Furthermore, most of the tracks are owned by the freight lines and, given a choice, they would prefer Amtrak to rent their system then some two-bit fly-by-night operator who will declare bankruptcy the moment something goes wrong.

What many Republicans do not realize is that America is getting a great deal for the relatively small amount of money that the taxpayers are shelling out for Amtrak.

Privatization would not only jeopardize passenger safety, but it will probably backfire on the Republicans by tripling the amount of money it will take to sustain the current sustem.

I challenge Mr. Weber to show one documented case in the world where privatization can be used as model to subsidize Amtrak's vast 30,000 mile network.

You noticed that too? Well, I will give you a hint—Amtrak gets at least twenty to thirty times less money per year than the interstate highway system. If it were merely one-third less than the highway systems, maybe we would see some improvement; but Congress has sentenced Amtrak to a starvation diet and a culture of disillusionment among its labor force and utter apathy among its managers (that is, apart from its current top guy).

Perhaps, if you truly care about Amtrak, you could turn your program into a platform for telling the public what obstacles Amtrak really faces, and how to get their Congresspeople to direct funds towards establishing faster, safer and more frequent train service? Plenty of facts available on the web concerning this subject.

Quick question: Could you run passenger trains all over the 48-state region for a mere $580 million per year...? Mull that one over, and get back to us. :|

But I find that your commentary, like most reports in the mainstream news media, lacks the depth of understanding necessary to propose meaningful solutions, much less explain them to the public at large.

It has been said, and rightly so, that one should not judge Amtrak as a whole based on one bad train trip. Neither should one judge Amtrak based on one GOOD trip. The fact is, Amtrak is inconsistent. Many trips go exceptionally well, others go very badly.

In reading this and other boards, I find that, for reasons which I do not fully understand, inconsistent service is more of a problem in the eastern half of the country than the western half. But I can say that most of my experiences with Amtrak in the last few years (all on western trains) have been positive, with just a few glitches.

Privatization seems to offer an easy solution to the Amtrak situation, but as others have noted, there are a number of problems. The general theory of privatization is that competition offers better efficiencies and service, because customers can always choose the other guy. That keeps companies on their toes.

But true competition requires a publicly owned open-access system as we have on the airways and highways. The problem is the nation's rail infrastructure is a privately owned, closed-access system. The freight companies that own the tracks decide who can or cannot operate trains on their tracks. Only Amtrak has the legal right of access to their tracks, and the freight companies have stated in no uncertain terms that that Amtrak is the only passenger operator they will allow.

However, that does not prevent Amtrak from contracting on-board services to outside bidders who must meet certain service standards or risk being replaced. That may offer a possible compromise between the "privatization" crowd and the realities of infrastructure access. Amtrak would continue to haul the trains around, handle reservations and such (both of which Amtrak does very well), while private companies would handle the daily routine of on-board customer service. But this, too may be problematic, because Amtrak is the only company in this country that has any experience with on-board train service. How do you choose a private operator that has never done this before?

But privatization is not a panacea for quality service. I flew to Hawaii on a major commercial airline last fall, and the flight attendants on that plane were grumpier than most Amtrak employees I have encountered in recent years.

Besides this issue, there are a number of other issues that affect Amtrak's performance, many of which are completely outside of Amtrak's control. Once a train leaves the station, it is completely under the control of the host railroad's dispatchers, who determine whether a train will reach its destination on time or not. The result is chronically late trains. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, less than 10% of Amtrak delays are Amtrak's fault.

Furthermore, an inadequate infrastructure prevents Amtrak trains from achieving the speeds they are capable of. Today's passenger trains run about 30% slower than trains of the 1940s, due to infrastructure limitations. On top of that, property taxes on the right-of way discourage railroads from upgrading lest their taxes increase. (Ever hear of a highway or airport that paid property taxes?)

Another problem, as I see it, is that Congress has never really expected much of Amtrak, and that engendered an internal culture within Amtrak that didn't expect much of itself. David Gunn is doing a lot to turn that around, and he deserves our support.

Yet another problem is Amtrak's shoddy accounting, and this is where Amtrak really shoots itself in the foot. Amtrak often charges unrelated expenses to the long-distance trains, making them look like huge money losers.

Amtrak should do what companies like chain stores and restaurants do, treat each outlet (train) as an independent business. Calculate revenues and expenses for each train separately, and whatever is left over is considered a "contribution" to the overall system.

Amtrak does the exact opposite. It takes all of its expenses, whether they are related to a given train or not, and allocates them to each train before calculating a train's bottom line. So trains that make a positive contribution to Amtrak's bottom line look like money losers.

For a better understanding of this problem I suggest you look at this page: http://www.unitedrail.org/news/20030522McCainHollingsLetter.html

If you really want to understand the Amtrak issues, so that you can report on them accurately, I suggest you study the above link and the rest of the site, as well as these sites:

National Corridors Initiative: http://www.nationalcorridors.org
NARP http://www.narprail.org
US Transportation Subsidies http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

I also suggest you read the reports from Don Phillips of the Washington Post. He is one of the few reporters in the mainstream media who actually understands the issues.

Of course, Trainweb, the host of this forum, is one of the best resources for railroad information.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

There's a problem with your logic, sadly.

People who come to the rails the First Time (and there are plenty of them these days) deserve consistent, quality service. If they don't get it that first time, they may well walk, and talk to others.

One of THE priorities at Amtrak must be consistent quality customer service. IMO, that means:

- Safe cars.
- Clean cars with sufficient tankage to take in all the sewage for an entire one-way trip.
- Comfortable cars. That means furniture, fittings and appointments are in good repair.
- Operating diners
- Courteous service
- Courteous train crew

Every time a train leaves the station, if these things don't happen, someone new to rail travel will be alienated away from it.

What I was trying to do was refute George's implication that Amtrak service is consistently bad, which is not the case.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car