other forums this Idea fits in .