Forbes.com has this article on Amtrak's possible future which includs this gem from former Amtrak CEO Tom Downs:
Is there a spit-take emoticon?
"(Freight railroads) are now getting back into passenger rail"
- Thread starter Agent
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Comments from former Amtrak Chairman and CEO Tom Downs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/15/railroads-republicans-muscling-out-amtrak/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/15/railroads-republicans-muscling-out-amtrak/
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
Same subject topics merged.
Tumbleweed
OBS Chief
This one is interesting also.... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/15/u-s-poised-for-passenger-rail-boom/
Their are a few things I would like to see more (train wise) than the major RR getting back into the passenger business, particularly when it comes to LD trains.
I also do not think their is a snowballs chance in hell for it to happen without major government subsidies or tax breaks.
I saw that article the morning and all I saw were quotes from Downs.
Until the CEO or chairman from UP CSX, BNSF or NS says "we want passengers" I will call this a bunch of BS.
I also do not think their is a snowballs chance in hell for it to happen without major government subsidies or tax breaks.
I saw that article the morning and all I saw were quotes from Downs.
Until the CEO or chairman from UP CSX, BNSF or NS says "we want passengers" I will call this a bunch of BS.
Best one provided by this site I think is :blink: I saw the article earlier and find it rather implausible. Where has BNSF or UP said anything about getting into running passenger trains? UP may be dispatching the Lincoln service trains over their tracks, but manning and running the trains? Umm, very unlikely.
Mr. Downs is now working for Veolia Transportation, so he is doing some spinning and has axes to grind here. He ran Amtrak for a few years back in the 1990s. What are the general opinions on his leadership and actions back then by the rail fans who were following Amtrak in the 90s?
Agreed. There is no magic spell that suddenly makes passenger traffic profitable to the point where the legacy RR's will come back into the picture without any tax-payer funding, and continued subsidy. And further more, I don't see Long-Distance overnight services returning in any way, no matter the desire of some, under the banner of a legacy carrier. Any services started by the big boys will only be corridors, much like Metra has in Chicago, that serve commuters and day-travelers. So, no. Amtrak is not going to disappear, much as Mr. Downs would like to make it out to seem. Yes, he was apart of Amtrak at one time, but he is now on the other side of the coin looking to cash in on the corporate feeding frenzy that would take place if Amtrak were to be cut up and privatized. And no, I don't believe it would be to the best interests of the American tax payer or the rail traveler.
Is there room for improvement? Oh, hell yes. But this should be done in conjunction with Amtrak, maybe to (re)establish services to places not served today with rail travel. But not to replace what we have had to fight tooth and nail for, and give it up at a loss.
There is no cost savings in handing the system back to the legacy companies. If anything, I wager it would end up costing more. One of the best ways to allow the current system to expand and meet future needs for capacity and demand is to uncuff Amtrak from the multitude of Congressional mandates and idiotic limits imposed upon it.
*EDIT*
And on a second thought: A politically unpopular move right now, and one with its own list of costs and troubles, but one that would revolutionize rail travel in the United States to a level where great benefits for all were to be had: Nationalization of the rail infrastructure. Buy out the right-of-way from all railroad operators and operate them under the same rules as the interstate system is ran. A blanket statement that requires a large amount of detail that cannot be placed into this limited discussion, but in the simple terms it would level the transportation field across all modes. The independent companies continue to operate the same in terms of traffic, and vie for the contracts to maintain and construct the lines like road construction companies do under the respective State DOTs. All above the rail costs are the concerns of the operators, all below the rail costs are the concern of the DOT. Users pay a fee, based on weight and mile, and a separate Railway Trust Fund is established to support the system and let it expand.
Amtrak remains, and perhaps slowly migrates toward that ultimate goal of being an independent company on the same playing field as a legacy carrier. A pipe dream, for sure, but one that has roots in reality if the will to make it happen is fostered.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tumbleweed
OBS Chief
Now there is a statement that needs to be introduced to every congress critter......Agreed. There is no magic spell that suddenly makes passenger traffic profitable to the point where the legacy RR's will come back into the picture without any tax-payer funding, and continued subsidy. And further more, I don't see Long-Distance overnight services returning in any way, no matter the desire of some, under the banner of a legacy carrier. Any services started by the big boys will only be corridors, much like Metra has in Chicago, that serve commuters and day-travelers. So, no. Amtrak is not going to disappear, much as Mr. Downs would like to make it out to seem. Yes, he was apart of Amtrak at one time, but he is now on the other side of the coin looking to cash in on the corporate feeding frenzy that would take place if Amtrak were to be cut up and privatized. And no, I don't believe it would be to the best interests of the American tax payer or the rail traveler.
Is there room for improvement? Oh, hell yes. But this should be done in conjunction with Amtrak, maybe to (re)establish services to places not served today with rail travel. But not to replace what we have had to fight tooth and nail for, and give it up at a loss.
There is no cost savings in handing the system back to the legacy companies. If anything, I wager it would end up costing more. One of the best ways to allow the current system to expand and meet future needs for capacity and demand is to uncuff Amtrak from the multitude of Congressional mandates and idiotic limits imposed upon it.
Private industry always does a better job of providing goods and services than government does. I continue to support government owned Amtrak because its the only LD passenger RR that we have serving the public interest. Look at some of the old RR films and you can see the elegance, gourmet meals and great service that was once provided to the rail passengers by the private railroads. I would welcome the private railroads getting back into passenger service. For instance when George Pullman's company controlled the sleepers they ran efficiently and provided top notch service, comfort and passenger accommodations. Back then you slept on a mattress not on a sleeping pad but admittedly showers were few to be had. The gourmet trained chefs, waiters, and porters worked hard and provided nothing short of service excellence. Compare that to today where the food is so so, and many of the conductors,SCA's and waiters, are lazy, disinterested and arrogant. Cushy government jobs that are incentive free and last a lifetime can never compete with those in private industry.
Last edited by a moderator:
MikefromCrete
Engineer
Wow, Downs' statement sure comes out of left field. I've never heard any freight railroad company expressing the desire to get back into the passenger business. The UP wants to operate the Chicago-St. Louis trains? Really? I doubt it.
IF, and that's a big if, the private companies want to get back into passenger service, it would probably be like the BNSF and UP contract with Metra. Provide crews and maintain the track, use public owned cars and locomotives and run under the direction of a public body in exchange for a payment of public funds. There's no way a casual rider would know if he's riding a Metra train operated by BNSF, UP or Metra itself. That would be the same as an intercity contract. The private companies would not go out and buy their own equipment or hire chefs to run luxury dining cars. It would just be giving public funds to private corporations, which I guess Republicans would like. Maybe Downs is upset because he hasn't got any contracts for Veola (or whoever it is that he works for. ) or maybe he's looking to run the Lincoln Service trains or Surfliners or Wolverines. That's a possibility.
IF, and that's a big if, the private companies want to get back into passenger service, it would probably be like the BNSF and UP contract with Metra. Provide crews and maintain the track, use public owned cars and locomotives and run under the direction of a public body in exchange for a payment of public funds. There's no way a casual rider would know if he's riding a Metra train operated by BNSF, UP or Metra itself. That would be the same as an intercity contract. The private companies would not go out and buy their own equipment or hire chefs to run luxury dining cars. It would just be giving public funds to private corporations, which I guess Republicans would like. Maybe Downs is upset because he hasn't got any contracts for Veola (or whoever it is that he works for. ) or maybe he's looking to run the Lincoln Service trains or Surfliners or Wolverines. That's a possibility.
Another Rant from a retired Government Employee!!!
!, Skip this one if the Truth Hurts!!! Another example of why this is such a Great Country! :wub: If an Untruth is Repeated Enough, and by Many (it was called the "Big Lie Technique" in Germany), ie on Talking Head Radio,in Baroom Conversations, Backyard Bar-B-Qs and spread by the Teapub Propoganda Machine,(AKA Fox Noise and the Internet :angry2: )) it becomes Gospel! Private Industry does NOT ALWAYS Do a Better Job than Government, all Corporations are the Beneficiaries of Government Welfare, Most Especially the Founding RailRoads, Airlines,Defense Contractors (aka the War Machine!!)Banks,Wall Street, Roads etc. How did that Wall Street/Bank Meltdown that the Dreaded "Government Cleaned UP!" fit into your statement of Faith that Private Industry ALWAYS does Better than the Wasteful Government at Running Things!??? People that Bash Government need to Get a Life!!! WE ARE the Government, they Spend our Money but WE Elect the Leaders!!! It's worked Damn Well for over 200 years, and Thanks to the Government even the Poor, Minorities and Women Now have a Chance, something that wasn't True @ our Founding and is Not True in Most of the Rest of the World! "You Could Look it Up!" as Casey Stengel used to say!!
Last edited by a moderator:
And why exactly do you think that would come back should private railroads take over? Clearly, they have no incentive to bleed money as Amtrak does, so they could cut costs further, say by eliminating sleepers and food service (oh look, the things you want), or by moving into land-cruise territory, which has a poor track record of ending up profitable as well, eg, American Orient Express, and is hardly in the public interest anyways.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,508
I've thought that the Union Pacific operating the Capitol Corridor would be an interesting proposition. The state owns all the equipment, and the line operates entirely on UP tracks. The CCJPB has already ditched Amtrak's phone reservation system due to high cost. It would not be much of a stretch to have them ditch Amtrak entirely. That done, would BNSF taking over the San Joaquin's be the next step?
Downs does work for Veola, and he got a pretty nice contract for them. Veola operates Virginia Railway Express.
:hi: Nice Post, Well Said! Veola has been Fired by Lots of Government Agencies, including Cap Metro when they made a mess out of Austin's New Red Line!!! Whenever Private Company Sharks start wanting to Feed @ the Government Trough, Check your Wallet, the Money must be Better in Governement Contracts and the Checks Won't Bounce!!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Well, back then the privates did it well. They only had to cancel because of dwindling ridership. But ridership is now going up, so with exploding demand, the privates should be able to do it again. I'm not sure how they did it back then, probably subsdized through freight. The government could still provide them money. This would stimulate competition and thus theoretically should result in better service. All these are theories, but it's not impossible.
Tumbleweed
OBS Chief
The nail in the coffin was when they lost the contracts for the RPO's......
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
So it was the RPOs that caused the cancellations, not just dwindling ridership? Is there any way to get a similar amount of revenue back? Not all 1950s streamliners ran with RPOs.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Gord
Guest
The private railroads passenger business was killed off by taxpayer-funded (and demanded) roads, interstates combined with the speed of modern air travel. Add to that airline subsidies for traffic control, facilities, etc. and loss of mail contracts to trucks and airlines and there was no way a private industry could compete.
When commuter trains jammed to capacity day after day can't cover all their daily operating, let alone capital costs, there is a problem with the profitabiity of passenger rail transportation.
G.
AOE is a strange example. It lasted something like 20 years, only collapsing when it was shifted to a different parent company that decided to use the AOE division as a piggybank. It's even possible that it was showing a positive cash flow but a nominal loss because of non-cash expense items such as depreciation. But you're right insofar as land cruise territory being dubious at best.
Of course, there's a difference (at least in my mind) between the CHI-West Coast trains and shorter-distance trains (even including overnight trains such as the Silver Service). Particularly with something such as the Silver Service, I could see freights and the like getting involved. I'm not sure what the volume required would be for a train on that line to hit break-even at mid-to-high bucket prices (i.e. could you do it with 8-9 sleepers and a twin unit diner?), but it seems possible that a freight could, given a franchise, a subsidy and a required minimum level of service (in terms of provided accommodations, in terms of frequencies, and in terms of some other quality metrics), run a better operation in some cases.
Do I think this is worth all of the complications that something like that would bring? No, it probably isn't. Most of the benefits of the above would come if you ran into situations where the freight, given a subsidy of X to run twice-daily service on a route, found that it could generate enough extra business by running three-four times daily service to offset the costs of doing so. A case-in-point where Amtrak is hamstrung on this is Virginia (where everything I've seen suggests that at least adding a third train into NPN improves the outlook for that route, and where there's probably the business to beef up the LYH service).
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
When the private rail companies ran passenger service there were no Interstate Highways. Roads were very poor and driving long distance took forever compared to taking the train. When the railroads controlled almost all viable long distance frieght and passenger service, the majority of Americans despised them, but people had few, if any, other options. The dislike of the - for the times - huge, big, bad railroads was a driving force (pun intended) for building our current taxpayer, bond and debt supported highway system. It SEEMED like such a great idea at the time!
Ryan
Court Jester
[citation needed]
Private companies have to make a profit. Every dollar of profit is a dollar that doesn't go towards providing those goods or services.
Private companies have an incentive to make money, but the quality of service relies on what grounds are being fought on. For example, if the only way to make a profit is to jam more people into a car then you can watch legroom vanish and 84-seat cars return (or, heaven forbid, 3-2 seating show up).* If the fight is on quality of service, then cue parlor cars and 2-1 seating.[citation needed]
Private companies have to make a profit. Every dollar of profit is a dollar that doesn't go towards providing those goods or services.
*I think it's at least possible that you could see a few cars return without the ADA space, so long as there are a few such cars on a train.
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
Afterall we all :wub: LOVE :wub: the private airlines, don't we? :huh:
trainfan969
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 50
Aha! Looks like someone wants to drum up some business or it could be fluff to get people talking! Guess their rail division needs more revenue.
If we took back the airport subsidies, they'd probably be even less profitable than passenger rail....
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion 2024 H1- Latest: Paniolo Man
-
-
St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago (TCMC) second daily service
- Latest: Metra Electric Rider
-
