posted
Regardless of how idiotic littletrain's post was, he brought up some good points. However, instead of following whatever he said, my idea is to privatize the lines. Before I get yelled at, let me explain. I live in California, and there is a fine Amtrak service around here, but for the average commuter, the price is just too high. Although it is less than an airfare it is no where as cheap as it would be to drive. However, if an individual company (with some government backing) were to take over and put some investment into building some new tracks (out here UP owns all the tracks, slowing down and limiting amtrak service). Also I'm sure a company could take over the NE corridor and make that route near to profitable. The reason these smaller routes would work is because they wouldnt have to pay for the upkeep of cross country routes, sorry I enjoy them but they just arent worth it . By having a unified rail system that has to support cross country routes that lose a lot of money (although almost all the routes do, but they lose more) with high fares, amtrak has turned from a viable transportation system, into a turist mechanism (atleast in California). And out here if one really wanted to travel cheap and fast one would not take amtrak but rather greyhound.
I know this forum contains many fans of amtrak, I am one too, however I would love to see rail system that everyone could use instead of cars.
Also one more thing, why is Amtrak spelled the way it is, why not Amtrack? (
posted
Other attempts at privatization have failed (Florida Fun Train, etc.). How would this new one be successful?
I'm all for expanded rail service, but I don't think it is economically viable for as true private enterprise, at least not for common carriers. I would guess that the American Orient Express makes money, but it only serves the luxury market.
Also, it has been argued often (in recent posts here) that Amtrak's long distance trains receive an excessive allocation of costs from the northeast corridor, headquarters, etc. I have no other information, but I wonder what the long distance train financial results would look like without that allocation included, or rather an allocation based on passenger count rather than whatever method is currently used?
How would you keep labor costs down -- use non-union labor? Would current union employees have any incentive to leave their current jobs to come work for the passenger company?
How would you incentivize UP and other lines to keep the passenger trains as top priority (that is, on schedule)?
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't really compare Amtrak with the American Orient Express. It's 2 completely different markets. Amtrak is "transportation"; the AOE is "land cruise".
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by polarbearucla: Also one more thing, why is Amtrak spelled the way it is, why not Amtrack?
Because in late 1970/early 1971, that was the spelling the "image firm" came up with, at the same time they were coming up with the red, white, and blue color scheme and the "pointless arrow" logo.
The name they almost went with was Railpax.
Posts: 112 | From: North Hollywood, California | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was told by Amtrak staff that "AMTRAK" stands for: AMerican - TRavel - trAcK. What I don't understand is you actually get "AMTRACK" if you add the "C" in traCk. Go figure ?
[This message has been edited by CK (edited 08-27-2003).]
posted
I like you idea of privitizing and building new lines for passenger service, but expand on the idea, and leave Amtrak, but stricty for long hauls, then amtrak can work out an agreement with the reginal train lines for track rights, hence there will be no UP, BNSF, CSX,and NS to deal with
I did some more thinking about this matter, What if the Government were to pay for a new set of tracks for use on the Long haul trains and hire the people that are currently being laid off from work to build them; sort of like the idea of the WPA(Works Pregress Administration)and then Amtrak would pay a fee, simmilar to that which is now paid to the Host RR, to use the tracks which would inturn go into the maintainence and part of the coasts accosiated wih laying and possibly aquiring the tracks for themselvs. The bonus for Amtrak would be to get first priority to use the tracks. Hence Amtrak trains would run on-time and not have the hassle of fighting with host RR for pritory trains. They also could build the tracks and signal system to a higher standard to allow for JeTrain type equipment to be used as a replacement to the Ageing Superliner Fleet, or at the very leat a highspeed Superliner type train.
posted
Thats an interesting letter, at least in East of the Mississippi i think a high speed train intercity train would work quite well, however for us people stuck on the West Coast it would still take an overnight train if the lines were improved and the trains ran A LOT faster, to reach the East Cost. But then again, I would love to see some sort of accella type service for more cities
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Building another dedicated track simply is not going to be cost effective. Laying track for high speed standards from scratch costs somewhere in the region of $1m-$1.5m per plain-track MILE. Add to that the costs of sidings, junctions, bridges, tunnels etc and you're talking hundreds of billions of $$$ just for, say, Chicago to NY. The freight railroads won't be interested in funding it. Your government is certainly not going to.
Geoff M.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cost is miniscule, compared to light rail. In Houston, we're spending $53 million per mile. Dallas is spending $42 million per mile. ( yes, someone's making some HUGE "pocket money", but both cities have some rather incompetent leaders)
A few million per mile is a piece of cake! Let's do it!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would I fix Amtrak? Well, for starters, I'd get the Empire Builder to go from the Wisc. Dells to Madison, and then Whitewater and MKE, via the old MILW and M & P route. That would place the train on a route with two more universities, as well as putting the train through the state capitol, a fast-growing region. It would connect CHI, MKE, MSN, and MSP, all vibrant municipalities.
On a more serious note, I'd raise more funding by selling bonds. State bonds, Transport bonds, municipal bonds, etc., just so I could raise enough funds for helping the RR get into better shape.
posted
Lest anyone forget, the railroads WERE privatized before Amtrak's creation. Lest this slips anyone's mind again, Amtrak is merely a commuter rail setup with a very long range...and no commuter railroad in this country makes money, not even those that run with private firms contracted to run the operations. So, re-privatization will work? Where is the investment going to come from, and what private firm will dare to take on a venture that constantly loses money?
And if anybody regards the Amtrak model as an erroneous one, let me further say that Amtrak is really identical to entities like DB and SNCF...without the funding that those entities receive.
On 30 April 1971 there were two coach yards and two commissaries supporting Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal ... UP and ATSF (SP had closed its Mission Road coach yard in the late 60s, they handled LA support from Oakland).
Today, what I've seen of the ex-ATSF coach yard in LA is far smaller than what it was. I do not believe there is a Commissary anymore; if there is it must be in the coach yard, rather than an outbuilding of LAUPT (I think where it was is now part of a recently constructed skyscraper).
Take this litany and keep applying it across the Nation. Omaha used to have two stations in a terminal complex, along with at least one commissary, now it has a single Amshack.
This also applies in the maintenance forces and the car service employees. They belong to one company: Amtrak.
For re-privatization to happen, there will be a huge capital, operating, and human factors start-up cost. Each railroad that were to take a chunk of Amtrak will have to pay.
I'm a stockholder in at least one railroad. Want to see me vote my Board of Directors out of office? Tell me they are contemplating going back into the passenger business.
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
Printer-friendly view of this topic
. By having a unified rail system that has to support cross country routes that lose a lot of money (although almost all the routes do, but they lose more) with high fares, amtrak has turned from a viable transportation system, into a turist mechanism (atleast in California). And out here if one really wanted to travel cheap and fast one would not take amtrak but rather greyhound.
