Amtrak v. NS - Twitterwar

Also worth noting a lot more than it's mentioned is that any land covered by the grants that was more than a half-day trip by horse and wagon from a navigable waterway was fit only for subsistence farming until the railroad was built. The building of the railroad was what increased the value of the land, and there some lean times before the number of settlers began to constitute a traffic base. Of course this applies only in the case of land-grant railroads--which not all of them were, by a long shot.

The point raised above about raising freight rates is invalid--freight rates are determined by the price of competitive transportation, mostly by truck and waterway. Raising freight rates to compensate for unremunerative passenger service would merely drive the freight away from the railroads, replacing inadequate revenue with no revenue. It can be easy to forget that it's the freight trains that make it possible for the trackage to exist in the first place. Example: there was a comment made in another thread that the only feasible route for Chicago-Indianapolis service is that of the former James Whitcomb Riley. The freight that used to move over that route now moves in other ways, and the track is gone.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I've said it around here before and I'll say it again; The railroads joining Amtrak made a "Faustian pact with the Devil".

The "strongs" could have survived the statutory five year moratorium on train discontinuances, but the industry chose "solidarity" with the "weaks" and largely signed up.

Even if they did not get the LD's off during '76, they would have during '80 with enactment of the Staggers Act.

While likely some arrangement would have been made to continue the NEC (maybe along the lines of NSW TrainLink which is essentially a Sydney, NSW commuter operation that operates a skeleton Sydney-Melbourne, VIC, and Sydney-Brisbane QLD intercity services that Trip Advisor says to "stay off"), all would be gone. The West Coast services would never have had the mechanics to get up and running, and the LD's?; as many as there are in Mexico.

I quite enjoyed the Sydney-Brisbane train some 30 years ago. And the southbound train on the parallel line.

JoeBas wrote:If I give you a dollar, and then take $.10 back, I'm not "Stealing $.10 from you", and it's not "institutionalized theft".

The US government GRANTED the land that these entities run on in exchange for the public benefit they provided. I'll agree to your POV, when NS writes the US Treasury a check for the true value of all that property. In today's dollars, SVP.

Otherwise, NS can STFU and stop crying poor mouth just because they want to subsidize cost and privatize profit.

The US Government also granted 160 acre farms to 1.6 million homesteaders (10% of all land in the US); using your argument the US Government could demand every person living on such lands to pay today's true price for it. What a horrible POV to take!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once you give something away, you have no rights to demand getting it back.

george matthews wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ........maybe along the lines of NSW TrainLink which is essentially a Sydney, NSW commuter operation that operates a skeleton Sydney-Melbourne, VIC, and Sydney-Brisbane QLD intercity services that Trip Advisor says to "stay off".....

I quite enjoyed the Sydney-Brisbane train some 30 years ago. And the southbound train on the parallel line.

Mr. Matthews, you are a much more rugged and adventuresome guy than is the average Trip Advisor user - and for that matter, me.

And now, back to the topic.

electricron wrote: The US Government also granted 160 acre farms to 1.6 million homesteaders (10% of all land in the US); using your argument the US Government could demand every person living on such lands to pay today's true price for it. What a horrible POV to take!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once you give something away, you have no rights to demand getting it back.

They're not demanding giving it back. Nobody's (seriously) talking about nationalizing the infrastructure.

By that argument, asking those taxpayers to pay property taxes on the land they were GIVEN is tantamount to theft. What a horrible POV to take!

The land grant and related issues are long past. The US government strangled the railroads to death and paid the price when half the railroads went bankrupt and they had to create Amtrak and Conrail. In recent renewals of Amtrak's legislation, the teeth have been taken out of enforcement and I believe the 1997 was the last year freights were truly required to yield to Amtrak's demands.


We can keep stamping our feet and demanding we run thinks like 1971, but every day of that is a loss in credibility to all the outsiders. When you see journalists at Gawker and Forbes thinking out loud about how bad Amtrak is, it's a wakeup call. This isn't mean old Donald Trump, it's millenials and journalists. When you see millenials taking megabus or flixbus for $20 instead of Amtrak trains, it' because it just doesn't work. When you see Amtrak carries less than 1% of intercity travel, it just doesn't work.

Do you want to do something today to save Amtrak or should we just keep sailing toward that iceberg at 14mph?

Tadman wrote: Do you want to do something today to save Amtrak or should we just keep sailing toward that iceberg at 14mph?

22.5 kts (25.9mph) vice 14 mph.

https://titanicfacts.net/titanic-sinking/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironically, most experts believe that if the Titanic had done just that (sailed straight at it and hit it head-on), it would have fared much better...

But I digress. The point I'm making is that yet again, someone who has an obligation to the American Public is trying to weasel out of it under the guise of freedom and liberty and mom and apple pie, and too many people swallow the bullcrap.

Don't like the system, NS? Then use your army of paid vultures from K street to change it. Until then, live up to your damned obligations, no matter how "unfair" you and your pack of sycophants think it is.

The deck is already stacked in your favor, and you want to whine like a little [censored] about being called out on the internet??? Really? Weak sauce.

JoeBas wrote:Don't like the system, NS? Then use your army of paid vultures from K street to change it. Until then, live up to your damned obligations, no matter how "unfair" you and your pack of sycophants think it is.

The problem is PRIIA seems to have less teeth than the original enabling legislation, neither of which had very effective enforcement methods for timekeeping issues and priority issues. This can be seen as legislative intent, an intent to say "we're serious, but not that serious, about following the rules". The legislators have had 50 years and many clear opportunities to put some teeth in this and they haven't. It's the Amtrak equivalent of an automobile owner speeding at 5mph over. There are no points on your license and a policeman will not likely pull you over, despite 5mph over being a clear violation of the law.

This article is an interesting exploration of PRIIA. In a nutshell, they wrote a pretty crummy timekeeping enforcement method which has been subject to numerous deep legal challenges. Were it a real problem to congress, they probably would've re-drafted this part of PRIIA in the last ten years, but they haven't.

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/a ... cheduling/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally, if congress were really intent on having trains run on time, they could always ask NS or other freights for a cost proposal, and negotiate just like JB Hunt does for a fast train. There is always that.

Tad: while asking freight companies to negotiate a rate isn’t a terrible idea on its face, that sounds like a good way to pay appx $5 billion more yearly (call it a billion each to the four American hosts and half a bill to each Canadian) for results that may only be worth $1b or less of public good.

Speaking of rates, does anyone know if Amtrak pays the same "flat rate" to all railroads or is it a variable negotiated rate? I have never heard anywhere what rate they pay and if it depends on speed allowed, class of track or any other factors.

mtuandrew wrote:Tad: while asking freight companies to negotiate a rate isn’t a terrible idea on its face, that sounds like a good way to pay appx $5 billion more yearly (call it a billion each to the four American hosts and half a bill to each Canadian) for results that may only be worth $1b or less of public good.

That depends on how you compute the value of the "public good." Based on those figures it looks like at present the freight railroads may be substantially contributing to the public good.

ExCon90 wrote:That depends on how you compute the value of the "public good." Based on those figures it looks like at present the freight railroads may be substantially contributing to the public good.

It really does. The Congressional Budget Office, Amtrak, the White House, the majority, minority, and any third parties, the AAR, and advocacy groups would have wildly different numbers of how much freight railroads contribute to the public good and therefore how much they should be paid to host Amtrak (if they should be paid, or conversely if they should be forced to host Amtrak at all.) Throw in both passenger and freight equipment manufacturers with their own estimates too.

What is even worse is that the Crescent route NOL <>BNM might get more traffic from UP haulage trains / Its just speculation but who knows ?

The eastbound Pennsylvanian (42) seems really delayed lately. Today it was running 3 hours late.