Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Bidding opens to outsource up to three Amtrak long distance trains


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#41 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:32 PM

The interesting point is, apparently all of the other freight roads across the country have been eager to get out of the direct running of commuter or passenger trains even over their own rail's, happy to let Amtrak or some other agency relieve them from that responsibility, but these two exception's hold on...
metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#42 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2017 - 06:49 AM

The interesting point is, apparently all of the other freight roads across the country have been eager to get out of the direct running of commuter or passenger trains even over their own rail's, happy to let Amtrak or some other agency relieve them from that responsibility, but these two exception's hold on...

 

But I guess that being under the METRA umbrella, that Metra handles everything from marketing to passenger facing roles to ticket machines.

BNSF just handles the actually running of the trains, which is something that is much closer to the rest of their business.

 

Maybe if Amtrak could similarly devolve the actual operation of LD trains to freight railroads, while Amtrak still managed everything else including ticketing and food and stations etc, and the freight railroad  was awarded a lump sump compensation for doing its part, with maybe some bonus malus agremment to encourage on time operation, they might actually be willing to discuss that


Edited by cirdan, 12 July 2017 - 06:53 AM.


#43 ehbowen

ehbowen

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 12 July 2017 - 07:47 AM

 

The interesting point is, apparently all of the other freight roads across the country have been eager to get out of the direct running of commuter or passenger trains even over their own rail's, happy to let Amtrak or some other agency relieve them from that responsibility, but these two exception's hold on...

 

But I guess that being under the METRA umbrella, that Metra handles everything from marketing to passenger facing roles to ticket machines.

BNSF just handles the actually running of the trains, which is something that is much closer to the rest of their business.

 

Maybe if Amtrak could similarly devolve the actual operation of LD trains to freight railroads, while Amtrak still managed everything else including ticketing and food and stations etc, and the freight railroad  was awarded a lump sump compensation for doing its part, with maybe some bonus malus agremment to encourage on time operation, they might actually be willing to discuss that

 

 

To the best of my understanding, that's pretty much the way it was handled up through (about) the mid-1980s....


broadside-1.jpg 16 inch Armor Piercing...When you care enough to send the very, VERY best!
Visit Streamliner Schedules - Historic timetables from the Streamliner era.


#44 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 12 July 2017 - 08:53 AM

That's correct.... Amtrak at first had nothing to do with running the trains or anything supporting them, other than having their name placed on them...
As the company matured, they started taking over more and more of the jobs involved in running the company.
The big breakthrough came in 1976, when Conrail took over the bankrupt northeast railroads, and conveyed the bulk of the Northeast Corridor to Amtrak. In the eyes of many, that made Amtrak a "real" railroad.
It was several years later that Amtrak completed taking over the train and engine crews, nationally.
I don't see why they would ever want to give those jobs back to the freight railroads...
metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#45 MikefromCrete

MikefromCrete

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crete, IL

Posted 12 July 2017 - 09:21 AM

 

The interesting point is, apparently all of the other freight roads across the country have been eager to get out of the direct running of commuter or passenger trains even over their own rail's, happy to let Amtrak or some other agency relieve them from that responsibility, but these two exception's hold on...

 

But I guess that being under the METRA umbrella, that Metra handles everything from marketing to passenger facing roles to ticket machines.

BNSF just handles the actually running of the trains, which is something that is much closer to the rest of their business.

 

Maybe if Amtrak could similarly devolve the actual operation of LD trains to freight railroads, while Amtrak still managed everything else including ticketing and food and stations etc, and the freight railroad  was awarded a lump sump compensation for doing its part, with maybe some bonus malus agremment to encourage on time operation, they might actually be willing to discuss that

 

 

I don't see the freight railroads wanting to actually want to operate the trains. They worked hard to get out of the passenger business and certainly don't want to get back into it. There is no advantage to them, and frankly, I don't see any improvements in the actually running of Amtrak trains. 

As far as the Metra operations of BNSF and UP, those are based on historic operations. The main concern of BNSF and UP is to control their entry into Chicago. In fact, UP is probably only really concerned about the West Line operations. The Northwest and North lines have very little freight traffic. 



#46 Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 10:34 AM

 

The interesting point is, apparently all of the other freight roads across the country have been eager to get out of the direct running of commuter or passenger trains even over their own rail's, happy to let Amtrak or some other agency relieve them from that responsibility, but these two exception's hold on...

 

But I guess that being under the METRA umbrella, that Metra handles everything from marketing to passenger facing roles to ticket machines.

BNSF just handles the actually running of the trains, which is something that is much closer to the rest of their business.

 

Maybe if Amtrak could similarly devolve the actual operation of LD trains to freight railroads, while Amtrak still managed everything else including ticketing and food and stations etc, and the freight railroad  was awarded a lump sump compensation for doing its part, with maybe some bonus malus agremment to encourage on time operation, they might actually be willing to discuss that

 

 

IIRC, the ticket agents on UP/BN-operated lines are (or at least were) UP/BN employees and not Metra employees.  While I've never done so, I'm told that if passengers bought tickets/monthly passes with checks at those stations (probably not to common/if at all anymore, but was very common when Metra was stuck in the 60s and refused to accept credit cards before being forced to do so by state legislation a few years ago), the checks were written to the railroad and not to Metra.



#47 Bedford

Bedford

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 47 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:33 AM

Here's a thought to make  outsourcing something other than a joke.  The basic problem is that the bidder assumes financial risk for something that never makes a profit. (Hoosier State Experiment).  How about this:  Tax credit to any Class I that operates a long distance train that is equal to all  avoidable costs plus 5%. Advertising costs would be included in avoidable costs so railroad could market the train and create a national positive media image for the railroad as a side benefit. The tax treatment would be a guaranteed subsidy to the Class I- if that's bad so is air traffic control, TSA, general fund highway maintenance, inland waterways and all the other taxpayer subsidies that keep America moving.

 

Advantage to Class I                                                                                                                                  Public Advantage

 

1. Costs covered just like commuter operations                                                                            1. Privatized operation with permanent funding source (like the highway)

2. Total control of "their flagship"-no open access slippery slope.                                                 2. Since the train is the Class I 's mirror to the world the incentive is huge

3. Effective way to create visibility and positive image to general public on a                                   to make the train look, feel and be equal to or better than all the other long

national level (like UP steam program).                                                                                              long distance operations.

4. Get a lot more corporate benefit out of a train that is and will be running on

your track anyway.



#48 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2017 - 11:45 AM

Here's a thought to make  outsourcing something other than a joke.  The basic problem is that the bidder assumes financial risk for something that never makes a profit. (Hoosier State Experiment).  How about this:  Tax credit to any Class I that operates a long distance train that is equal to all  avoidable costs plus 5%. Advertising costs would be included in avoidable costs so railroad could market the train and create a national positive media image for the railroad as a side benefit. The tax treatment would be a guaranteed subsidy to the Class I- if that's bad so is air traffic control, TSA, general fund highway maintenance, inland waterways and all the other taxpayer subsidies that keep America moving.

 

Advantage to Class I                                                                                                                                  Public Advantage

 

1. Costs covered just like commuter operations                                                                            1. Privatized operation with permanent funding source (like the highway)

2. Total control of "their flagship"-no open access slippery slope.                                                 2. Since the train is the Class I 's mirror to the world the incentive is huge

3. Effective way to create visibility and positive image to general public on a                                   to make the train look, feel and be equal to or better than all the other long

national level (like UP steam program).                                                                                              long distance operations.

4. Get a lot more corporate benefit out of a train that is and will be running on

your track anyway.

 

I see what you're getting at.

 

The naysayer in me fears the reverse may be true.

 

In their heyday, passenger trains showcased the efficiency, smoothness and speed of a railroad. This had a kickback in the form of positive public perception and confidence.

 

If you travel by train today, you get to see a rather different picture. As long as people stay away from their actual assets, railroads can sell you glossy images of their fast and efficient engines pulling long intermodals at high speeds. But if you actualy travel on them you see the ugly warts on the beats's underbelly.  You feel track is rough and not getting the maintennace it maybe should, You feel the ehhects of slow orders. You see industrial spurs overgrown with weeds and freight cars covered in graffiti rotting away. You see congestion and delays caused by insufficient capacity or maybe just poor despatching. This is the effect of railroads having been in survival mode rather than growth mode for the last 50 years or so. All this is thus not showing the railroad at its best and maybe the railroad is right not to want people to see that.



#49 Bedford

Bedford

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 47 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 12:03 PM

I ride a lot of long distance trains this year and every year and on most trips the host railroad would have nothing to be ashamed of and several Class I s choose to run TV ads (you've seen them). NS is back in the steam program business. So there is some interest in and perceived advantage in good PR for the railroad or they wouldn't spend a dime on it.



#50 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 12 July 2017 - 10:15 PM

Here's a thought to make  outsourcing something other than a joke.  The basic problem is that the bidder assumes financial risk for something that never makes a profit. (Hoosier State Experiment).  How about this:  Tax credit to any Class I that operates a long distance train that is equal to all  avoidable costs plus 5%. Advertising costs would be included in avoidable costs so railroad could market the train and create a national positive media image for the railroad as a side benefit. The tax treatment would be a guaranteed subsidy to the Class I- if that's bad so is air traffic control, TSA, general fund highway maintenance, inland waterways and all the other taxpayer subsidies that keep America moving.

 

Advantage to Class I                                                                                                                                  Public Advantage

 

1. Costs covered just like commuter operations                                                                            1. Privatized operation with permanent funding source (like the highway)

2. Total control of "their flagship"-no open access slippery slope.                                                 2. Since the train is the Class I 's mirror to the world the incentive is huge

3. Effective way to create visibility and positive image to general public on a                                   to make the train look, feel and be equal to or better than all the other long

national level (like UP steam program).                                                                                              long distance operations.

4. Get a lot more corporate benefit out of a train that is and will be running on

your track anyway.

Interesting proposal....nice to hear some fresh, positive idea's, here....

Kind of doubt it will ever happen, but still....sounds good.... :)


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#51 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,146 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 12:27 AM

I'd like to remind everyone that this kind of thing has been proposed before. I suspect the reason for the host railroads staying out of it revolves around the concept of staying under the radar.

 

It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts.   It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's"  disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?

 

Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.

.

This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.


Edited by Thirdrail7, 13 July 2017 - 12:32 AM.

They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#52 Heath Loxton

Heath Loxton

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 01:15 AM

Would contracting amtrak long distance trains out to a private railroad save money? if yes then how?



#53 zephyr17

zephyr17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 13 July 2017 - 03:37 AM

I'd like to remind everyone that this kind of thing has been proposed before. I suspect the reason for the host railroads staying out of it revolves around the concept of staying under the radar.

 

It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts.   It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's"  disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?

 

Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.

.

This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.

Heck, I'd even venture to say that if the railroads actually thought Amtrak would last more than 5 years or so (which nobody did at the time), they would have not joined Amtrak, kept their trains, and then petitioned the ICC to discontinue them after the 5 year discontinuation embargo that was part of the "stick" in the NRPC legislation.  Then they would have been rid of the pesky things entirely instead of still having to host them because of the feds 46 years later.  Freight railroads want to run freight, that is all they want to do.  Even in the heyday of passenger trains, freight was where the money was.   Heck, even when passenger trains were the dominant form of passenger transportation James J. Hill (founder of the Great Northern) said:  "A passenger train is like a male teat--neither useful nor ornamental."

 

And that is the man the Empire Builder is named for.


Edited by zephyr17, 13 July 2017 - 03:38 AM.

SP Coast Daylight, AT&SF San Diegan, AT&SF Super Chief, D&RGW Rio Grande Zephyr, Southwest Limited/Chief, San Diegan/Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Cascades, California/San Francisco Zephyr, Coast Starlight, Empire Builder, Sunset Limited (LA-Orlando), Desert Wind, Pioneer, City of New Orleans, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Lake Shore Limited, Cardinal, Hoosier State (Amtrak),  Hoosier State (Iowa Pacific), Ann Rutledge, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, NE Regional, Capitol Limited, Via Canadian (CP route), Via Super Continental, Via Atlantic Limited, Via Hudson Bay, Via Skeena, Via Canadian (CN route), Via "Corridor" (Toronto-Montreal), BC Rail Cariboo Dayliner, Eurostar, Thalys, DB, Netherlands Rail, Austrian Railways, BR, Korail (conventional), Korail KTX


#54 KmH

KmH

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Is this heaven? No. It's Iowa.
  • Interests:Astronomy, photography

Posted 13 July 2017 - 10:48 PM

Heck, I'd even venture to say that if the railroads actually thought Amtrak would last more than 5 years or so (which nobody did at the time),

Actually it was intended from the beginning that Amtrak would only exist a short time.
That lasted until Fortune magazine published an exposé that showed the people running Amtrak were purposely trying to make it fail.

https://en.wikipedia...mtrak#Formation

After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad, remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.

1963U. S. Congress - underground trolley system • Disneyland train (1968/various other dates) • Old Tucson steam train (1969)

Amtrak: California Zephyr Coast Starlight •  Southwest ChiefSunset LimitedTexas Eagle • Illinois Zephyr

. . . . . . . Amtrak miles - 16,383, so far.

 

 

 

 

 


#55 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 July 2017 - 04:48 AM

Would contracting amtrak long distance trains out to a private railroad save money? if yes then how?

 

Save money for who?

 

A lot of this restructuring stuff is window dressing, it's about stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

 

So if somebody can make their own budget look good by offloading costs onto somebody else's budget, and if people are getting praise and bonuses for making their budget look good, then these things wil happen.



#56 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,212 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 July 2017 - 04:49 AM

 

I'd like to remind everyone that this kind of thing has been proposed before. I suspect the reason for the host railroads staying out of it revolves around the concept of staying under the radar.

 

It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts.   It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's"  disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?

 

Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.

.

This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.

Heck, I'd even venture to say that if the railroads actually thought Amtrak would last more than 5 years or so (which nobody did at the time), they would have not joined Amtrak, kept their trains, and then petitioned the ICC to discontinue them after the 5 year discontinuation embargo that was part of the "stick" in the NRPC legislation.  Then they would have been rid of the pesky things entirely instead of still having to host them because of the feds 46 years later.  Freight railroads want to run freight, that is all they want to do.  Even in the heyday of passenger trains, freight was where the money was.   Heck, even when passenger trains were the dominant form of passenger transportation James J. Hill (founder of the Great Northern) said:  "A passenger train is like a male teat--neither useful nor ornamental."

 

And that is the man the Empire Builder is named for.

 

IIRC part of the reason that some of the Class Is joined was that they had some real "stinkers" on their rosters which more than offset those which were pulling their weight.  For example, the ATSF had been trying to ditch the ex-Grand Canyon for a long time but was (at least for the time) more than happy to keep carrying the Super Chief.  Seaboard was, per my understanding, happy to keep the Florida Service running but there were some trains that were third/fourth string and simply didn't make sense to keep.  And of course, Southern and the Rio Grande stayed out.

Anyhow, I will say that I suspect we might see a bid for the Auto Train (which effectively operates over one company's tracks), and I could see bids for the Silver Meteor, Palmetto, and/or Crescent (all of which come close...the Meteor has Tri-Rail and Sunrail to contend with and the Crescent has the odd situation with access into WAS, and all but the Auto Train have Amtrak north of DC).  The other option would be the Southwest Chief (BNSF).  IIRC the bids are supposed to come with a subsidy in the ballpark of most of the subsidy the trains get with Amtrak (I believe via the "fully allocated losses" line).  Of those, I'd probably be shooting for the Auto Train (simple operation, two stations, and a re-equipping could probably deal with the losses in ridership in the last few years due to those amenity cuts...also, the train did survive as a private concern into the 80s and might well have made it to the present day if it wasn't for those derailments and the Louisville fiasco) or the Palmetto (daytime operation, no full dining car involved but you could probably make an Acela-ish meal service work in the premium service car).

Edit: Actualy, thinking it over, the Palmetto probably really is a workable proposition for a bidder with at a batch of cars sitting around.  Depending on the language of the contract, I would not be surprised to see Ed Ellis shoot for it.


Edited by Anderson, 14 July 2017 - 04:51 AM.

Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#57 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 July 2017 - 08:06 AM

 

 

I'd like to remind everyone that this kind of thing has been proposed before. I suspect the reason for the host railroads staying out of it revolves around the concept of staying under the radar.

 

It is one thing for a BNSF or CSX freight train to derail. It is another to have passengers (with twitter) raking their names over the coal. This would open them up to more scrutiny, which could prove harmful to their reputations. Although it was NS that allowed the auto-router to wreak havoc, the name the passengers on the delayed train screamed out was Amtrak. Additionally, there is little control over "their flagship" since most trains will have to deal with multiple hosts.   It is likely not worth the price of the contract. When CSX operated the MARC baseball specials, I'm sure they thought it would be good publicity and show they had the spirit of cooperation....until a few high profile incidents put CSX in the spotlight. Even though the train had MARC on the side, everyone looked at CSX. The next time the operating agreement came up for renewal, they refused to sign it and would not allow the train to operate. It is no longer "Amtrak's"  disabled train. It is now NS's passengers are out in field without buses. Do you think they or their shareholders want that?

 

Additionally, there is also the liability factor. If they run the service themselves, even a LLC wouldn't likely be enough to shield them from the fallout of a derailment or injury.

.

This is likely why when CSX and NS were offered the VRE service, they bowed out. Their costs were guaranteed. I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want.

Heck, I'd even venture to say that if the railroads actually thought Amtrak would last more than 5 years or so (which nobody did at the time), they would have not joined Amtrak, kept their trains, and then petitioned the ICC to discontinue them after the 5 year discontinuation embargo that was part of the "stick" in the NRPC legislation.  Then they would have been rid of the pesky things entirely instead of still having to host them because of the feds 46 years later.  Freight railroads want to run freight, that is all they want to do.  Even in the heyday of passenger trains, freight was where the money was.   Heck, even when passenger trains were the dominant form of passenger transportation James J. Hill (founder of the Great Northern) said:  "A passenger train is like a male teat--neither useful nor ornamental."

 

And that is the man the Empire Builder is named for.

 

IIRC part of the reason that some of the Class Is joined was that they had some real "stinkers" on their rosters which more than offset those which were pulling their weight.  For example, the ATSF had been trying to ditch the ex-Grand Canyon for a long time but was (at least for the time) more than happy to keep carrying the Super Chief.  Seaboard was, per my understanding, happy to keep the Florida Service running but there were some trains that were third/fourth string and simply didn't make sense to keep.  And of course, Southern and the Rio Grande stayed out.

Anyhow, I will say that I suspect we might see a bid for the Auto Train (which effectively operates over one company's tracks), and I could see bids for the Silver Meteor, Palmetto, and/or Crescent (all of which come close...the Meteor has Tri-Rail and Sunrail to contend with and the Crescent has the odd situation with access into WAS, and all but the Auto Train have Amtrak north of DC).  The other option would be the Southwest Chief (BNSF).  IIRC the bids are supposed to come with a subsidy in the ballpark of most of the subsidy the trains get with Amtrak (I believe via the "fully allocated losses" line).  Of those, I'd probably be shooting for the Auto Train (simple operation, two stations, and a re-equipping could probably deal with the losses in ridership in the last few years due to those amenity cuts...also, the train did survive as a private concern into the 80s and might well have made it to the present day if it wasn't for those derailments and the Louisville fiasco) or the Palmetto (daytime operation, no full dining car involved but you could probably make an Acela-ish meal service work in the premium service car).

Edit: Actualy, thinking it over, the Palmetto probably really is a workable proposition for a bidder with at a batch of cars sitting around.  Depending on the language of the contract, I would not be surprised to see Ed Ellis shoot for it.

 

 

But how is any potential bidder - Iowa Pacific or anyone - going to get the Class 1's to play ball?  There has to be some manner of preliminary agreement (for track access) in place to submit a qualified bid.  As suggested earlier, even if you actually do get them to talk to you, those negotiations aren't going to go very far.  It's an exercise in futility.  



#58 jebr

jebr

    Engineer

  • Forum Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,664 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MSP

Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:43 AM

 

Would contracting amtrak long distance trains out to a private railroad save money? if yes then how?

 

Save money for who?

 

A lot of this restructuring stuff is window dressing, it's about stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

 

So if somebody can make their own budget look good by offloading costs onto somebody else's budget, and if people are getting praise and bonuses for making their budget look good, then these things wil happen.

 

 

I could actually see the case for contracting out the operating crews, at least for large portions of the routes. Having to staff a bunch of crew change points with conductors and engineers, making sure to have an extra board deep enough to cover those who are sick/on vacation/etc., any overhead needed for having the specific locations up to the standards needed for an office, etc. all for a single train each way each day is pretty inefficient. Having the freights handle the staffing and location concerns could let their economies of scale in that area work to make that staffing less expensive while still ensuring proper staffing (it's a lot easier to account for sick/vacation leave and overhead expenses when it's spread across a hundred or more employees running numerous trains a day than it is to account for that for a dozen or so employees running one to two trains a day.)

 

I don't see the proposal up currently as having any bidders, though. From the sounds of it, they need both the trackage rights and the cars to make it happen. The Class I's don't have the cars to make it happen (nor do they want to deal with that) and any private railcar operator will likely have a difficult-to-impossible time working with the Class I's for trackage rights.



#59 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,539 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:29 AM

The freights might be willing to allow access to accompany who can't handle it. Amtrak's long term survival is actually quite probable. But take them off one of their lines, and replace it with a naive fool like Ellis running it with his own equipment. Then Amtrak reassigns the equipment to bulk up other routes.

By the time The fool fails, Amtrak is going to be reluctant to restart the line and take away from whatever it shored up. Thus the world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Travelled: Broadway Limited (1), Lake Shore Limited (6), Capitol Limited (7), Empire Builder (1), Southwest Chief (2), Sunset Limited (1), California Zephyr (3), Coast Starlight (2), Silver Meteor (5), Silver Star (5), Silver Palm (2), Crescent (1), Cardinal (4), Auto Train (4), Pennsylvanian (2), Palmetto (1), Acela Express (1), Empire Service (1), Northeast Regional (11), Keystone Service (1) --- Total Miles: 50,144 --- Total Trains: 61
Most important: Keep it Simple, Stupid!
Posted Image
Dream of love, dream of me, for you are my love. I love you.
Avatar and sig were done by my fiance, Corvidophile.

#60 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:50 AM

But take them off one of their lines, and replace it with a naive fool like Ellis running it with his own equipment. 

 

The FRA document referenced in this thread includes granting potential bidders access to Amtrak equipment.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users