Interesting Conservative Take on Amtrak

SouthernRailway wrote:the few advanced (?) countries that still has a national state railroad .

Almost all European countries. None of them have the fantasy "private" railway system that American rightwingers dream of. No country in the world has a railway system not supported by taxes from the government. BTW that includes Britain which has a subsidised system just as much as all the others.

george matthews wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:the few advanced (?) countries that still has a national state railroad .

Almost all European countries. None of them have the fantasy "private" railway system that American rightwingers dream of. No country in the world has a railway system not supported by taxes from the government. BTW that includes Britain which has a subsidised system just as much as all the others.

george matthews, unfortunately you selected only a portion of the complete sentence to quote, and as a result you completely twisted what I wrote.

I wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:It's unfortunate that the People's Republic of Obamastan (f/k/a the USA) is one of the few advanced (?) countries that still has a national state railroad that is supported by tax dollars, without having many possibly more efficient other structures examined closely

What that means is:

Other countries have a national state railroad supported by tax dollars but have also looked at other structures (such as private operators).

The US has a national state railroad supported by tax dollars and has not closely looked at other structures.

Yes, Iowa Pacific runs 1 train in Indiana and legislation that the Republican Congress passed allows a few routes to be offered to bidders, but those are drops in the bucket compared to how far the EU has gone in forcing national railroads to accept private operators as competitors.

And, yes, I know that British private operators are subsidized more heavily than Amtrak is, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of private operators running Amtrak's trains for less subsidy.

SouthernRailway wrote:
the People's Republic of Obamastan (f/k/a the USA)

The loud sucking noise I hear is your credibility leaving the discussion after you post drivel like that to an otherwise meaningful thread.

Ocala Mike wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:
the People's Republic of Obamastan (f/k/a the USA)

The loud sucking noise I hear is your credibility leaving the discussion after you post drivel like that to an otherwise meaningful thread.

Sheesh, a bit thin-skinned? The expression is from Stephen Colbert, and he often uses it.

You're welcome to find flaws in my arguments, but if you're going to get up in arms due to use of a Stephen Colbert expression, it's time to lighten up a bit first.

In the UK, the subsidy has risen about 4x time what it was when it was privatised in 1993. There are differences then to now to consider for a proper like for like comparison
Inflation obviously, this can be calculated to give equivalent figures but I can't be bothered
A far greater number of passenger journeys are made
Less freight is carried
Ticket prices have risen above inflation

SouthernRailway wrote:[

Other countries have a national state railroad supported by tax dollars but have also looked at other structures (such as private operators).



The US has a national state railroad supported by tax dollars and has not closely looked at other structures.

Yes, Iowa Pacific runs 1 train in Indiana and legislation that the Republican Congress passed allows a few routes to be offered to bidders, but those are drops in the bucket compared to how far the EU has gone in forcing national railroads to accept private operators as competitors.

And, yes, I know that British private operators are subsidized more heavily than Amtrak is, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of private operators running Amtrak's trains for less subsidy.

No railway in any country is self-supporting. It's a silly rightwing fantasy that it could be.

The idea that there are no privately funded and operated trains turning a profit in the world is false. There are inter city trains in Japan running without government subsidies.

electricron wrote:There are inter city trains in Japan running without government subsidies.

I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim, but even if it is true, the conditions under which those trains run are so vastly different from anything here in the US as to be irrelevant to any discussion of Amtrak.

MBTA3247 wrote:

electricron wrote:There are inter city trains in Japan running without government subsidies.

I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim, but even if it is true, the conditions under which those trains run are so vastly different from anything here in the US as to be irrelevant to any discussion of Amtrak.

What are those conditions? (fare, number of passengers per train, number of staff per train, length/width of coaches...) So, cost per mile per seat, cost per mile per passenger, revenue per mile per passenger. Should be able to compare.

BandA wrote:What are those conditions? (fare, number of passengers per train, number of staff per train, length/width of coaches...) So, cost per mile per seat, cost per mile per passenger, revenue per mile per passenger. Should be able to compare.

To start with: Japan's very high population density, lower rate of car ownership, a society that keeps trains and stations spotless, 3+2 seating...

but most of all: government capital investment that built an elevated, passenger-only ROW which enables 175 mph operations that are 99.9% on time to the minute.

SouthernRailway wrote:Unfortunately the government needs to prop up passenger rail because it's a classic case of market failure: it's a worthwhile service that the private sector will not provide on its own. Transportation is one of the fundamental roles of government, according to Adam Smith, who's allegedly one of the favorite economists of those of us on the political right, so favoring government support on Amtrak is completely consistent with classic conservatism.

"Classic" being the key word. What we have been seeing in Washington is IMHO definitely NOT that. The type of "conservative politics" we're seeing today is -from what I see- nothing really more than "anti-social welfare programs that suck money blah blah blah" mentality.


There's a reason why the former Republican Governors of VA and CT were both pro-active in their respective states' passenger/commuter rail plans. Gov. Rell is in fact THE reason why Metro-North has M-8s at all; her predecessor (who ironically also named her as her Lt. Gov. to boot!) wasn't exactly helpful..

NH2060 wrote: There's a reason why the former Republican Governors of VA and CT were both pro-active in their respective states' passenger/commuter rail plans. Gov. Rell is in fact THE reason why Metro-North has M-8s at all; her predecessor (who ironically also named her as her Lt. Gov. to boot!) wasn't exactly helpful..

Let's not include commuter and light rail trains with Amtrak, who's primary concern is inter city service, not commuter nor intra city services. Commuter rail and light rail services exist in very conservative ran cities, they are not exclusive to very liberal ran cities.

george matthews wrote: No railway in any country is self-supporting. It's a silly rightwing fantasy that it could be.

US freight railroads are (though barely, if you net out the government spending that goes for certain infrastructure programs and the like). No passenger railroad that I know of is fully self-supporting, whether in the US or elsewhere. UK private operators are certainly not self-supporting; they receive subsidies per passenger-mile much higher than Amtrak does.

Conversely, no public railroad is free of private sector input, either. Sorry, Jeremy Corbyn and his ilk.

I'd be dandy with considering privatizing some of the Amtrak long distance options with fare and scheduling integration if the political climate towards passenger rail was more favorable. Even though it has a chance of working if the right kind of company took on the challenge, my fear would be that a failure would lead to the complete elimination of the route.

BandA wrote:Ever hear of the military-industrial complex?

Eisenhower warned us about this, sadly we didn't listen. Other nations have extensive rail passenger systems and well as national health insurance as they don't have the MIC to keep fed.

The MIC is really happy ISIS came along because if it didn't they'd have to invent it ..... oh wait.

On the subject of political discussions here at railroad net, perhaps we need to create a sub forum just for such "off topic" discussions. As a railroader and railfan who's interested in railroads around the world, one of the foreign rail forums I read is Railpage Australia. One of the sub forums over there is called The Lounge. The Lounge is a place where RPA members can discuss topics not directly related to railroads.

The Lounge -
https://www.railpage.com.au/f-f36.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This might be a good way to keep political discussions from getting locked or deleted. Hopefully this message will be seen before this thread gets locked or deleted .....