quote:..after years of bureaucratic inertia, there are signs that Congress and the Bush administration may be taking their first tentative steps toward confronting Amtrak's troubles.
Within a few weeks, the Senate is expected to take up legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) that would greatly increase funding for Amtrak to help pay down its staggering $3.5 billion debt and bring track and equipment up to good repair.
quote: Bush administration is considering running local train service through expanded partnerships with state governments in the rapidly growing South and West, while entrepreneurs have come forward with plans to run portions of the system as a for-profit business.
The proposals that Congress and the Bush administration are considering span the ideological spectrum, from vastly increasing the government's role to opening up opportunities for entrepreneurs to do maintenance on cars and locomotives, provide food service on Amtrak trains, or even run entire lines. Also, Amtrak might do like many private-sector companies and outsource its telephone reservation system to a non-domestic call center, possibly in India.
quote: In a nod to free-market advocates, the Lautenberg-Lott bill would permit Amtrak to contract with private rail companies to provide service on its long-distance lines. The measure would also require Amtrak to substantially reduce losses.
The bill gives the Bush administration authority to renegotiate the terms of Amtrak's $3.5 billion-plus debt and, if it gets favorable terms, assume responsibility to pay it off. It would also permit the executive branch to drop long-distance routes that lose money and fail to meet other performance measures.
Who do they think is going to want to take over these passenger routes? Union Pacific? When hell freezes over, probably not even then.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answer would be the state transportation systems, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey Deleware, Maryland and Virginia. They already have the tracks and beurocracy to run it.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, some private firms have stepped forwards privately to take over some of Amtraks more scenic routes. They cannot do so now because Amtraks charter prohibits competition on the U.S. Rail system. There is a private business consortium that wants to take over the Northeast Corridor using the British Rail privatization as a model that led to the whole Bush Administration Confrontation, David Gunn getting fired, and to the split up of accounting in Northeast Corridor between train operating costs and rail maintence.(ie: Government would pay via a seperate agency to upgrade the tracks and the private consortium would run the trains).
I suspect (but have no real proof) that Union Pacific is interested in re-entering the private rail passenger business again in a limited way. There continued acquisition of passenger cars and their current business car fleet is way beyond what a railroad of their size really requires. Could just be a fantasy on my part though.
However, who would have thought we would see Canadian Pacific re-enter the private rail passenger business???
I also suspect that the Rocky Mountaineer is also a candidate for the Westerly part of the Empire Builder route or Coast Starlight routes. Again no proof other than a suspicion.
Posts: 14 | From: Dallas,TX | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess all of the above is the making for a good novel plot, or otherwise fiction. Simply because the Union Pacific has a sizeable "executrain" fleet, and lavishes maintenance on such, does not mean they wish to enter the "luxotrain' business for the general public. A charter for a group such as, say, the Republican National Committee? well....!
But I guess I must acknowledge one factual statement appearing thereat:
quote:However, who would have thought we would see Canadian Pacific re-enter the private rail passenger business???
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the BR privatisation. Poorly executed by the Tories, meddled with endlessly by Labour to the point where there was a huge reorganisation every 18 months - each time when things were starting to settle down. Numerous agencies with overlapping responsibilities, a couple of which have now been scrapped thankfully. At the end of the day, the same people were running the same railway with the same problems as before.
Please: don't go that way.
Actually the current basic premise for Network Rail is sound: a not-for-profit company that owns and runs the rails, and TOCs and FOCs that operate the trains, paying track access charges. (TOC = passenger train operating company; FOC = freight operating company). Any money Network Rail make has to go back into improving the infrastructure.
The trouble with Labour's latest gaffe is that they insist on "one operator, one terminal" whereby there is only one TOC per London terminus station (of which there are around a dozen). This means competition has gone out the window with fares going up and services cut. There are controls to cap this but they are too lax.
Of course, UP, CP, BNSF et al are for-profit companies so that changes the play somewhat. They have to balance keeping the shareholders happy yet at the same time keeping the rails safe.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff M: The trouble with Labour's latest gaffe is that they insist on "one operator, one terminal" whereby there is only one TOC per London terminus station (of which there are around a dozen). This means competition has gone out the window with fares going up and services cut. There are controls to cap this but they are too lax.
You have got to be kidding me. What genius though up this piece of total idiocy? Probably because of the inability to work a functional joint facility. One thing that because painfully obvious watching the BR privitization is that because of the history of the UK and also Europe for that matter, there was no history of or concept of how to set up and operate joint facilities, trackage rights or any of the other ways otherwise competing and connecting companies in the US have developed with the help or or in spite of the ICC regulation over the years when they use the same tracks or stations. Perhaps, since governments like to do studies, they should have sent a study team over to the US to see how it can be done. They might actually have learned something useful.
As to the non-profit track maintenance outfit: That does not really leave me a warm fuzzy feeling either. There is no incentive for efficiency this way. Given the money to do it properly I will put up American track quality against anybody else in the world. People tend to look at an American track that has been starved for maintenance money and compare it with a European track that has been virtually buried in maintenance money and let the pretty picture confuse them.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spinning off the Northeast Corridor to a conglomerate was an option that David Laney mentioned under oath to a House Sub-committee investigating the firing of David Gunn (saw it on CSPAN originally). The House Sub-committee had to drag it out of him. It is again surfacing in the press. David Laney downplayed it as one of many options that regularly come across his desk. He stated some are advanced proposals and some are just nothing more than business theories or thinking aloud.
Who the conglomerate is....is still a mystery but it is said they want the Government to take over the track maintence/support while they assume the train service. I believe they are the impetus behind Amtrak seperating the accounting between track and operations in the Northeast Corridor.
Another interesting trivial side note to the discussion was that BNSF holds the largest share of Amtrak non-voting stock which was a remnant of the 1971 takeover (the stock ownership is meaningless and the DOT was unsure if the stock had any residual value other than being symbolic).
On the topic of Union Pacific or some other U.S. Railroad entering the rail passenger business again. I again, have zero proof of that only very remote speculation on my part....nothing more.
Posts: 14 | From: Dallas,TX | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Probably because of the inability to work a functional joint facility.
That was probably the perception but is rather far from the truth. Yes, there was plenty of arguing over whose trains got priority when congestion occurred - but combining the operators was not the solution. In any case, it only affects London termini anyway, so what's the point? All the other major stations outside London seem to manage with multiple operators.
To top it all, most of the TOCs are owned by just a couple of parent companies leaving even less choice.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Perhaps, since governments like to do studies, they should have sent a study team over to the US to see how it can be done. They might actually have learned something useful.
There are certainly things that could have been learnt, both things that have worked, and mistakes the US have made. But the US model cannot be applied directly on the UK as they are two very different beasts. In fact, the US is currently like the UK was 60 years ago in terms of private companies owning the rails and running their own trains, with "foreign" operators paying track access charges. That is not an ideal solution - just look at Amtrak's "relationship" with certain railroads.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: As to the non-profit track maintenance outfit: That does not really leave me a warm fuzzy feeling either. There is no incentive for efficiency this way.
The accounts are audited and open to inspection by appropriate parties for that reason (amongst others). I'm sure any wastage would have been spotted by now! To NR's credit, they have actually *cut* maintenance costs by bringing maintenance in-house in certain parts of the country instead of subcontracting it out.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Given the money to do it properly I will put up American track quality against anybody else in the world. People tend to look at an American track that has been starved for maintenance money and compare it with a European track that has been virtually buried in maintenance money and let the pretty picture confuse them.
You're comparing extremes here, but nevertheless I would be prepared to pay more to ride on safer track. As I'm sure you know, doubling the speed limit on a track more than doubles the cost of maintaining that track to a safe standard. Broken ties, undrained ballast, and missing bolts may be acceptable at 25mph but not at 50mph.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the problem with a frieght company running passanger trains would be the same problem AMTRAK is currently having, that is having to share passanger trains with frieght. Until trains can get to places faster then a car they will never be taken seriously.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanner929, trains can be taken seriously in longer-distance travel.
Sooner or later even the most fanatic driver must stop for sleep. That's where the train keeps moving ahead to the destination. Think of the hare and tortoise story.
Another situation is where there is no interstate highway. Just check the highway travel times from the map in your road atlas for towns across North Dakota and Montana on US2. Then compare them with the Empire Builder's travel time between those stations.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
