by wigwagfan
Ask Genesee & Wyoming how they feel about running passenger trains. (WES Commuter Rail on the Portland & Western Railroad.)
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
west point wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:03 pm Don't forget that CSX wants out of operating MARC Brunswick and Camden line trains .Wanted. MARC Brunswick/Camden line trains are now operated by Bombardier(nee Alstrom). They're still running on CSX lines, though.
wigwagfan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:59 pmThis is a true mystery. The agreement worked well since the beginning of public-funded commuter trains. Now there's a big lawsuit. Rumor is that Metra tried to force UP to accept common carrier status and UP wants to continue to be a contract operator. I don't blame UP, those are Metra's trains now.charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:48 pm Unless I misremember, Union Pacific and BNSF are running passenger trains right now on behalf of Metra, the Chicago-area commuter rail agency.UP also wants out of operating Metra's trains.
Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:36 amThis leads to a really important point that Mr. Norman and I have been hinting at: It's not just the annual funding to cover operating losses, it's not just capitol funding to buy new coaches every 25 years, it's the idea that in 1971 the government could no longer force the railroad to run loser passenger trains and set the fares at the same time. That's the double whammy that put so many railroads deep under water. That's why UP doesn't want to be a common carrier for passenger trains - that subjects them to far more review and regulation than as a contract operator for Metra. They don't want to ever be in the position CNJ or Lacakwanna were in 1965, when they couldn't pay their New Jersey property taxes on the commuter train properties with fares set by New Jersey, and those roads had little way out but oblivion.Also the fact that while the government was putting a quintuple squeeze on railroads (forced passenger service & route structure, artificially low fares, twice as much crew as needed, absurdly high property taxes, and withdrawal of most US Post Office contracts [pre-US Postal Service]), it was funding both automotive and airborne competition with firehoses of money. In hindsight, AAR could have sued the Federal government (for ICC regulations) and individual state governments (for high property taxes) on behalf of the industry for unfair practices and illegal takings.
We might still have private passenger trains today if the carriers had the ability to set market rates, viable crew headcounts, restructure routes and frequencies, and dump the albatross giant stations.
bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:05 am Many above have mentioned mail contracts. Remember that the USPS Inspector General recommended using more rail in 2012. Nothing apparently came of it. I even thought that that might have been the reason behind Amtrak changing the baggage dorms to just plan baggage cars. Perhaps this could be the first step?I think that needs it's own thread (lest we derail this one more).
https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/not-your-f ... s-railroad
STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:24 pmAnd that's why we have this thread!bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:05 am Many above have mentioned mail contracts. Remember that the USPS Inspector General recommended using more rail in 2012. Nothing apparently came of it. I even thought that that might have been the reason behind Amtrak changing the baggage dorms to just plan baggage cars. Perhaps this could be the first step?I think that needs it's own thread (lest we derail this one more).
https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/not-your-f ... s-railroad
charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:48 pmBut if they're getting a combination of subsidies, tax incentives, and publicly funded infrastructure projects, private companies are surviving off the back of the taxpayers the same as NJT or SEPTA and having worked for PATCO I can assure you higher pay and tighter work rules than government agencies, which require additional combinations of subsidies, tax incentives, and publicly funded infrastructure projects, so what's the point?WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:54 pm Can we get the freight railroads to operate passenger trains again?If there's money in it, of course, the answer would be yes. In the 1960s the U.S. Post Office effectively subsidized quite a few passenger trains. A combination of subsidies, tax incentives, and publicly funded infrastructure projects would probably be necessary to get any railroad interested in getting into the passenger business.
In a word----No.
Unless I misremember, Union Pacific and BNSF are running passenger trains right now on behalf of Metra, the Chicago-area commuter rail agency.
mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:19 amYou also have the government edicts that told the railroads to keep their hands off airlines and ship lines. Perhaps if they hadn't been so anti-railroad, carriers could have constructed cohesive multi-modal service networks. At one time B&M and Santa Fe had airlines, and most eastern roads had some sort of marine operations whether on Lake MIchigan, New York Harbor, or Virginia tidewater.Tadman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:36 amThis leads to a really important point that Mr. Norman and I have been hinting at: It's not just the annual funding to cover operating losses, it's not just capitol funding to buy new coaches every 25 years, it's the idea that in 1971 the government could no longer force the railroad to run loser passenger trains and set the fares at the same time. That's the double whammy that put so many railroads deep under water. That's why UP doesn't want to be a common carrier for passenger trains - that subjects them to far more review and regulation than as a contract operator for Metra. They don't want to ever be in the position CNJ or Lacakwanna were in 1965, when they couldn't pay their New Jersey property taxes on the commuter train properties with fares set by New Jersey, and those roads had little way out but oblivion.Also the fact that while the government was putting a quintuple squeeze on railroads (forced passenger service & route structure, artificially low fares, twice as much crew as needed, absurdly high property taxes, and withdrawal of most US Post Office contracts [pre-US Postal Service]), it was funding both automotive and airborne competition with firehoses of money. In hindsight, AAR could have sued the Federal government (for ICC regulations) and individual state governments (for high property taxes) on behalf of the industry for unfair practices and illegal takings.
We might still have private passenger trains today if the carriers had the ability to set market rates, viable crew headcounts, restructure routes and frequencies, and dump the albatross giant stations.
Of course hindsight is 20/20 and it’s likely there wouldn’t be private LD services anyway. But that would leveled the playing field a bit.
It's not always that easy, the government agencies that run these services are notorious for not playing ball. In order to sell Airtrain tickets or Flyaway tickets, the agency that runs the service has to want to sell them to the broker.So can these apps help with transporting freight from passenger trains to passenger planes....????
Typical excuses include
- It's not possible
- We tried that in 1994 and it didn't work
- Nobody wants to do that
Services like Expedia and Travelocity are very good at picking up ancillary sales to the plane tickets. You can bet if LA County Airport Authority played ball, Expedia would sell Flyaway tickets. Given that Flyaway services LAUPT, Amtrak should sell them, too. Imagine buying a $40 San Diegans ticket, a $20 Flyaway ticket, and a $700 round trip to Chicago on United all from Amtrak.com. Amtrak could make some serious scrilla!
And let's be real, it's not a question of competing with the Chief. The chief has a forgettable sliver of that market.