posted
PDF Page 7 says it all. For the first time in its 47 years as of next Tuesday, Amtrak is closing in on break even. The FY17 loss, adjusted for inflation, is likely the lowest ever reported.
While this development is hardly a prompt for reducing the annual appropriation, and the record $1.9B granted for FY18 suggests it is not, that appropriation is becoming less necessary to move trains "over the road" and more for updating Amtrak owned road and facilities.
But this significant progress in deficit reduction is hardly time for the cheerleaders to start chanting "bring back the (drop your own choice in)".
I have to wonder if the "back channels" between One Mass and The Hill are filled with chatter that Congress will now support Amtrak (the President, what does he matter; line item veto within the Spending Bill is a non starter) without their "rolling pork barrels". They are starting to recognize that intercity passenger rail is all about moving people efficiently through well populated regions of the country and not about the remote area service so often touted out for both the Builder and The Cardinal (Canada a little different; there is no highway through Kapitachuan Club, QC, but there is the Canadian Northern (CN) and VIA with a tri-weekly train).
Where does Amtrak serve into which there is no highway whatever?
So I think the LD trains are in a 1967 state (for those tuning in late, that is when the Post Office announced they would no longer use passenger trains to handle US Mail), Congress recognizes that Amtrak has done much to clean up its fiscal act, and now it is time to find other barrels of pork to bring home to the constituents.
Rather than amenity kits, time for ordering Adios drumheads?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the constant demand that only Amtrak "break even" with its operating costs? Why isn't that same demand made for highways and aviation?
No form of passenger transportation ever "makes money" if the capital costs are included.
Why do this country's political and economic leaders attack only Amtrak? So the can convince the public that they are "doing something about waste in government"? They are "all hat and no cattle," as some Texans say.
Make no mistake -- Anderson's real agenda is to destroy Amtrak, and he will get a nice "golden parachute" when he has done that. And America will be like Mexico, with absolutely no long-distance passenger trains at all, once Anderson and his cronies are done.
So - go ride long-distance trains while they are still running. Their days are numbered.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In answer to your question, Margaret: because the majority of people who ride Amtrak are not Republicans, and because the employees are unionized.
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Margaret, somehow I think there is a cadre around the several Amtrak discussion boards that hold, owing to the high capital costs you note, the corridors should be separated out and funded by sources, Federal and Local as at present, but separate from Amtrak, which would comprise Long Distance routes operated over the investor owned Class I system.
Now really volks what kind of "Chinaman's Chance" would such an enitty have at the funding trough? At best VIA, which somehow gets enough to "patch up their rolling museum", but not much more. They could probably establish a greater "raison d'etre" than could an LD only Amtrak (tourism far more of Canada's GNP than that of the US; the remote area card).
If Congress has decided to move on to other "cuts of pork" and is prepared to hold and fund a National System as mandated under RPSA70 interpreted to mean Corridors throughout the land, not necessarily interconnected ("Wick's Glue"), then it will be time for "a little Bing ".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading some recent news on the subject, I really have to think that the Amtrak-run long distance trains are on the way out.
Here's a quote from the president of RailPAC:
"It is therefore his (Mr. Anderson's) job to get rid of these losses by converting parts of the routes to “corridors”, i.e. day trains only up to about 400 miles maximum, and abandoning service on the rest. These corridors will be State subsidized or they will not exist."
What happens if a state, along a LD route, will not agree to pick up funding? Many to most states are strapped for cash (I will not mention Calif.). It is really up to the residents of the state to agree or not agree to pay the tab, ultimately, not the politician.
Could the LD routes be broken up into daytime only corridors for regional trains? I wonder if successful regional trains could expand to other states. Could the Cascades expand to Montana or Calif? The Capitol Corridor to Reno and Salt Lake City? The Pacific Surfliner to Arizona?
The other question I have has to do with volume of passengers. Could regional trains handle the number of passengers now traveling over the LD routes? I recently read, in a train magazine, that the most energy efficient means of hauling a large passenger load is the diesel locomotive. Could regional trains handle routes over tall mountain ranges?
Just some thoughts and ramblings before my morning caffeine break.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Amtrak stops running all long-distance trains, there probably won't be enough political support from Congress to keep paying for the holy and sainted NEC. That is because there will then be 23 sates with no LD service, and 46 senators who may not be willing to support a service that few of their constituents ever use.
Long-distance trains are like many other parts of the US infrastructure that no one person can ever use all parts of, but which are very important to keep this country functioning as the UNITED States of America, instead of as 50 separate countries.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people would be riding trains between New York and Washington if there was one a day that averaged 40 mph? Need I say more?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MargaretSPfan: If Amtrak stops running all long-distance trains, there probably won't be enough political support from Congress to keep paying for the holy and sainted NEC.
Margaret, this represents the "conventional wisdom" that you need an interconnected system national in scope, in order to garner the funding at Federal level.
This rationale appeared to be prevalent from A-Day through the Moorman regime.
Then it suddenly changed.
Apparently, it appears consensus exists between Amtrak management and Congress that "you'll be funded even without the interconnected National system". That there are part-locally funded regional passenger systems (and maybe a private sector one in Florida) satisfies the requirement of a "National System" under RPSA70.
Taxpayers in Lander, WY should be pleased that possibly "relief is on the way" $400M (my estimate of $$$ out the cookie jar to run the LD's) need not be expended in order to get the $1,900M to support (by and large) the infrastructure over which needed passenger trains operate.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another site had this link for a California rail conference that had comments by Anderson. His comments start about 1hr, 45min into it. Rather than believe all the railfan angst, listen to this and make your own judgement.
My impression of his priorities: safety including PTC and employee training, fleet renewal (for Amfleet I by getting DMU’s and P-42’s), getting stations “in a state of good repair”, on time performance (he said improvements are already being made to improve the portion Amtrak directly controls, and developing corridor services - he specifically mentioned gulf coast and Florida.
I didn’t hear anger, but he was annoyed during QandA with someone wanting to know when the Desert Wind would be restored (reply- it doesn’t make economic sense).
He did not say he was getting rid of all LD trains. He did say he believes there is a place for trains that are ‘experiential’ which I took to mean of a cruise train nature. He mentioned the CZ, Startlight, and Florida Service as candidates. He also said he believes they should improve end of ride connections including bus (he mentioned the good job in CA) and ride sharing.
So, he is not out to kill Amtrak but it will look different. I think he does not believe his mission is to provide service where there is a high cost and little demand such as remote rural areas. Rather, he believes the mandate is providing corridor services in the 300-400 mile range that is ‘competitive with other modes’. I think it will take Congress to change that outlook. As much as I like my LD train rides, I’m not sure they should.
It really was fun and useful in Europe to have frequent reliable service to go just about anywhere. Of course the unfortunate part is that in the U.S. there are so many places that will not be on anyone’s list for corridor services. But that’s true now even with our skeletal LD network and has been so since 1971.
His comments on the necessity for rail corridors were compelling: there will be no new significant interestate highways, there will be little additional lanes (he mentioned I-95 and that the NEC effectively goes to NC now). Airlines will no longer be able to justify small regional jet reinvestment (he should know). The population has about doubled since early Amtrak. He cited his rail travels in Europe and Asia as what he envisions Amtrak should look like. The next couple years will be most interesting.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a great link you located, Mr. Palmland.
Other sites have postings suggested that a questioner representing an advocacy group started in with the "party line" (why did you kill the Pacific Parlours, full service Dining, blah blah?) those same postings stated Mr. Anderson appeared agitated by some questions.
Go to 2:21:00 on the link; "We report, you decide".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you had a very good look, Mr. Palmland, at some of the best commuter trains with your travel to Europe. The ICE train would be high on my list.
But as you say, there are a lot rural areas that aren't suitable for commuter trains, especially west of the Mississippi. I wonder what he mean't by "experiential". One or two first class trains west of Denver would be nice. They would have to be, I think, in the RM category, engender high fares, and of course, have approval by the freights.
To jump to Mr. Norman's post, I'm still trying to figure out the relief to taxpayers in Lander, WY. My interest perked up as I used to live 20 min. from Lander. Were they considering some sort of coummuter train?. The only close town is Riverton with Rock Springs and Casper much further. Was there a proposal to bring back the CNW or CBQ to Lander ?
Mr Palmland, I think some of the commuter trains are great (eg Acela, Capitol Corridors, Cascades). However, I would really miss an overnight experience in a sleeper. Watching the stars at night, from you compartment, the sun rise in the morning, and having a HOT breakfast available in the morning.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Taxpayers in Lander, WY should be pleased that possibly "relief is on the way" $400M (my estimate of $$$ out the cookie jar to run the LD's) need not be expended in order to get the $1,900M to support (by and large) the infrastructure over which needed passenger trains operate.
quote:Originally posted by yukon11:
To jump to Mr. Norman's post, I'm still trying to figure out the relief to taxpayers in Lander, WY. My interest perked up as I used to live 20 min. from Lander. Were they considering some sort of coummuter train?. The only close town is Riverton with Rock Springs and Casper much further. Was there a proposal to bring back the CNW or CBQ to Lander
Richard, Lander, WY came to mind as it's located in the center of the state so devoid of people that it only has an "at-large" Congresswoman, no rail service, no scheduled air, and no bus. The taxpayers there should be relieved that a Federal agency, because of a quirk in the law keeps books and records as if it were a publicly held private sector business entity, has greatly maximized it's operational efficiency and with the reduction, and maybe even elimination of the woefully unprofitable line of business, will require less taxpayer funds for something, considering the nearest station (Havre MT or Green River UT) is 400mi away, they will never use.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In a different thread I note the HOR vote count. Long story short, NEC+IL+CA+WA=203. That means 15 votes. That's easy horse trading.
The Senate is the longer pole: 26 votes in those states, which means 25 to go. That said, the Senate is about bigger issues.
GBN is right, it's time to order some Adios drumheads for 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 and the CONO.
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Opinion appearing in Railway Age praising Mr.Anderson and the onjectives the columnist believes he hopes to achieve.
Fair Use:
Into this scene, interject Richard Anderson, the retired 60-something former Delta Airlines CEO who was tapped last year to head Amtrak. Anderson isn’t very popular in the community of rail enthusiasts. For better or worse, he is trying to run Amtrak a little more like a for-profit business and a little less like a rolling theme destination for retired railfans......The larger, looming issue is long-distance trains or what the passenger community simply refers to as LDTs. These trains have names that conjure great sentiment—Empire Builder, Crescent, California Zephyr and (Southwest) Chief. Probably correctly, the passenger rail community has concluded that Richard Anderson is willing to subjugate (or even eliminate) the LDTs in favor of more heavily patronized, more economically relevant and often state-supported regional corridor services.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
