posted
I've posed this same question elsewhere, but I guess away from the pages of The Onion and other assorted "newssources", anyone with even layman knowledge of railroad industry affairs knows such was not the case (by the way Railpax was simply short hand for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; some thought it would be the entity's trade name). But an interesting question to pose to the forum on a historic day in the annals of our Republic, is where would intercity rail passenger service be today had RPSA 70 not been enacted? Just some "food for thought": would it be totally extinct?, limited to the NECorridor? railroads still in the business even today? Local initiatives with commuter agencies transformed into regional agencies?
Solemn duty comes first by all means (myself included: I plan to "walk the walk" to Prospect School in about an hour); but when that is done, discussion anyone?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is why a vote for McCane is a vote against Amtrak. He will veto any Amtrak legislation that reaches his desk. He's flat out TOLD voters he feels that Amtrak is a waist. 'Pork Barrell' as he puts it...while roads in his own home state are crumbling.
To more directly answer the question, passenger rail would have died...period. Why? Because even local and regional rail depend on infrastructure provided by a LARGER national network-Amtrak. We're talking facilities. Secondly, in order to secure federal funds, there needed to be congressional support. That is established via a LONG DISTANCE network. I still believe that corridors will not meet full potential without a connecting NATIONAL network. They also would not get congressional support. Why would a Representative in Iowa vote for a corridor in California? The existance of a national network ensures federal funding. If that's what McCain considers 'Pork Barrell', so be it. Its needed and it works.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting question indeed for any armchair quarterback of railroad history...
My guess is that intercity rail passenger service would have completely died by the end of the 1970's, with the possible exception of the NEC. Even that might have expired, unless some lively private concern had stepped up to the plate, and I allow for the possibility that some such concern could have done so, though I cannot say who that might have been.
I do not know what the margin of passage in the Congress was, but tend to think it unlikely that the support was strong enough to override a veto, despite the fact that the Democratic party controlled both houses, with a Republican in the White House. However, it is not impossible that service might have limped along for several more years, until such time when Nixon might have been willing to reconsider such legislation, given his need for positive press coverage later in his presidency.
Posts: 255 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as long as we're just guessing, I'd venture that the NEC would never have survived.There is little or no freight traffic on the line; it having ceded to RTE 95 and trucking. I don't remember exactly what the fare was from Boston to NYC in 1970, but when the shuttle started in the mid 60's the airfare was $10...same as the train and there were no delays at the airport. Manwhile the train routinely took 4.5-5 hours So, all of the infrastructure needs notwithstanding as Patrick points out, it would have been pretty tough to claim any slice of the market w/o federal help.
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
As soon as the RPSA was vetoed (in this scenario), there would have been a wave of train-off petitions that would have made 1967 look like a Sunday School Picnic. Safe assumption is that every train (NEC included) would have been petitioned for discontinuance.
The NEC likely would have received "emergency funding" from the Federal level, and the tired GG-1's, P-85's (Congos) , and even P-70's would have gotten a bit more tired. As the RRR (3R) Conrail enabling legislation moved forth, appropriate "and passenger" language, instead of "no passengers" would have found its way into the legislation.
If any LD trains, including those over Conrail, were still alive upon enactment of Staggers, they would have been gone just like that.
But the real losers would have been the Locally funded services, such as those in California, Pennsylvania, and the others. Since Sec 403(b) had not been enacted, there would have been no agency that could have forced access on to the Class I's - and no agency with ready to go expertise in operating passenger trains. In short, the reasonably successful initiative in California would very simply have never been (Pennsylvania a "maybe" as an extension of SEPTA).
The private sector Auto Train would have died its natural death during 1981 - likely the last LD standing. Otherwise, if one wanted to ride an intercity train, best have reason to travel between Boston and Wash (maybe NY-Albany)- as that is all there would be.
Finally now that "We The People" have done our duty, and by tomorrow (please Good Lord, not another Gorebushoff) we will know the victor. But whichever Senator, may we all stand together and say "Senator, I am an American and you are my President". I know I am prepared to do just that.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GBN is probably correct that regional services such as ours in California would have likely not gotten started, or at least not be very far along without Amtrak's right of access. Similarly, without the LD station and maintenance facilities in California, the capital costs of starting up California's services, should UP/SP have been agreeable to such, might have been prohibitive.
The same applies to potential future corridors around the country not yet developed.
I wonder how the Penn-Central bankruptcy would have played out without Amtrak. There would have been no public agency to take responsibility for the NEC. So either one would have had to be created, or the NEC would have been operated by Conrail.
There was a gentleman on the old AOL passenger rail boards (who has since passed away) who asserted that Amtrak was on the way to financial stability, if not profitability, until it was burdened with the NEC infrastructure responsibility.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think ATSF would have kept 17/18 in some form right up to the SP merger. Discontinuing would have been an early sign of good faith there (even though SP was the weaker partner).
I think UP would have kept the COLA and the COD relatively late, the one as an early "cruise", the other as some form of conference travel. Both probably would be gone by 1980.
With PC the way it was in 1970, the NEC would be gone. Not even Feddybux would save it, because PC wouldn't want the conditions. They knew the land was more valuable than the transportation.
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: And that is why a vote for McCain is a vote against Amtrak. He will veto any Amtrak legislation that reaches his desk. He's flat out TOLD voters he feels that Amtrak is a waste. 'Pork Barrel' as he puts it...while roads in his own home state are crumbling.
Patrick and others, please allow me to note that it was not my intent to start a "political' topic here, but rather that of , let's say, "what if..." revisionist history.
I mentioned "solemn duty' simply because it is just that; and I did not want to be party to having anyone decide "oh it's more fun to play here at the computer rather than standing out there in line to do something in the big picture that won't count for anything'.
Can we move forth in that spirit?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
With PC the way it was in 1970, the NEC would be gone. Not even Feddybux would save it, because PC wouldn't want the conditions. They knew the land was more valuable than the transportation
WADR, absurd. Besides, state funds were already going into the commuter services long before then; and the PRR main line just has too many big towns it serves (Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Trenton) not to mention the big station in Manhattan. It may be questionable as to whether or not a Metroliner would be operating at the speeds intended (this was in the works during the PRR's very later years; we all saw the photos of the MUs with the Keystone logo), but some sort of passenger train would be using the corridor between New York and DC and up the former New Haven to Boston. No, the land would not have been sold, and no, the state of New Jersey certainly would not have suddenly rebuilt the former CNJ and RDG as their alternate routes to Trenton and Philly, nor would the various states (or DC) suddenly switch to the B&O's main line for their already-underway intercity services.
quote:Gilbert B Norman wrote:
Patrick and others, please allow me to note that it was not my intent to start a "political' topic here, but rather that of , let's say, "what if..." revisionist history
Fair enough. I suggest (for my part at least) that anyone who wants to speculate on just how friendly incoming President Obama wants to be towards Amtrak should start another thread on it.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, however, no apology on the sidebar. Passions naturally run high on an election that could potentially have an impact on the future of passenger rail. I took the 'solemn duty' part as a sort of bait.
Had Railpax not passed, federal funding could not be secured for the infrastructure needs of regional and corridor rail. I don't think that anything more can be said on that. Passenger rail would have died all together. Keep in mind that even some of the corridor trains depend on the same rolling stock and facilities as LD's do. Despite what some may argue, a national network with federal funding is crucial to the success of corridors.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could have happened. The way I understand it, Domestic Policy Advisor, John Ehrlichman, advised Nixon to veto the Railpax bill unless it mandated that the National Railroad Passenger Corp. break even within a certain number of years. If anyone has any more detailed info in the subject, I'd really like to know if this really was the case. So the next time someone says that that Amtrak is violating its charter and resposible for the entire federal budget deficit, just remember that it's only because of a Watergate conspirator.
Posts: 49 | From: Brookline, MA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had Railpax not passed, federal funding could not be secured for the infrastructure needs of regional and corridor rail. I don't think that anything more can be said on that. Passenger rail would have died all together
I still don't believe that and regard such as hyperbole. It could have been that had a decision been held off for one more year, the question would have been much more poignant (the 1973 oil crisis). As it stands, Railpax certainly provided a ready excuse to slash the intercity rail network clean in half at a stroke.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
