another nutjob bash at Amtrak

[birdy]

I'd say the article is better than most "anti" articles. Actual facts and quotes with attribution instead of the usual "experts say" non-attribution.

I don't know where they get the "Amtrak gets a free pass" part though. "Amtrak is a neo-con punching bag despite its pathetic $650 million annual subsidy" would be more like it.

There are plenty of organizational type reasons for organizing Amtrak as a corporation besides a pipe dream that it would ever be profitable, so I don't hold that against the government.

What I am seeing now almost everywhere is more along these lines: " $8 billion won't build a nationwide system; the government cannot possibly afford to spend substantially in excess of the $8 billion" This isn't even attributed to an anonymous "expert" Its simply stated by the reporter as a self-evident fact.

 

[volkris]

And while we are comparing auto companies to Amtrak, in what ways is Amtrak similar to the auto insdustry, seeing how both are "failed" business models?

The article was pretty clear, and the comparison is pretty obvious: neither Amtrak nor the troubled auto companies had sustainable businesses, and both are now being kept afloat through government funding.

And why the quotes around failed? Is there any doubt that Amtrak has spent far more money than it brought in with no hint of profitability in sight? As a governmental service that's fine, but as a business that's failure.

I don't know where they get the "Amtrak gets a free pass" part though. "Amtrak is a neo-con punching bag despite its pathetic $650 million annual subsidy" would be more like it.

It's referring specifically to the latest round of funding. The criticism for giving money to car companies and financial institutions has been far greater than that for giving money to Amtrak.

What I am seeing now almost everywhere is more along these lines: " $8 billion won't build a nationwide system; the government cannot possibly afford to spend substantially in excess of the $8 billion" This isn't even attributed to an anonymous "expert" Its simply stated by the reporter as a self-evident fact.

Maybe we're talking about different articles, but what I keep seeing points out that we can't build the promised system for $8 billion, which is a very important thing to keep in mind, and then questions whether we should really be spending given the realities of the situation. Even in the supposedly raving, anti-Amtrak articles posted here I haven't been seeing a claim that we shouldn't go through with the plans.

The cautions and criticisms being raised are actually pretty healthy. Let's not spend $8 billion and get less than what we expected, and let's be realistic about the true costs of HSR rollout and THEN figure out if we as a country want to invest those resources. Rejecting these criticisms so quickly can easily lead to blowback in the future as the disconnect between promises and performance is seen as failure of rail as a whole.

 

[rogers55]

Somewhere recently, can't remember exactly where it was, I passed rows of Amtrak Express cars. Obviously no longer in use, in fact I can't remember exactly what Amtrak Express was. Probably put out of business by UPS and Fedex. There are old cars all over the place that can be rehabilitated.

The Grand Canyon Railroad has been doing it for years, buying up old rolling stock for pennies and refurbing them in their shops in Williams.

I just had a brainstorm, why not use things that work.

We could contract with the GCR to furnish the cars and Disney to manage operations.

 

[AlanB]

Somewhere recently, can't remember exactly where it was, I passed rows of Amtrak Express cars. Obviously no longer in use, in fact I can't remember exactly what Amtrak Express was. Probably put out of business by UPS and Fedex. There are old cars all over the place that can be rehabilitated.The Grand Canyon Railroad has been doing it for years, buying up old rolling stock for pennies and refurbing them in their shops in Williams.

I just had a brainstorm, why not use things that work.

We could contract with the GCR to furnish the cars and Disney to manage operations.

Amtrak Express was a program/department created by George Warrington, which was going to be the savior of Amtrak. It was a failed attempt to carry high priority freight that required rapid transport. The problem was that it wasn't nearly as profitable as expected, it angered the freight RR's who saw that as Amtrak stealing their business while they paid to fix the damage to the tracks, and it caused delays to the passenger service due to switching and in some cases it even set schedules for trains that were anti-passenger.

 

[AlanB]

I'd say the article is better than most "anti" articles. Actual facts and quotes with attribution instead of the usual "experts say" non-attribution.

I agree with you to a point, and while not exactly the fault of the author (although a little research could have found the answer), there is still one major inaccuracy in the article. And in fact it's a major theme of the article.

That being that the $8 Billion is destined for Amtrak. Yes, it is very likely that Amtrak may see some of, and I'm sure that in some cases even if the money doesn't flow to Amtrak or through Amtrak, that Amtrak will inevitably benefit from it. But the fact remains that Amtrak isn't getting the $8 Billion.

I'm certain that we'll see a chunk of that money go to California for their high-speed program. I suspect that NC will see some, a small chunk I suspect, but still a piece. After that I'm less certain, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Illinois get some for the run from Chicago to St. Louis. Perhaps also for CHI-MKE, and finally of course Amtrak may get a bit for some project on the NEC.

But out of all those items listed, the only one were the money would go directly to Amtrak is the NEC. I will grant that improvements to tracks in NC, IL, and Wisconsin would help Amtrak indirectly, but then those are also State sponsored Amtrak trains that would gain the biggest benefit, not Amtrak trains. In terms of actual Amtrak trains, only the EB and the Eagle would benefit from those projects.

The California project, who knows if Amtrak will even be contracted to run said service and it's still years away from any operations.

So again, while I agree that the author didn't pound Amtrak like some, didn't miss-quote, didn't misuse or misconstrue facts, and most importantly didn't link to other articles written by himself to show proof of facts, he still did IMHO miss the big picture that the $8 Billion isn't for Amtrak. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that maybe Amtrak might see a maximum of a billion out of this 8 billion, so that coupled with what they already got from the stimulus package would be a net of just over $2 Billion.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

This is nutjob logic;"While U.S. banks and automakers may be benefiting from taxpayer bailouts, they certainly haven’t escaped criticism of everything from their executive compensation and their business practices to the ethics of their leadership. Not so with another failed business model. National passenger rail service provider Amtrak continues to get a free pass."

If Amtrak is getting a free pass, so is the national highway system and airline infrastructure. He's also insinuating that Amtrak leadership has a problem with their ethics. The man is a hack.

That's not nutjob logic.

Right now for better or worse, like it or not, appropriate or no, Amtrak is a corporation and it's doing business, just like the automakers. Arguably we SHOULD change that to make it more like the government entities that oversee the interstates and other transportation infrastructure. But as of now it's not changed.

The first line of the Amtrak wikipedia article sums it up: Amtrak is a corporation doing business. It happens to be entirely owned by the US government, but it's a corporation doing business nonetheless.

So, since it's a business, why shouldn't we be able to point out that its business model is flawed? Everyone in this forum seems to be in agreement that passenger rail is not sustainable on its own, so it seems everyone in this forum agrees with the "nutjob logic" of the article: Amtrak operates on a failed business model.

I personally would like to see the farce ended, and would see Amtrak treated as the government service that it is. But until then the nutjob got it right: Amtrak is a business operating under a failed model just like the car companies.

The article puts out that Amtrak management is unethical. It lumps Amtrak performanance in with banking fiascoes. If it had stuck to your argument, it would be an ok piece. But it didn't stop there, it made insinuations and connections that have nothing to do with how Amtrak has been run for decades. He's just a **** stirrer, and a nutjob. If he was a real reporter, he'd know the facts about running a national railroad. He's just a shill with an agenda.

 

[saxman]

And while we are comparing auto companies to Amtrak, in what ways is Amtrak similar to the auto insdustry, seeing how both are "failed" business models?

The article was pretty clear, and the comparison is pretty obvious: neither Amtrak nor the troubled auto companies had sustainable businesses, and both are now being kept afloat through government funding.

And why the quotes around failed? Is there any doubt that Amtrak has spent far more money than it brought in with no hint of profitability in sight? As a governmental service that's fine, but as a business that's failure.

I put quotes around it because thats up for debate as whether Amtrak's business model has failed. The auto makers are not a government run entity and was created to make a profit. Amtrak OTOH is a government run entity created to take rail passengers around and was never intended to make a profit. I agree that Amtrak should be run like a business, but as past years have shown us, it has been anything but treated like one. So to me comparing Amtrak to the auto makers are apples and oranges. Amtrak is a whole different animal.

 

[AlanB]

I don't know where they get the "Amtrak gets a free pass" part though. "Amtrak is a neo-con punching bag despite its pathetic $650 million annual subsidy" would be more like it.

It's referring specifically to the latest round of funding. The criticism for giving money to car companies and financial institutions has been far greater than that for giving money to Amtrak.

You are correct, the criticism is much higher for car companies and financial institutions than it is for giving money to Amtrak. But there is a reason for that, a reason that extends far beyond the fact that their failed plans caused or at least contributed to the current economic crisis. A reason that does not, and has never existed at Amtrak.

You don't see Amtrak Presidents making million dollar salaries, flying in corporate jets to ask for a handout, paying huge bonus to the very people who helped create the problem. And in 30+ years we still haven't given Amtrak what we've handed out in the past 9 months to either the auto industry or the financial institutions.

I'm not suggesting that Amtrak doesn't have issues. Anyone who is being honest must agree that Amtrak has problems and issues that could be fixed and/or improved. Personally I don't think that the dream this country was sold back in 1971 is possible. I don't for a minute believe that even a leaner, better managed; better run Amtrak can turn a profit.

On the other hand I do believe that it is possible, with the right plan (unlike the one that Congress and George Warrington came up with), for Amtrak to achieve operational self-sufficiency. Amtrak will always need help to buy new equipment and to keep the NEC operational. Those capital expenses will always be there and will always need at least some government help IMHO. But it should be possible to get to a point where Amtrak can cover its operating expenses.

However, I have to say that in addition to proper management and planning, it's also going to take some money from the Fed to set Amtrak on the sound footing that it would need to achieve operational self-sufficiency. Much of the money that is needed is capital money for things like NEC improvements (and I don't mean speed) and new cars. But the Fed is going to have to help Amtrak retire some of the debt that it’s taken on in part because of poor Amtrak management and in part because of poor decisions by Congress and the administrations in the White House over the last 30+ years.

 

[Ryan]

Sleepers are toys, Coaches are toys, Diners are toys, Lounges are toys, Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new. The maintainers will like them new, but they are not the ones that are footing the bill (or at least part of the bill).

There's also a good chance that they're going to be baggage/dorms, so customers will notice the increase in revenue space when they're able to book a sleeping compartment because the crew isn't taking up revenue space.

 

[Amtrak839]

How so? So they are conservative. Their points are absolutely valuable. May be missing some of the picture, may be ignoring all other aspects of transit, but still... Amtrak is a cash hog and has a lot of internal reasons why they're not more successful than they are. As with my opinion with regards to buying 75 Viewliners for baggage cars, I believe that this company has shown that they have some misappropriated priorities with the way they spend OUR money.

What's wrong with buying new baggage cars? That's cheaper in the long run than doing the maintenance and repairs necessary to keep the fleet of 60 YO cars rolling.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

And when the Amfleet dies? Let's make some logic here-- Amtrak has been refurbing, re-inventing, re-envisioning, and reusing its toys for decades now. How about we let them get their toys new and with the original wrapping once in awhile, eh?

Sleepers are toys, Coaches are toys, Diners are toys, Lounges are toys, Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new. The maintainers will like them new, but they are not the ones that are footing the bill (or at least part of the bill).

New baggage cars will reduce overall maintenance costs, which means more money in the long run for repairing things like broken bathroom doors, and curtains that won't stay closed w/o duct tape. These heritage cars are being pushed to the limit. The Amcans are half of the age of the heritage cars. The Amfleets will be replaced eventually, but they are in much better condition than the heritage fleet right now. Amtrak deserves credit for realizing this need and making a serious attempt to address it.

ok, so in 30 years when we don't have a rail friendly government we will have coaches falling apart, but at least the baggage cars will have a smooth ride.

The coaches are in a much less dire situation. The idea is to address the most dire needs now, then address other issues such as coaches in the not too distant future. You know they are also investing in Viewliner dining cars, too, so that will be something that passengers will notice.

 

[jackal]

Taking a slight rabbit trail, I wondered as I read this if there is such debate in other countries with a developed public transportation infrastructure about whether improving that infrastructure is even worth the investment. I get the impression that in places like Japan, Germany, France, etc., the question isn't if something should be built but rather when.

Here, we can't even get past the if part, and with so much opposition to the fundamental question of whether it is even worth it, it's hard to move on to the point of actually spending the funds necessary.

Perhaps our brethren from across the pond who post here can help answer that question...

 

[AlanB]

The coaches are in a much less dire situation. The idea is to address the most dire needs now, then address other issues such as coaches in the not too distant future. You know they are also investing in Viewliner dining cars, too, so that will be something that passengers will notice.

I would also suspect that coaches would be a bit easier to get out of either an unfriendly Congress or White House, since they are the primary car and the thing that most people do see. This is especially true when it comes to corridor and state sponsored trains.

So by buying the more "questionable" cars, even though I hate using that word, Amtrak may be doing the right thing with the current favorable conditions.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It's extremely complex. But every public rail system that I've seen privatized (1), the whole system has improved.

Two words. British Rail. Your point is now as valid as a lobotomy for social adjustment.

Passengers don't see new baggage cars. They see their old coach with bathroom doors that don't lock or their sleeper that requires duct tape to keep the curtains shut. If they put the money into new viewliner coaches and gutted some old amfleet coaches for baggage then they would get something that the passengers can see as an improvement in service as well a replacement for 60 year old baggage cars.

What they will get is baggage strewn all about the countryside as the Amfleet cars, their structure compromised my massive holes inadvisably cut in the side of the structurally supportive walls, break into pieces. The Talmud tells us: Learn. Then form opinions. Try it.

why shouldn't we be able to point out that its business model is flawed?

Because inaccurately pointing at things that work and calling them flawed is wrong. Amtrak is a miracle in that, for the past 30 years, it has been starved of desperately needed capital, and yet the system works. Through starving, choking, and micromanagement by morons, the company continues, despite all efforts to the contrary, the system works better than anyone ever has had a right to expect it to. Amtrak isn't a flawed inefficient government entity. It is a miracle of function, demonstrating what can be done by a dedicated work force.

The article was pretty clear, and the comparison is pretty obvious: neither Amtrak nor the troubled auto companies had sustainable businesses, and both are now being kept afloat through government funding.

The auto companies business models work excellent, actually. They just happened to have been erected from poor policy in such a way that their capital investment in improving their products happened to coincide with the worst collapse of the world economy in 80 years. That's not a flawed model, merely spectacularly bad luck. If GM fails, I lay the blame, all the blame, every last bit of it, at the hands of the United States Congress, for their ****, and at the feet of Barack Obama for firing Rick Wagoner, the best chief to be at the helm of GM since Alfred Sloan.

And why the quotes around failed? Is there any doubt that Amtrak has spent far more money than it brought in with no hint of profitability in sight? As a governmental service that's fine, but as a business that's failure.

Look at how little money Amtrak loses. It is perhaps the most economically efficient company in the world when you consider what it has to work with.

Maybe we're talking about different articles, but what I keep seeing points out that we can't build the promised system for $8 billion, which is a very important thing to keep in mind, and then questions whether we should really be spending given the realities of the situation. Even in the supposedly raving, anti-Amtrak articles posted here I haven't been seeing a claim that we shouldn't go through with the plans.
The cautions and criticisms being raised are actually pretty healthy. Let's not spend $8 billion and get less than what we expected, and let's be realistic about the true costs of HSR rollout and THEN figure out if we as a country want to invest those resources. Rejecting these criticisms so quickly can easily lead to blowback in the future as the disconnect between promises and performance is seen as failure of rail as a whole.

What would you suggest we spend it on? Highway infrastructure? Don't make me laugh. I already have a headache.

 

[volkris]

Taking a slight rabbit trail, I wondered as I read this if there is such debate in other countries with a developed public transportation infrastructure about whether improving that infrastructure is even worth the investment. I get the impression that in places like Japan, Germany, France, etc., the question isn't if something should be built but rather when.
Here, we can't even get past the if part, and with so much opposition to the fundamental question of whether it is even worth it, it's hard to move on to the point of actually spending the funds necessary.

I'd propose that part of the problem is our evolution toward centrally managed, homogenized government: since we're running everything through the federal government these days, we have to get the entire country to agree to a set of priorities before we can move. Since different regions naturally have different priorities this ends up being like herding cats.

With a more balanced system wherein states had more than the scraps of authority and funding left by the feds, different regions could have proceeded with their rail priorities long ago, and based on successful implementations other regions could have followed in their own time.

We're getting hung up on the if part because we have to bring far more people with an underappreciated diversity of needs, wants, and opinions into line on the matter. Considering that it's easy to see how we'd get the weak system that we have: it's the product of compromise.

 

[Tony]

Whether baggage cars are seen or not, they are a fundamental part of long distance service and need to be addressed.

... , Baggage cars are glorified box cars. Customers will not notice the difference if they are brand new.

I have to agree with Amtrak839. Baggage cars are indeed fundamental to LD trains, and yes, if there was suddenly no baggage car, customers will certainly notice the difference; no checked baggage.

 

[Guest]

Railroads here in the USA were at one time the only self-sustaining transportation system.

However, the public began to hate railroads, and their railroad barons. So, the public was supportive of anything that could compete against them.

This started the basis where government has subsidized all other major transportation systems. They used our taxes to build the roads into which GM and Ford could then sell us cars to drive upon.

The trucking industry uses those same, tax dollar subsidized, interstate highways, bridges, and tunnels.

Airlines use tax subsidized airports and support services like air traffic controllers.

Ships use tax subsidized ports, and support services like the Coast Guard.

Even Taxis use city streets paid for by tax money.

So, why it OK to use tax money to subsidized cars, trucks, ships, etc, but it is considered bad to use tax money to subsidize Amtrak?

 

[MikefromCrete]

Wow, this is quite the hot topic that seems to have diverged into several different conversations.

Here are my observations.

1. Quite often, I refer to people who have differing views from me as "nutjobs." This doesn't mean that they are "nutjobs," in fact they may be quite articulate and sometimes, even right, to me, however, they are "nutjobs."

2. My views usually tend toward the liberal side of the political debate. However, I have a great many friends and relatives who have conservative views. It doesn't mean I don't respect those people just because they have different views that I do. That's what this country is all about. We should all get together and forge compromises that respect before sides of any question. Otherwise, the country just becomes one of those cable TV news shows where everybody yells at one another and nobody listens.

3. My most passionate views are the continuation and expansion of passenger rail in this country. Most of this development will come in the area of 100 to 500 high speed corridors, but the continuation of long distance trains, and even the addition of several routes, are also part of this views.

4. It seems to me that most of the conservative opposition to Amtrak is that it is a government-operated service, not that trains are necessarily bad. The reason we have Amtrak _ and all the local commuter rail authorities _ in the first place is because passengers don't make money. If they made money, the freight railroads would still be running them. Although some passenger railroads around the world have been privatized, most receive some kind of government assistance and all the high speed rail routes have been built by government agencies. In the United Kingdom, the company that owns the tracks, signals and large stations is government-owned. It was privately owned, but that didn't work out, so it came under government control. The privately-owned operating companies operate under government franchises and I believe that almost all of these companies receive some kind of operating assistance from local, regional or national governments. Perhaps some day, rail service, especially high speed corridors, will be profitable, and private companies will want to run such trains. I don't think that is the case right now.

5. What's with all the passionate debate over the purchase of 75 baggage cars? This order, along with the sleeping and dining cars, means that Amtrak plans to continue long-distance service. A few years ago, such an order would have been unthinkable. Amtrak's current baggage cars, along with the Heritage dinning cars, are old, and need to be retired. Don't forget that this is just an initial order. Next year, or in a few years, there will probably be an order for additional coaches. The current plans also calls for 130 bi-level cars to be purchased by the states for local services. Once these cars are in service, the current Amfleet and Horizon cars used in the Midwest, for instance, can be rehabbed. The Amfleet cars can be sent to the East Coast corridors to expand service. The Horizons can be sent to warm-weather locations (Florida, Texas, revival of the Sunset East, etc) where they won't freeze up every winter.

I'm a great believe in the "if you run them, they will come" theory. The Illinois trains have proven that more trains mean more riders. You can't increase ridership without adding more trains.

6. This post has gone on for way too long. Keep talking, folks, we'll figure this out yet.