GOP Seeks Bidders on Amtrak Rail Lines

Here's my thought; privatize the northeast corridor and use it as a beginning to privatize Amtrak. By privatizing the routes that could be profitable on their own. Coordinate those routes under a private Amtrak management, then the routes that require improvement before they can be considered able to stand alone. Once a route reaches a percentage of profitability, lets say %15 percent of it's operating costs, it is handed over to the private Amtrak management. Eventually, Amtrak could become self-sufficient. Amtrak could then contract out it's trains to other railroads to operate, with Amtrak providing equipment, and the contracted railroad giving the train crews. Amtrak could then contract with railroads to operate high-priority piggy-back and inter-modal trains, which could provide well needed revenue (Amtrak would provide crews, and get a share of the profits taken in by those trains, say 20%), and provide funds for capitol improvements, like new equipment, etc.

DutchRailnut wrote:untill the GOP gives guarantees that Government will cover any losses they won't get any bids
And if Government covers losses are we not back at what Amtrak is ??

There are no private operators of passenger rail for a reason. Those that are stick to the realm of excursions and special events, where the entire cost of operation is covered.

daylight4449 wrote:Here's my thought; privatize the northeast corridor and use it as a beginning to privatize Amtrak.

Ah to be 16 and have all the answers. "Privatization" is a joke that politicians play on the public in order to get votes. But you're too young to understand that fully, I get that.

daylight4449 wrote:Here's my thought; privatize the northeast corridor and use it as a beginning to privatize Amtrak. By privatizing the routes that could be profitable on their own. Coordinate those routes under a private Amtrak management, then the routes that require improvement before they can be considered able to stand alone. Once a route reaches a percentage of profitability, lets say %15 percent of it's operating costs, it is handed over to the private Amtrak management. Eventually, Amtrak could become self-sufficient. Amtrak could then contract out it's trains to other railroads to operate, with Amtrak providing equipment, and the contracted railroad giving the train crews. Amtrak could then contract with railroads to operate high-priority piggy-back and inter-modal trains, which could provide well needed revenue (Amtrak would provide crews, and get a share of the profits taken in by those trains, say 20%), and provide funds for capitol improvements, like new equipment, etc.

Otto Vondrak wrote:Ah to be 16 and have all the answers. "Privatization" is a joke that politicians play on the public in order to get votes. But you're too young to understand that fully, I get that.

Nice not having to be the site admin, isn't it Otto?

But, what he said. All that would be accomplished by outsourcing Amtrak management to the private sector would be more waste, more graft, and less service for the same amount of money paid. I've advocated studying whether host railroads could staff and run long-distance trains on Amtrak's behalf, though that's probably a non-starter, but the management absolutely needs to remain in-house. Until the entire Amtrak system approaches profitability without government subsidy, there's no reason to keep beating this subject into the ground.

The only route that would make even the smallest amount of sense to privatize would be the Northeast Corridor. I still don't think it would work, though.

In addition, no company would ever want to take over operations on Amtrak's current long distance routes.

Overall, Amtrak isn't doing too badly, and I think that with a bit more funding (Yes, the ARRA and other grants are a start, but more will eventually be required.) they are perfectly capable of serving this country's passenger rail needs.

This is the crux of the whole thing:

Foreign rail-service operators have been angling to develop high-speed rail in the U.S., where Amtrak's fastest Acela trains average 85 miles per hour, far slower than the 220-mph pace found in Europe and Asia

Not only is that a mischaracterization and contradiction of terms (average speed versus top speed), and not only does it leave out important details (construction of new rights of way plus running non-tilting trains to run at speeds approaching 220 mph, versus using traditional rights of way and tilt trains to operate at speeds above 140 mph), but this is the continued selling out of the nation's infrastructure to foreign elements that may be (or indeed are) hostile to the USA. Might be members of the "GOP" advancing this, but they certainly are no conservatives.

I sometimes wish we could ban knee jerk reactions.

Freight operations could help to off-set the cost of the capital infrastructure maintenance Amtrak endures on the NEC. Does anyone have an idea how much NS currently pays for it's operations on the NEC?

[quote="daylight4449" wrote:Here's my thought; privatize the northeast corridor and use it as a beginning to privatize Amtrak.

With quotes like this and friends like this; WHO NEEDS ENEMIES!!! Ignorance is bliss.
Noel Weaver

DutchRailnut wrote:We are getting off topic, and maybe we should make this into a seperate topic, but where in world do highspeed or medium speed passenger operations share track, with freight cars of upto 289 000 Lbs and freight locomotives weighing in at upto 436 000 lbs on 6 axles.

Thats a good point, and maybe we should split the topic, but I think it would be silly to not consider a freight operator being interested in the NEC. Outside the box? Yes, but could be a possibility. Granted im not too knowledgeable in world wide rail operations and companies, but it sure seems to me that pool of legitimate bidders would be relatively small, even including foreign operators.

And the sharing of the tracks with more freight trains could limit high speed operations. Its no secret they want a new ROW dedicated for high speed rail to roughly parallel the NEC.

Hmmmmmmmmm

would it be easier for a private firm (with obvious gov't backing) to acquire land today compared to a federal agency aka Amtrak or the DOT?

I think something needs to be done to the NEC and Amtrak either needs more help or competition, it just needs too much work for Amtrak to handle (IMO of course) - but I dont' see how a private firm can do it either.......i would think the DOT or FRA taking ownership and contracting/bidding out some of the work would be better as you could get more work done at the same time, while not always relying on Amtrak crews to do it, whos members might be spread too thin to do all the work needed at once. That was shown with the derail in the East river tunnels - track crews had to drop what htey were doing and respond to that (a big incident of course all hands on deck) but it also shows how spread thin they could be.

Its not always having or not having the money to get things done, but the manpower as well. But work agreements are a big issue for this to happen and rightfully so, but thats something that needs to be figured out, but I don't see how totally throwing out the baby with the bath water will help ANYONE either....

It is possible for private passenger rail to be profitable in certain conditions, and that is least likely to happen as long as government is subsidizing any transportation. It would require substantially desubsidizing and deregulating and eliminating taxation of transportation, energy, and land use. By deregulation, I refer to business regulation such as FTC, SEC, and STB and not necessarily all environmental and safety rules although these are at an absurd level. Sell all interstate and limited access highways to private investors to do as they wish. Any major highway can easily be profitable as a toll road and the users will pay the true cost rather than having it laundered through taxation. Surface streets and rural roads should be funded at the local level, or revert to ownership by adjacent property owners or the deed holders in a subdivision, which is how roads were in the first place. Stop subsidizing and regulating the aviation business and privatize the airports. Also get rid of zoning, government controlled planning, property taxes, FEMA flood insurance, and all such manipulations of where people live and work. In time transportation and land use will favor a more efficient and higher density pattern, which is more similar to how things were when passenger rail was viable. Then rail might become a more attractive travel option and business as its cost effectiveness will balance with the alternatives in certain routes.

Milwaukee_F40C wrote:It is possible for private passenger rail to be profitable in certain conditions, and that is least likely to happen as long as government is subsidizing any transportation. It would require substantially desubsidizing and deregulating and eliminating taxation of transportation, energy, and land use. By deregulation, I refer to business regulation such as FTC, SEC, and STB and not necessarily all environmental and safety rules although these are at an absurd level. Sell all interstate and limited access highways to private investors to do as they wish. Any major highway can easily be profitable as a toll road and the users will pay the true cost rather than having it laundered through taxation. Surface streets and rural roads should be funded at the local level, or revert to ownership by adjacent property owners or the deed holders in a subdivision, which is how roads were in the first place. Stop subsidizing and regulating the aviation business and privatize the airports. Also get rid of zoning, government controlled planning, property taxes, FEMA flood insurance, and all such manipulations of where people live and work. In time transportation and land use will favor a more efficient and higher density pattern, which is more similar to how things were when passenger rail was viable. Then rail might become a more attractive travel option and business as its cost effectiveness will balance with the alternatives in certain routes.

Privatitization of passenger rail worked for JP Morgan and Corny Vanderbilt but alot of folks could not afford those old long distance trains and chose horses. They were called robber barons for a reason and submitting our railroads and other forms of transportation to total deregulation may be a 21st century robber barrons "free" marketers dream but would be a nightmare for the rest of us.

I've moved all the posts about Freight and Passenger operations on the same line into a new thread so this can remain focused on the GOP's proposal.

gprimr1 wrote:I sometimes wish we could ban knee jerk reactions.

Like this one?

Milwaukee_F40C wrote:It is possible for private passenger rail to be profitable in certain conditions...

Examples, please? Limited to America, if possible, please.

mtuandrew wrote:Nice not having to be the site admin, isn't it Otto?

So nice. SO nice.