Let's take an economic reality check.

1) Rolling Stock: Capital procurement. To run daily service between Chicago and LA you need 4 trainsets, desire 5, and have full protection with 6. Let's assume the following:

..... A trainset consists of 10 cars: Baggage, dorm, 3 sleepers, diner, lounge, 3 coaches.

..... Transcontinental service consists of:
Chicago to LA
Chicago to SF
Chicago to Seattle
Atlanta to Los Angeles
St Louis...Kansas City...Denver split... SF/LA (through cars)
With daily Seattle to San Diego service.

Right there you need 24-28 trainsets.
Now the last time I rode either the CZ or the Grand Canyon, they were running 8 cars ...2 sleepers and two coaches... so there's a shortage at the starting gate.

2) Coach Yards: Real and Capital procurement. You have to store these things at the termini around the country. On April 30, 1971, there were three coach yards in Los Angeles: Mission Road (SP), Redondo (ATSF), and East LA (UP). Two of the three are long gone! Even with UP being the merger result of UP/SP, there still is another coach yard to buy. Here in Kansas City it's even more simple: They paved over the KC Terminal Coach Yards and built an office/factory park. They've even converted the old roundhouse to an office building.

3) Crews: Personnel procurement and ongoing expense. Every road save Amtrak now uses just an engineer and conductor/fireman. Amtrak still uses a full crew ... conductor, brakeman, flagman, etc... Where are these sterling fellows coming from?

4) THE STOCKHOLDERS. We are not talking chump change here. We are talking procurements that will result in charges on earnings during the ramp-up to day one. Even with the kindest tax treatments, taking on new scheduled passenger business is going to hit the share price. I hold stock in at least one western railroad. Want to see me in a shareholder revolt? Tell me the BOD wants to go back into the scheduled passenger business.

Can I see Union Pacific or BNSF expanding passenger operations? Possibly. Call the market super-premium cruises. AOE does a good job at them. I don't know what the market will bear. There may be a niche still.

Just do not expect either of these roads to embrace a return to the line haul scheduled passenger business.

My $0.02. YMMV.

John

Back when the Amtrak Reform Council released its plan to franchise routes to private operators, (with the caveat that federal financial support will still be required) two things happened.

First, according to Gilbert Carmichael of the ARC, at least one freight railroad in the East approached the ARC and expressed an interest in running a franchise. Other potential operators he listed included two passenger train operators in Europe and the Peter Pan bus company.

Meanwhile the other freight railroads came out and made it very clear that they will not have a hodge podge of franchise operators running on their tracks. Several of them said they would rather operate their own passenger services IF there was federal financial support. However, they also said that they considered that to be the lesser of two evils. Most of them made it clear they prefer to let Amtrak continue to run the passenger trains.

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

It seems that given all the media mileage that "Amtrak doesn't work", there has to be the "plaudits' tossed around that include "privatization" and a return of the passenger business to the Class Ones.

My thoughts along with Mr. Pullman's regarding the latter are expressed above.

Regarding "privatization", whereby Amtrak operated routes routes would be transferred to the private sector as has been done in the UK, any such iniatives would simply represent a skimming of the icing off the cake. Is there a private operator willing to step forward and operate the Acela paying the directly avoidable costs and making a contribution to the infrastrucuture to the same extent as does Amtrak make to the Class Ones for the LD's? Of course there is!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by atsf3751:
The freight railroads are not about to embark on anything that is certain to be a money-losing proposition.

---

That is correct, but as I tried to point out above, the freight railroads won't get into it unless there is some sort of federal and/or state subsidies to help pay for it.

But given the choice between
A: operating their own passenger services WITH a federal subsidy,
or
B: giving a bunch of franchise operators access to their tracks (as per the ARC plan),

...they will almost certainly choose the former over the latter.

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

To borrow a line from MrToy:
"Never mistake opinion for truth."

quote:

---

Originally posted by irishchieftain:

To be blunt, since most states have repealed property and (especially) track taxes on railroads

---

When did this happen? IMHO, railroads pay very high taxes, which is the reason many decline to go to double tracking as it would increse the tax burden. Where did your info come from regarding repeal of property taxes on the railroads?

T-MAN

quote:

---

Originally posted by reggierail:
The logistics of different companies handling passenger services, to include ticketing, connections and through services, would be a nightmare.

---

That's why the ARC plan also called for a central ticketing and planning/scheduling entity, probably what remains of Amtrak itself. Franchisees would only operate the trains. The ARC also recommended that franchisees be responsible for a group of routes, not individual routes. This would prevent them from "skimming the cream" and not operating the rest. It would also help deal with the connections issue you noted above.

But the whole idea is DOA because the host railroads won't have anything to do with it. They said, and I know I am repeating myself, they would rather take back the passenger trains themselves (IF there were federal subsidies) than allow franchisees on their tracks. But they also made it clear they would prefer to have Amtrak do it all and leave them out of it. That is not opinion, that is what I read from several sources.

Now, in my opinion, competitive bidding for franchises as outlined by the ARC at http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov/finalreport.html might work IF the freight railroads were willing to go along. More opinion: SOME of the freight railroads might actually reconsider operating their own trains if Uncle Sam came with an open checkbook to help pay the bills. But neither of those things are gonna happen.

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

The Del Monte Club Car

STATUTE LAW REALITY CHECK:

1) Congress relieved the railroad business of its ICC requirement to run passenger service with the National Rail Passenger Act of 1970. Even the "opt-out" roads are TWENTY YEARS plus beyond their final mandate to maintain service.

The railroads would make sure Congress looked like da**ed fools if they tried to mandate a return to passenger service.

2) Open Tracks? Are you NUTS?
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0323dav.pdf
That is UP chairman Dick Davidson's comments on open tracks. Not even a cold day in Hades will get Uncle Peter to sign up for that.

Here's what Rob Krebs, now retired from AT&SF/BNSF said in Railway Age http://www.railwayage.com/nov00/making_room.html
Read especially Mr Krebs' ten points in his keynote address!

Gerald Davies, KCS, in Railway Age Dec 00: http://207.252.75.134/dec00/2001_outlook.html
"The key to our industry's future is unquestionably improved service. If we can provide consistent, reliable service, and work cooperatively to improve service options and performance, we can certainly withstand any calls for open access and control any regulatory pressures. Conversely, if we treat each other more like enemies than business partners, the railroad industry has every reason to fear harsh regulatory treatment, which would reduce the benefits gained through Staggers."

I'm just an ordainary voter. I don't have jillions of bucks to attend $500 a plate campaign fundraisers. But if anyone proposes re-regulation, I will FIND money to contribute to Senatorial and Congressional campaigns to fight it.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
That is correct, but as I tried to point out above, the freight railroads won't get into it unless there is some sort of federal and/or state subsidies to help pay for it.

But given the choice between
[b]A: operating their own passenger services WITH a federal subsidy,
or
B: giving a bunch of franchise operators access to their tracks (as per the ARC plan),

...they will almost certainly choose the former over the latter.

[/B]

---

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

Why would any stockhholder held or private
company willingly get "in bed" with a venture
that they know will be manipulated by our
elected Congresspersons?

Do we wish to encourage more of this???

My perspective of "What's in it for me?" comes from the perspective of a shareholder in at least Union Pacific Corporation:

1) Increased debt due to Capital/Real procurements so the Corporation may once again have a passenger fleet and the appropriate facilities at its major termini;

2) No promise that the Congress will stay the course on ANY payout plan for more than one election cycle; which leads to...

3) Decreased share price due to people dumping the stock because of the increased risk.

I have said it before; I will say it again.

There MAY be a place in the Class One railroad business to run additional "super-premium" (read cruise tour type) passenger service. Someone who is in a railroad economic development office needs to study that question.

There are places for short-haul services, where they fit into the State or Regional comprehensive transportation plan.

There is not a place for Mail and Express traffic (yes I know this goes against any number of other posts I've written, but remember the premise of GBN: Amtrak disappears and the Class One systems resume operations ... THEY HAVE 90%+ of the M/E traffic alreadly. My prior posts are predicated on AMTRAK TAKING AWAY M/E traffic from Class Ones and trucks.)

There is not a place for daily scheduled line haul passenger service. It will become like covered wagons, buggy whips, and Spencer carbines: Stuff of historical re-enactment.

4) If I were Dick Davidson and Congress tried to re-mandate private scheduled passenger service, I'd be in US District Court so fast it would make your head swim.

When/if Amtrak ceases business, that's the end. I WILL LEAD THE SHAREHOLDER REVOLT if the BOD tries to re-enter the line haul passenger market ... unless they have one heckuva business plan.

And then I'll dump the railroad out of my portfolio ... as will hundreds of other small and institutional investors.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
I wonder if anyone wishes to "step forward" and respond to this post.

Let's cut to the chase: "what's in it for me (i.e. you) if the Class Ones were to become the intercity passenger operators in place of Amtrak"?

---