Envisioning the Amtrak Transition Process to Private Enterprise

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as trains in the UK go, I like FGW and East Coast as well. Not impressed with FCC.

Gotta love those HSTs, preferable to less comfotable MUs!
Arguably the best train ever produced in the World. Still going strong since 1975 and still better than most things things that are replacing it. Not many 125mph express trains that you can still pull down the door window for some wind in the hair either! And not many express trains that can run at 125mph for a few hours and then happily negotiate a branch line or two.

Not sure how most of our private operators would fayre in the USA. GNER, who did a magnificent job with the East Coast until infamously and unfairly losing it in about 2007 would probably do a good job with the long distance stuff. They knew the needs of rail passengers and had a 'railway' mentality rather than a 'bus' mentality of which too many operators currently have.
 
The only way a private company will take over passenger rail in the US will be with heavy subsidies, probably even more so than Amtrak receives now. While it does not seem logical that this would be allowed by those who oppose the current subsidies, that seems to be the way it works for many politicians. They aren't really opposed to the subsidies themselves, they are opposed to them going to government entities. It's that whole "smaller government" mentality, as well as giving corporate welfare (I mean government grants) to those who give the most to the campaign funds.
 
As far as trains in the UK go, I like FGW and East Coast as well. Not impressed with FCC.

Gotta love those HSTs, preferable to less comfotable MUs!
Arguably the best train ever produced in the World. Still going strong since 1975 and still better than most things things that are replacing it. Not many 125mph express trains that you can still pull down the door window for some wind in the hair either! And not many express trains that can run at 125mph for a few hours and then happily negotiate a branch line or two.

Not sure how most of our private operators would fayre in the USA. GNER, who did a magnificent job with the East Coast until infamously and unfairly losing it in about 2007 would probably do a good job with the long distance stuff. They knew the needs of rail passengers and had a 'railway' mentality rather than a 'bus' mentality of which too many operators currently have.
Nice to see that others agree. The British Rail Class 43 (HST) is right on the top of my list for favourite trains alongside P42DC and Baureihe 103. Though the latter one is not in service and poor for slow services, it's still my favourite electric. Great power and cool looks. P42DC is also pretty good on slow services but can also go 110 mph. Not as fast as HST but I still like it for heavy power and interesting design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I think Amtrak will transition to private enterprise, but that Amtrak will become the private enterprise not that Amtrak will be abolished. I think if Amtrak stays on course, continues to raise ridership and revenue while controlling cost, Amtrak will eventually become self sufficient. When that happens Amtrak could and should be allowed to become its own corporation, not a government/DOT owned corporation. If everything goes well we may see this happen in the next 20-30 years. Look at the first 40yrs, a lot has been accomplished and Amtrak has grown and is much stronger now. Proper investment from congress, state and local governments will only help this process. If they want Amtrak to be self sufficient they need to give them the resources to reach that point. The only way to do this is by becoming more efficient, by running more trains, more frequently and charging what the market will bear. Amtrak's biggest problems are lack of equipment, and poor utilization of staff and infrastructure. Running a train once a day is waste of staff and infrastructure and 3 times a week is worse. Going to daily and twice daily service would really help that, running corridor service along portions of LD routes would be even better.

Amtrak is at about ~85% cost recovery ratio, that's only 15% from break even, getting 15% more efficient cost wise isn't that much of a long shot.
 
Personally I think Amtrak will transition to private enterprise, but that Amtrak will become the private enterprise not that Amtrak will be abolished. I think if Amtrak stays on course, continues to raise ridership and revenue while controlling cost, Amtrak will eventually become self sufficient. When that happens Amtrak could and should be allowed to become its own corporation, not a government/DOT owned corporation. If everything goes well we may see this happen in the next 20-30 years. Look at the first 40yrs, a lot has been accomplished and Amtrak has grown and is much stronger now. Proper investment from congress, state and local governments will only help this process. If they want Amtrak to be self sufficient they need to give them the resources to reach that point. The only way to do this is by becoming more efficient, by running more trains, more frequently and charging what the market will bear. Amtrak's biggest problems are lack of equipment, and poor utilization of staff and infrastructure. Running a train once a day is waste of staff and infrastructure and 3 times a week is worse. Going to daily and twice daily service would really help that, running corridor service along portions of LD routes would be even better.

Amtrak is at about ~85% cost recovery ratio, that's only 15% from break even, getting 15% more efficient cost wise isn't that much of a long shot.
85% cost recovery from direct operating costs. That does not include debt service or capitialization. As a quasi-government corporation I am not sure how they figure depreciation... but for sure there are no sinking funds for equipment replacement included in the cost figure, much less money for upgrades or expansion.

The one thing that may save Amtrak (and long distance rail) is that to shut down (as likely bankruptcy courts will consider Amtrak as a government enity and require the Federal government to pay all debts) will cost (that year) several times the annual subsidy.
 
Also an outfit like Virgin is unlikely to take over maintenance of NEC, which is the major cost item. Someone else will have to pick that up. Merely operating trains on the NEC is but one part of the whole puzzle. We of course can guess what will happen if the various transit agencies en route are given the responsibility to maintain the NEC. One just needs to look at the MNRR maintained part of the NEC and what happens to Regionals and Acelas there.
It's entirely possible that they would. Aside from integration of infrastructure and operations being a very good thing for rail, the NEC is more than capable of paying for its own maintenance. Deferred maintenance might require federal support, but the regular maintenance should be less than Acela's operating surplus.
Please realize that the privatized British railroads are seriously subsidized. According to the BBC, subsidies are higher now than before privatization. Virgin, First, or whomever would certainly expect their subsidy resulting in no net gain for the budget.

The main reason we are in a financial pickle now is the refusal of the Grover Norquist set to consider even modest increases in taxation. Also the hawks - many of whom never had the guts to wear a uniform - won't consider any cuts to the military. A return to the tax rates of Ronald Reagan would do much put us on a sound footing.
 
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the USA is bankrupt and we owe more and more money each month than the flow of tax revenue can cover
Indeed, to figure that out you have to NOT be very smart. Because it's not true.

The fact is that we could cover all our costs -- even the super-bloated, excessive military costs, which are running at $700 billion per year BEFORE you add in the $50 billion for homeland security and even more for the various other military operations which are 'hidden' outside the DoD budget, in places like the Energy Department and the US program to sell weapons to foreign countries -- if we returned to the tax rates of the Eisenhower era (adjusted for inflation).

Under General Eisenhower's administration, the top tax rates for the richest, the equivalent of today's billionaries, were 90%... 92% (depending on which year). There were some tax breaks available, but even if used to the max, they still paid around 45%.

The main problem we have is that the richest 1% are being taxed way, way too little. Working stiffs pay 6.2% in payroll tax off the top, and then a minumum rate of 10% federal income tax on top of that; the middle class pays rates which total up to mearly 50%.

-- but your average superrich person living on dividends and capital gains pays a *maximum* of 15% federal income tax, and no payroll tax. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and has noted the unfairness. I do the accounting for people who are benefitting from these "el cheapo" tax rates, which were put in by George W. Bush.

The even richer, the 0.1%, pay even lower rates due to use of clever tricks. Of course, very large corporations pay essentially 0% in income tax, because they can use "business deductions". Yet these very large corporations are often used as personal piggybanks by their CEOs and boards.

Now, I think we ought to rein in the super-bloated military costs too. We are now spending approximately the same amount on the US military as every other country combined spends on their militaries -- and that's including some questionable accounting, because the Chinese "military budget" includes a bunch of civilian projects which are "owned" by their military. We could cut our military budget to the size of the next largest, China's -- $143 billion per year -- and obviously have enough military. Or we could cut it to the size of Russia's, $72 billion per year.

But the fact is that the main problem is that the very rich -- the richest 1% now control one-third of the nation's wealth, and half of the 'financial assets' -- are not paying much of anything in taxes. Then, of course, they demand that everyone else suffer and have government services cut, because the government is supposedly "bankrupt".

Don't buy into the **** they're selling. The budgetary problems in the US have three sources: (1) failing to tax the rich, (2) a bloated military budget and unnecessary wards, (3) massive levels of overpricing and fraud in the medical industry, which is raising the costs of Medicare (which was *prohibited* from negotiating drug prices by George W. Bush, in a sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry). Those are the ONLY three problems with the US budget.

Anything done to the rest of the federal budget, other than those three things, will have zero impact on it, basically. If the most dishonest of the Republicans are allowed to slash and burn the rest of the budget, they'll be left with ONLY the problem sections, and then the country really WILL go bankrupt -- maybe at that point we can simply repuidate the debt and start a new country with honest political parties, and with a well-funded passenger rail system.
 
They aren't really opposed to the subsidies themselves, they are opposed to them going to government entities. It's that whole "smaller government" mentality, as well as giving corporate welfare (I mean government grants) to those who give the most to the campaign funds.
Bingo. It's really a matter of "I want my corporate buddies to get the taxpayer money, not some civil servant!"

90% of the time you hear right-wing politicians complaining about "big government" or "government subsidies", what they mean is "My buddies aren't getting that money". If their buddies are getting the money, why then they love big government and government subsidies (look at all the sweetheart deals in military contracting and Homeland Security contracting). I've become very cynical about it.
 
They aren't really opposed to the subsidies themselves, they are opposed to them going to government entities. It's that whole "smaller government" mentality, as well as giving corporate welfare (I mean government grants) to those who give the most to the campaign funds.
Bingo. It's really a matter of "I want my corporate buddies to get the taxpayer money, not some civil servant!"

90% of the time you hear right-wing politicians complaining about "big government" or "government subsidies", what they mean is "My buddies aren't getting that money". If their buddies are getting the money, why then they love big government and government subsidies (look at all the sweetheart deals in military contracting and Homeland Security contracting). I've become very cynical about it.
Agreed. Many prominent donors to the "small government" side tend to be military contractors, oil companies, and others that benefit from government contracting. As in business, when you bring in a subcontractor, you add their overhead to your own, so if you're smart and it's something you are going to do on an ongoing basis, fix your internal problems before outsourcing to save money. I've been involved in multiple outsource projects in my career, and seldom have I seen any true savings from outsourcing ongoing work. The only time it does work is special projects like building new buildings for plants and the like.
 
The main problem we have is that the richest 1% are being taxed way, way too little. Working stiffs pay 6.2% in payroll tax off the top, and then a minumum rate of 10% federal income tax on top of that; the middle class pays rates which total up to mearly 50%.
Unfortunately this seems to be the case in the UK too. Well done though, for using the terminology "top 1%" rather than simply "the rich". Because these days, how do you define who is rich and who isnt? Often those who are out protesting about 'the rich' are usually not too badly off themselves!
 
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the USA is bankrupt and we owe more and more money each month than the flow of tax revenue can cover
Indeed, to figure that out you have to NOT be very smart. Because it's not true.

The fact is that we could cover all our costs -- even the super-bloated, excessive military costs, which are running at $700 billion per year BEFORE you add in the $50 billion for homeland security and even more for the various other military operations which are 'hidden' outside the DoD budget, in places like the Energy Department and the US program to sell weapons to foreign countries -- if we returned to the tax rates of the Eisenhower era (adjusted for inflation).

Under General Eisenhower's administration, the top tax rates for the richest, the equivalent of today's billionaries, were 90%... 92% (depending on which year). There were some tax breaks available, but even if used to the max, they still paid around 45%.

The main problem we have is that the richest 1% are being taxed way, way too little. Working stiffs pay 6.2% in payroll tax off the top, and then a minumum rate of 10% federal income tax on top of that; the middle class pays rates which total up to mearly 50%.

-- but your average superrich person living on dividends and capital gains pays a *maximum* of 15% federal income tax, and no payroll tax. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and has noted the unfairness. I do the accounting for people who are benefitting from these "el cheapo" tax rates, which were put in by George W. Bush.

The even richer, the 0.1%, pay even lower rates due to use of clever tricks. Of course, very large corporations pay essentially 0% in income tax, because they can use "business deductions". Yet these very large corporations are often used as personal piggybanks by their CEOs and boards.

Now, I think we ought to rein in the super-bloated military costs too. We are now spending approximately the same amount on the US military as every other country combined spends on their militaries -- and that's including some questionable accounting, because the Chinese "military budget" includes a bunch of civilian projects which are "owned" by their military. We could cut our military budget to the size of the next largest, China's -- $143 billion per year -- and obviously have enough military. Or we could cut it to the size of Russia's, $72 billion per year.

But the fact is that the main problem is that the very rich -- the richest 1% now control one-third of the nation's wealth, and half of the 'financial assets' -- are not paying much of anything in taxes. Then, of course, they demand that everyone else suffer and have government services cut, because the government is supposedly "bankrupt".

Don't buy into the **** they're selling. The budgetary problems in the US have three sources: (1) failing to tax the rich, (2) a bloated military budget and unnecessary wards, (3) massive levels of overpricing and fraud in the medical industry, which is raising the costs of Medicare (which was *prohibited* from negotiating drug prices by George W. Bush, in a sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry). Those are the ONLY three problems with the US budget.

Anything done to the rest of the federal budget, other than those three things, will have zero impact on it, basically. If the most dishonest of the Republicans are allowed to slash and burn the rest of the budget, they'll be left with ONLY the problem sections, and then the country really WILL go bankrupt -- maybe at that point we can simply repuidate the debt and start a new country with honest political parties, and with a well-funded passenger rail system.
If I agreed with everything that you said, then how do we pay off the $14 trillion deficit? How do we stop borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend? I believe that serious government cuts are coming no matter who wins the Whitehouse this Nov.
 
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the USA is bankrupt and we owe more and more money each month than the flow of tax revenue can cover
Indeed, to figure that out you have to NOT be very smart. Because it's not true.

The fact is that we could cover all our costs -- even the super-bloated, excessive military costs, which are running at $700 billion per year BEFORE you add in the $50 billion for homeland security and even more for the various other military operations which are 'hidden' outside the DoD budget, in places like the Energy Department and the US program to sell weapons to foreign countries -- if we returned to the tax rates of the Eisenhower era (adjusted for inflation).

Under General Eisenhower's administration, the top tax rates for the richest, the equivalent of today's billionaries, were 90%... 92% (depending on which year). There were some tax breaks available, but even if used to the max, they still paid around 45%.

The main problem we have is that the richest 1% are being taxed way, way too little. Working stiffs pay 6.2% in payroll tax off the top, and then a minumum rate of 10% federal income tax on top of that; the middle class pays rates which total up to mearly 50%.

-- but your average superrich person living on dividends and capital gains pays a *maximum* of 15% federal income tax, and no payroll tax. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and has noted the unfairness. I do the accounting for people who are benefitting from these "el cheapo" tax rates, which were put in by George W. Bush.

The even richer, the 0.1%, pay even lower rates due to use of clever tricks. Of course, very large corporations pay essentially 0% in income tax, because they can use "business deductions". Yet these very large corporations are often used as personal piggybanks by their CEOs and boards.

Now, I think we ought to rein in the super-bloated military costs too. We are now spending approximately the same amount on the US military as every other country combined spends on their militaries -- and that's including some questionable accounting, because the Chinese "military budget" includes a bunch of civilian projects which are "owned" by their military. We could cut our military budget to the size of the next largest, China's -- $143 billion per year -- and obviously have enough military. Or we could cut it to the size of Russia's, $72 billion per year.

But the fact is that the main problem is that the very rich -- the richest 1% now control one-third of the nation's wealth, and half of the 'financial assets' -- are not paying much of anything in taxes. Then, of course, they demand that everyone else suffer and have government services cut, because the government is supposedly "bankrupt".

Don't buy into the **** they're selling. The budgetary problems in the US have three sources: (1) failing to tax the rich, (2) a bloated military budget and unnecessary wards, (3) massive levels of overpricing and fraud in the medical industry, which is raising the costs of Medicare (which was *prohibited* from negotiating drug prices by George W. Bush, in a sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical industry). Those are the ONLY three problems with the US budget.

Anything done to the rest of the federal budget, other than those three things, will have zero impact on it, basically. If the most dishonest of the Republicans are allowed to slash and burn the rest of the budget, they'll be left with ONLY the problem sections, and then the country really WILL go bankrupt -- maybe at that point we can simply repuidate the debt and start a new country with honest political parties, and with a well-funded passenger rail system.
If I agreed with everything that you said, then how do we pay off the $14 trillion deficit? How do we stop borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend? I believe that serious government cuts are coming no matter who wins the Whitehouse this Nov.
IMHO, that's why we have we have free elections and free speech in the United States. Vote your choice at all levels of goverment, write/call/email your representatives, join a group, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Amtrak Lovers United :lol: , or whatever. You will accomplish far more than ranting on a forum about Amtrak trains. :hi:
 
First you have to make the case that paying the defect off and stopping borrowing money is necessary.
Exactly. There are some people on the exact opposite end of the spectrum: those who believe that the reason the economy is still in a recession is because the stimulus was not big enough and that we need more to get us out of it.
 
We usually refer to those people as "nobel prize winning economists", but I know how some around here feel about so called "experts".
If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, you would not be able to reach to a conclusion. (not original with me.)

However, how about those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There are many countries, quite a few of them no longer with us in their form at that time that have tried the printing press solution to defecit spending. It leads to inflation and if not turned around to economic collapse.

I am well aware of the economic theory that a government does not have to ever pay its debts as that hsa been the standard theory for many years. Being a generally accepted theory is no gurantee of being correct.

As to the dream for the restoration of the "Eisenhower Era' tax rates: I think those rates were left overs from the Rooseveldt era, not a concept of Eisenhower's. The reason that few people other than the very rich mourned their passing was because the reality was very different. There were so many exemptions, deductions, and other escape hatches that the reality was very different from teh appearance. Generally anybody that could afford an accountant could find a way to avoid taxes. As a result income taxes fell even more then than now primarily on people drawing paychecks. The reality is that the simplification of the tax code under Reagan did not reduce the proportion paid by the very rich. Anyone with FACTS to the contray feel free to prove me wrong.
 
There are many countries, quite a few of them no longer with us in their form at that time that have tried the printing press solution to defecit spending. It leads to inflation and if not turned around to economic collapse.
How many of them had a currency that was the reserve currency of the world? How do you square your claims with the fact that inflation is nearly nonexistent?
Being a generally accepted theory is no gurantee of being correct.
Maybe not a guarantee, but I wouldn't bet against it based on vague notions of the way I think things should be.
 
There are many countries, quite a few of them no longer with us in their form at that time that have tried the printing press solution to defecit spending. It leads to inflation and if not turned around to economic collapse.
How many of them had a currency that was the reserve currency of the world? How do you square your claims with the fact that inflation is nearly nonexistent?
A century ago the British Pound was the bencmark currency for the world. Remember "the sun never sets on the British Empire"? Well, it set. Why, othere than wishful thinking do we think the same cannot happen to us. Remember Rome? Does anyone read The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire anymore? Just because something is does not mean it will stay that way.

How much of the low/no inflation is due to the near collapse of the real estate market in most of the country? Since that is a significant factor it can balance quite a bit of increase in other areas.

Being a generally accepted theory is no gurantee of being correct.
Maybe not a guarantee, but I wouldn't bet against it based on vague notions of the way I think things should be.
And I would't bet on it just because it makes us comfortable with the way things are going.

Last I am saying. I think we are getting a little far off the subject.
 
There are many countries, quite a few of them no longer with us in their form at that time that have tried the printing press solution to defecit spending. It leads to inflation and if not turned around to economic collapse.
How many of them had a currency that was the reserve currency of the world? How do you square your claims with the fact that inflation is nearly nonexistent?
A century ago the British Pound was the bencmark currency for the world. Remember "the sun never sets on the British Empire"? Well, it set. Why, othere than wishful thinking do we think the same cannot happen to us. Remember Rome? Does anyone read The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire anymore? Just because something is does not mean it will stay that way.
Was "the printing press solution to deficit spending" the cause of the shift away from either? Didn't think so, so I'm not sure why you think they're relevant.

How much of the low/no inflation is due to the near collapse of the real estate market in most of the country? Since that is a significant factor it can balance quite a bit of increase in other areas.
If that were true, as prices bottomed out you would expect to see inflation rising. Since it isn't, that theory doesn't seem to carry any water.
Being a generally accepted theory is no gurantee of being correct.
Maybe not a guarantee, but I wouldn't bet against it based on vague notions of the way I think things should be.
And I would't bet on it just because it makes us comfortable with the way things are going.
That's not why I'm betting on it. I'm betting on it because people that have made their life's work studying it are betting on it. If you say something about track geometry and some random guest poster that thinks a switch is what he uses to turn on the lights claims the opposite, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're right because experience and knowledge counts for a lot. Why you can't expand that to areas outside your area of expertise is simply baffling. I wouldn't presume to lecture you on how to build a railroad, so I'm not sure why you'd take issue with commonly accepted economic thinking by recognized experts in the field.

Last I am saying. I think we are getting a little far off the subject.
It's at the very core of the topic. Blindly accepting the premise that spending cuts are necessary and the only solution to a problem that doesn't exist will lead to many terrible things, both on and off the rails. Stick around, open your mind and you might learn something.
 
I don't know what would happen to the rest of the country, but I am very confident that some new entity, or operating authority, perhaps a consortium of the various commuter railroads that operate over portions of it, would continue to operate trains over the Northeast Corridor.

Perhaps, Caltrans would take over operations of California trains...

I don't see private operators getting involved, unless subsidized somehow, and if the government wouldn't continue to do that for Amtrak, why would they do it for anyone else?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what would happen to the rest of the country, but I am very confident that some new entity, or operating authority, perhaps a consortium of the various commuter railroads that operate over portions of it, would continue to operate trains over the Northeast Corridor.

Perhaps, Caltrans would take over operations of California trains...

I don't see private operators getting involved, unless subsidized somehow, and if the government wouldn't continue to do that for Amtrak, why would they do it for anyone else?
All of the state-supported corridor services would continue to operate, with some private contractors taking over (and still receiving the subsidy that would otherwise have gone to Amtrak).

Caltrans is not a railroad operator, so they wouldn't take over operations of anything. They would simply contract with somebody else, just as they're currently contracting with Amtrak.

When I think of privatization, I don't think of assuming that someone is just going to come in and start running trains for profit. There's really not much stopping them from doing that today. Instead, I see it more as an idea of getting someone to provide contracted services for the government, perhaps at a lower cost.
 
I don't see private operators getting involved, unless subsidized somehow, and if the government wouldn't continue to do that for Amtrak, why would they do it for anyone else?
The government subsidizes oil companies, it all depends upon the quality of the lobbyists.

When I think of privatization, I don't think of assuming that someone is just going to come in and start running trains for profit. There's really not much stopping them from doing that today. Instead, I see it more as an idea of getting someone to provide contracted services for the government, perhaps at a lower cost.
The contractor is going to expect, and rightly so, to make a profit. So how do they do that? Cut staffing, cut wages, cut service, cut selection, and cut quality. Just as with so many other things these days, join in the mad dash to the bottom.
 
Caltrans could simply be like Amtrak was in its infancy....just an authority contracting out a coordinated network of subsidized trains run by their former operators, with the employees working for the operators, and only headquarters staff working for Caltrans.

As for contractors "cutting to the quick" to maximize profits......the terms of the subsidy would prevent that by prescribing minimum service standards....
 
Can anyone name a company that has "cut" itself to profitability? Everyone I can think of that has tried is either out of business or

been merged into another company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top