Railway Age column on splitting Amtrak to two operations

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I will say that in the early years of Amtrak NEC ownership, the NEC was run almost like a completely separate railroad.

That ended under WG Claytor...
There is a story that Claytor was riding a train from New York to Washington, and he was chit chatting with some of the employees working the train.
He supposedly asked one of the old-timers about how he liked working for Amtrak.
The old-timer scowled and replied:
“I don’t work for Amtrak...I work for the Northeast Corridor Region” (old PC or CR name for it).

Supposedly, this upset Claytor so much, that when he returned to his office, he set about “busting up” the NEC management, and scattered them about the system, integrating them with the national system.

Got to hand it to Claytor. Imagine running a railroad and actually visiting the property! What a concept!

jb
 
The split that makes more sense is restoring Amtrak to its original role as a pure passenger train operating company, and hiving off the infrastructure construction and maintenance part which was foisted upon it in 1976 as a separate government run outfit akin to the way the highway system infrastructure is managed. Then one could still talk about whether the Northeast BU should be separated out as a distinct company or not. The bigger problem at present is the accounting hanky-panky that Amtrak inherited from the PC mess and which perpetuates itself to this day in terms of bizarre cross chargings.

The infrastructure company would sell train operating slots to any takers including Amtrak. In addition to running trains Amtrak could provide a unified reservation system for a fee to any takers in addition to its own use to improve the customer experience providing seamless ticketing and reservation across all participating operators.

Alternatively that could also be hived off as a separate company, like some airlines have done.

I'm wondering if splitting off the NEC infrastructure as a separate company would cause a three-way split:
  1. NEC infrastructure: maintenance, dispatching, electric traction, stations...
  2. NEC operating: On board staff, agents, rolling stock ...
  3. Everything in number 2, but not in the NEC.
jb
 
I'm wondering if splitting off the NEC infrastructure as a separate company would cause a three-way split:
  1. NEC infrastructure: maintenance, dispatching, electric traction, stations...
  2. NEC operating: On board staff, agents, rolling stock ...
  3. Everything in number 2, but not in the NEC.
jb
It could, but why do that....it would lead to more fragmentation and loss of synergy.
If that happens, then other corridors like CA, IL, NC could do likewise...
 
I'm thinking more of a two-step process.
  1. NEC infrastructure is split off. By the way, Amtrak will resist this fiercely. They are going to want to have control over "their" railroad.
  2. The operating company, LD + NEC, trundles along much as it does now with NEC blaming LD for losses, etc.... Finally, the public has had enough flim-flammery, resulting in the LD and NEC operating companies splitting up.
jb
 
Last edited:
The location of a LD hub/office/admin center/board is not as relevant as fixing the problems.

I have calculated the income the Silver Meteor could bring in (it is in a post on here somewhere) and the potential money tendered is staggering compared to the claim that "all LD trains lose money". If route cost vs revenue was used instead of lumping all revenue and costs system wide into one scrambled mess, they might be surprised which trains do and do not make money.

Planes are fast and cars give freedom ... neither of these is what a train is/offers. So, I am for NOT trying to make the train operate like either of these.

Think about it, why do people fly ... to get there fast, not for the food or the amenities or "the trip". Compared to a plane, a train (and for that matter, a ship) is slow. So, instead of trying to emulate what a plane offers, since you cannot compete with the speed, offer something the plane cannot offer ... The Trip!

Cruise ships do not try to compete with planes ... they offer a "trip experience" second to none. Of course, a train cannot offer what a cruise ship does, but it can offer much more than a plane does.

To attract some of those who travel by car so they have some freedom or simply like driving their own car instead of a rental - expand the auto train to additional markets.

As for splitting Amtrak .. that could be one option. Then again, if you nationalized the tracks and gave them the same type of attention and funding that the Interstate Highway System gets, after all - they are the Interstate System of the rails, you could offset the revenue the freight lines would lose in rental fees by removing the cost of maintenance and rail construction.

Institute a rail management system like air traffic has and allow passenger and freight to have shared access to all the tracks giving equal advantage to both freight and passenger.

If you did separate the NEC from LD management - it would allow the NEC to put the emphasis on being a commuter service (since it is) and allow LD trains to be what they should be ... a "Trip Experience" that also carries coach.

In order for any of this to work - the Gov't would have to quit trying to kill trains and be as willing to invest in mass transit as they are mass congestion (the US Highway System)
 
Last edited:
I, for one, would welcome the splitting of the NEC and all other trains. Splitting out NEC infrastructure might be worthwhile, too, making all trains pay a per-car or per-axle times average speed price. The structural forces exerted by a 150mph Acela far exceeds that of a 110mph regional or a 65mph commuter train and they should pay accordingly. I'm debating whether non-NEC regional trains should be in their own corporation or not.

Why? It will unconditionally show where the costs are and where the profits are! The 'NEC is profitable' lie will come to a screeching halt!

Shortly after the AT&T 'Ma Bell' breakup into regional Baby Bells, I found myself on contract at Ameritech (WI/IL/IN/MI/OH) writing programs to designed to track all the costs in the new company. Prior to the breakup, AT&T didn't have a clue where they were making money and where they were losing their shirt. They simply tracked 'total revenue vs total expenses company wide and made sure the profit margin was within all laws for utilities/monopolies. It didn't take long for them to realize that the local service part of the business ('last mile', in todays' vernacular) was a big time money loser! Long distance services were the money-makers! Those of us around in 1985 saw our local phone bills double and even triple from what we were paying before the breakup!

Meanwhile, various long distance companies sprung up and struck it rich. However, there was a fraud-loaded loser in the long distance business, Worldcom. They cooked the books and looked like a 'golden child' until it all came crashing down. I remember losing a sizable chunk of change on their stock, too.
 
Rather than NEC vs Everything Else, it would make sense if it was Corridors vs. Everything Else (mostly longer distance trains). But only if it was understood and agreed that LD routes are an American asset -- not just a budget item.
 
Selling people on the concept that a smaller and more isolated organization will somehow gain more power and influence is Brexit-level dishonesty and deception. Amtrak was formed in part because regional passenger rail operations had little chance of surviving on their own in an era focused on driving and flying, but Amtrak inadvertently survived because combining long distance operations with dense commuter corridors gave them the broad support and critical leverage they needed to remain politically relevant. Amtrak's enemies have repeatedly sought to separate the national network from commuter corridors, primarily to isolate and devalue the importance of each, and to ensure no single group would be strong enough to survive a focused attack. Once separated, the national network can be abandoned without angering most commuters and the commuter operations can be privatized without angering most long distance supporters. It's straight out of the divide and conquer handbook. Everything that any of us could possibly want from the national network can already be ordered or rescinded by Congress without breaking Amtrak into multiple pieces. The exact same Congress that would be required to provide a second mandate for two separate Amtraks. So what do Amtrak supporters think they know that Amtrak's enemies do not?
 
Last edited:
I recall reading of a proposal that was called Airnet-21 where the FRA would buy out Amtrak's NEC for, I believe, 1 billion dollars. They would then lease it to an infrastructure company to manage, dispatch and maintain. Financing the improvements would be through the RRIF loan process. Amtrak would then have the money to re-equip most, if not all their LD trains. The corridor would be an open access terminal type operation collecting access fees. Private operators would be allowed to take over some of Amtrak's regionals. Has this idea received any serious consideration?
 
I recall reading of a proposal that was called Airnet-21 where the FRA would buy out Amtrak's NEC for, I believe, 1 billion dollars. They would then lease it to an infrastructure company to manage, dispatch and maintain. Financing the improvements would be through the RRIF loan process. Amtrak would then have the money to re-equip most, if not all their LD trains. The corridor would be an open access terminal type operation collecting access fees. Private operators would be allowed to take over some of Amtrak's regionals. Has this idea received any serious consideration?
Separating the railway infrastructure, I agree with. Not sure if the Federal Railroad Administration would be the best agency to accomplish that or if they would even want to, or their mission would permit it. Although most bureacracies would relish growing.
I think the agency for that would be a multistate consortium owned by the states it served, with funding and train operation as I suggested in my earlier post. As for private operators being involved....well I haven’t heard of any successes yet here in The States...Not sure about Brightline/Virgin yet...
 
An infrastructure operator will want to do planned maintenance during daylight hours thereby delaying both Amtrak and commuter agencies. If you believe that can be mitigated to overnight hours ;;;;;;;;;;;;;; That is what now happens with Amtrak on the freight RRs. it could be one or more freight RRs would want to be the infrastructure operators so as to allow freight trains to operate freely ? More delays ????
Plus you have those nice over weight flat wheel freight cars tearing up the ride and that would happen no matter who ends up the track operator.
 
Last edited:
After reading the article (thanks for the link!!) I believe it makes total sense. It’s very apparent, to me at least, that if Amtrak (or Anderson) could get rid of everything other than the NE corridor, they would. In a heart beat.

Unfortunately, the US of A is a huge country. People outside the NE corridor should have the same right to travel by rail.
I believe that the Piedmont Service, the Empire Service, Keystone Service, the Vermonter, Downeaster, Ethan Alan, Adirondack, Wolverine, Lincoln, Quincy, Illini/Saluki, Hiawatha, Missouri River Runner, Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins and Cascades are all outside of the Northeast Corridor.

Mr. Anderson says he would like to expand corridor service. He should be challenged to start planning to do so. He has also said that he would keep some of the long distance trains as an "experiential ride."

On the other hand, what Mr. Anderson or his henchmen believe is really irrelevant. The real decision about what kind of passenger rail service this country will have rests in the hands of our political leaders. It's your representatives and senators and the President who everyone should be talking to.
 
An infrastructure operator will want to do planned maintenance during daylight hours thereby delaying both Amtrak and commuter agencies. If you believe that can be mitigated to overnight hours ;;;;;;;;;;;;;; That is what now happens with Amtrak on the freight RRs. it could be one or more freight RRs would want to be the infrastructure operators so as to allow freight trains to operate freely ? More delays ????
Plus you have those nice over weight flat wheel freight cars tearing up the ride and that would happen no matter who ends up the track operator.
How are these issues handled in other countries where the infrastructure operator is a separate entity from the train operators? Really, America has such weird ideas about being unique and different from the rest of the world, so that solutions found by other countries can't apply here.

But then I also believe we should start using the metric system in common practice and use 220 volt 50 cycle line current like almost everybody else, and neither of those are going to happen in my lifetime.
 
Personally what benefit would anyone get by having two public rail corporations? The cynic in me would say it would make it easier for the Northeast to sell the rest of the country down the river since "at least the Acela makes money and the rest of the country runs at a loss" to paraphrase politicians. If anything it would likely lead to the NEC getting fully privatized and the rest of the country would be left to run on less than fumes and probably be getting less overall funding with more overhead than the existing services.

I posted a thread suggesting this same idea a few weeks back under the Amtrak Future Forum and got slammed for it.
I really like the idea.

Not to be too much a dick, but states can already contract with other companies to run trains like they do with commuter trains. That was at least my issue with your idea of breaking up Amtrak into two companies. Breaking it into a regional system and the rest of us would be dumber because there isn't anything like the NEC until you get all the way to the West Coast. If anything this style of break up would turn the rest of Amtrak into a large state funded service and would be the end of a national network.

As much as I don't like how Congress always favors the NEC over my home state of California when it comes to rail funding, having a national company at least gives us the ability to argue from a position of benefiting all of us. Two Amtraks and Congress's desire to treat money like a finite resources when it isn't would put the two systems at odds with each other and if the past is any indicator, the NEC states would win out to the detriment to the rest of the country. Assuming it wouldn't get privatized...
 
But then I also believe we should start using the metric system in common practice and use 220 volt 50 cycle line current like almost everybody else, and neither of those are going to happen in my lifetime.

Actually 240 / 480 volt system is better. If you place a voltmeter on your house current you will find the voltages are anywhere from 120 - 135 . Here we have grown to 127 -129 volts as the old 110 volt equipment has been retired including light bulbs. However going to 50 Hz is the wrong way. It takes bigger transformers, larger slower motors and other items. Most 60 Hz non universal motors rotate at 1800 RPM where as 50 Hz motors limited to 1500 RPM. Nominal speed.
I suspect if the US could start over 100 Hz would be the choice. If you are aware airplanes use 400 Hz for their equipment as the lesser weight of motors is very important. 400 Hz has problems of attenuation for longer distant transmissions. Electra aircraft (L-188) had a 25 HP AC motor for airconditioning that rotated at 24,000 RPM and only measured 16" round and 30 inches tall and weighed a compensative amount.
 
Last edited:
But then I also believe we should start using the metric system in common practice
After all it's worked so well in Canada.:rolleyes: We've been metric since the 70's, and although food is technically measured in metric, it's still advertised in pounds, construction is done with 2x4's and 4x8 sheets of plywood/drywall, many beverages come in 12oz cans (although not labelled as such), houses and lots are still advertised by footage/acreage and so on. Unless you use metric for work or school the only real impact is with temperature in Celsius and speed limits, with the former often cross-referenced and the latter not applying to railways. Britain is much the same at the consumer level and still have their speeds in MPH.

No one really complains about it one way or the other, although it must confuse the heck out of younger people and non-US visitors.
 
I don’t think splitting Amtrak into two will have any effect on what system of units or what line voltage and frequency the US or any other country in the world uses or vice-versa [emoji57]

They could use different voltages on the NEC versus long distance routes. I'm looking forward to those Empire Builder trips under catenary!
 
They already use different voltages (and frequencies) in different parts of the NEC anyway. With the availability of miniaturized HV electronics today, all the crazy things that the previous generations had to worry about are pretty much things of the past. You just use whatever is convenient for distribution, and convert it to whatever works the best to convert to mechanical energy with desirable characteristics. In new locomotives and power cars everything gets converted to DC of something like 3kV anyway for the main bus. And quite a bit of the equipment is designed to be relatively easy to feed 16.67 Hz for the Germans anyway, so 25Hz or 50Hz or 60Hz is no particular problem.
 
Back
Top