In 1970/1971, why was Amtrak created instead of subsidizing private railroads?

Tree Top (Trans Texas), Mr. (Captain, Officer) West Point; flew 'em DAL-ABI during '68

Amazing how Lorenzo used them as the catalyst for his union busting airline empire also comprising Eastern and Continental.

But, in an attempt to return to topic, by '68 the Missouri Pacific no longer had any train to Abilene, by then, they no longer had any Pullmans systemwide, so the experience in a Coach simply would have been an "endurance contest".

Oh and finally, DAL Dallas Love Field; DFW simply "wasn't".

west point wrote:eolesen: Thanks for the info. Lost track of may of the almost illegal take over of EAL by Texas air. Better known as Trans Texas (TT air ) or Tree Top air. TT took National and then Continental and then EAL. Continental was considered the lincoln of the passenger amenities. Some how the "Dock" employee protections were not followed.

My first airline job with PEX started and ended indirectly because of Lorenzo, and I worked for TXI briefly and had a CAL employee number because of that.

TXI only had $12M when they made their run for National (as did EAL), but were outbid by Pan Am (arguably the start of their downfall). PAA paid Lorenzo $45M for his NAL shares which is what funded the takeover of CAL.

EAL is a sad story... but its not all on Lorenzo's shoulders. Their unions essentially opened the doors for Lorenzo by refusing to work with Frank Borman. Go find a copy of "Grounded" by Aaron Bernstein. One of my most-reread books along with "Splash of Colors" about Braniff's demise...

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 9:01 am .One of my most-reread books along with "Splash of Colors" about Braniff's demise.

Second Mr. Olesen's thoughts with regards to John J. Nance's masterful "Splash of Colors". It should be noted that prior to becoming a celebrated author and TV airline safety commentator, Capt. Nance was just that with Braniff.

As he describes, the Braniff shutdown of their Inter-American routes, he depicts the "what's going on" lack of communication between management and the public contact front line. He describes how Officers and Attendants knew they were flying home (especially important as there was the possibility of civil seizure of aircraft - never to be seen again) to unemployment.

But they were "pros to the end".

But back on the rails, I was sent out to Harlowtown MT when the MILW "shut 'er down" during November '79. It was uncomfortable being a "management stooge" out there, but all concerned, just like Capt. Nance reported, were pro's to the end.

All I could do was, as I drove off and back to Billings to "get outta Dodge" was thank the MofW and Mechanical personnel for their cooperation and wishing them luck.

Finally, whether realized or not, Mr. Olesen has acknowledged here that he has been employed within the air transport industry.

I've never hid where I've spent my career. I choose not to share the details unless they're relevant.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 9:01 am My first airline job with PEX started and ended indirectly because of Lorenzo, and I worked for TXI briefly and had a CAL employee number because of that.

When Lorenzo and Texas Air (and Continental) were mentioned, I wondered if PEX was going to come up. The one time I flew them (and I don't fly often) a storm came in and I spent 9 hours in the old North Terminal at EWR. Our plane finally arrived from Pittsburgh, we boarded, got de-iced, by the time we got to the head of the takeoff line we had to go get de-iced again, some people bailed because they had already missed whatever they were going to ALB for.... I did eventually get there safe and sound and I don't really remember the return so I guess it was uneventful.

I had never ridden Amtrak at that point (Maine wouldn't have it for another dozen or so years) so I had no clue about train travel (vague handwavy attempt to be somewhere near topic).

Somewhere back their was the statement that private railroads were already being subsidized, where? If you are talking mail contracts, that is not a subsidy. Taxes and regulations stayed the same, no government [federal, state, local] wanted to give up their revenue and all still believed the railroads were like they were in the 'robber baron' days.

Amtrak's primary reason was the Penn Central bankruptcy in June 1970; ideas were getting kicked around before but that bankruptcy shoved it ahead. Nobody wanted the Big Red Subway shutdown.

RPO's did not lend themselves well to USPO shift to zip codes and sorting centers.

I suppose they could have modeled it after Essential Air Service, if you wanted it to remain private operation with subsidies to cover losses. Some will say the losses would be inflated, but with government auditors I think the losses would have been very close to actual losses.

Interesting discussion on reservation systems, do we have a separate topic for that, because that still is something after 52 years.

ctclark1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:46 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:24 pm During the early days, the railroads simply held "turnkey" purchase of service agreements with Amtrak.

So, what I'm reading is that it was basically "subsidized" until Amtrak actually got its feet under it and could hire its own crews/purchase its own equipment?

First, message quoted in its entirety as all is necessary to address Mr. URR's immediate.

Intercity passenger trains operated for railroad accounts were never "subsidized"; in fact, a hidebound, political weathervane, regilatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that was "sunsetted" by the Staggers Act, forced the operation of passenger trains to the point that they represented a severe financial threat to the entire railroad industry.

Now as I earlier noted, the very first Amtrak train to operate, namely #235 departing Penn for Phila at 1205A. And even though such was noted within a General Order. I doubt if anyone had knowledge - including the crew - (the Rule Book along with tickets lifted and cash fares cut all showed PC) that this was an Amtrak train. What Amtrak had entered into on A-Day was Purchase of Service Agreements, as distinct from subsidies, to operate the trains proscribed by RPSA70.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 9:50 am Intercity passenger trains operated for railroad accounts were never "subsidized"; in fact, a hidebound, political weathervane, regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that was "sunsetted" by the Staggers Act, forced the operation of passenger train to the point that they represented a severe financial threat to the entire railroad industry.

Prior to 1965 even commuter and local service was usually not subsidized as well. If a railroad wanted to discontinue passenger service, it had to file a Notice of Discontinuation with the state public utilities commissioner (and also ICC if service was interstate) and many public utilities commissioners often refused cancellation of services deemed important, even if deficit generating , as commuter service was deemed critical to a state or region's economy.

Any route over a certain length was usually not subject to commuter subsidy and often on the chopping block.

Hence the establishment of state and local agencies in passenger rail at this time: PSIC in Philadelphia (1961), MBTA (1964), MTA (1965), NJDOT (1966), Chicago RTA (1974).

I recall that when the EL suburban services out of Hoboken were in real danger of discontinuance around that time there were serious discussions between the EL and Dwight Palmer, then head of New Jersey's Highway Department (as it then was) about the possibility of State support; I think that was one of the earliest beginnings of public support for commuter transportation. In the ensuing years a number of states added "Transportation" to the names of their Highway Departments.

First, a PEX anecdote. In maybe '86 or '87, I flew home from college on what was meant to be a one-stop at EWR. We were deplaned there and told there'd been a mechanical issue with the first plane. Boarded the second, taxied, began take-off.

Heard extraordinarily loud boom. Came to a stop near end of runway, turned back and everyone was deplaned again. Many chose not to board the 3rd plane. I got on, and sadly was too young to (legally) partake of the free beer and spirits offered to everyone. Did make it home without further incident or explosion.

Back to topic, early in the thread, someone mentioned that the initial Amtrak runs were payment for service contracts with the roads, and someone else suggested that that was transitional till Amtrak could get up to speed. Yet at the same time, Metra or its forerunner began its payment for service set-up, which continued for decades and in some cases, to this day. Why the difference? Why were freights willing to keep playing with Metra, but not with Amtrak?

But even the POS contracts were made by Amtrak, not by listing them in specifically in a law and budgeting for each one separately. After the very first few weeks or months, weren't all the conductors and onboard staff in Amtrak uniforms selling or lifting Amtrak tickets and whatnot, even while Amtrak was paying the host railroads to provide the crews?

Wasn't the idea to create an independent body that could look at all the potential routes, pick a system that seemed rational and workable, and close down all the other routes--and then either gradually shut down the remaining routes or build up passenger traffic again, depending on who's A-day hopes you're remembering (eg NARP's and many congresspeople's vs many railroads and some other congresspeople's)? In other words, wasn't Amtrak kind of like the famous military base closing commission, a way for Congress to authorize needed train-offs and subsidies without individual senators and representatives being on the hook for specific trains, being lobbied by different towns and different railroads, etc?

And wasnt the idea also to make one coherent national network that would save money on central services like ticketing and passenger equipment maintenance and that could coordinate schedules and make through fares and whatnot?

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:30 pm Wasn't the idea to create an independent body that could look at all the potential routes, pick a system that seemed rational and workable, and close down all the other routes--and then either gradually shut down the remaining routes or build up passenger traffic again? In other words, wasn't Amtrak kind of like the famous military base closing commission, a way for Congress to authorize needed train-offs and subsidies without individual senators and representatives being on the hook for specific trains, being lobbied by different towns and different railroads, etc?

There was such an commission, the USRA for the northeastern freight lines.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 4:30 pm After the very first few weeks or months, weren't all the conductors and onboard staff in Amtrak uniforms selling or lifting Amtrak tickets and whatnot, even while Amtrak was paying the host railroads to provide the crews?

Professor, within a year or so, Railroad employed Conductors and Trainmen were dressed up in Amtrak uniforms for which with most passengers who could care less, "perception is reality".

However, assumption of Train and Engine (T&E) employees, which were the last crafts to be assumed, did not occur until about 1983, or after I had left the industry.

Back in the 1995 or so, CSX was handling ticket purchasing for MARC tickets off their lines, and operated the trains owned by MARC. I think within a year or so, this changed so that MARC handled ticket purchasing under a unified system.

Of course decades later CSX got out of running passenger service and MARC got Bombardier to handle the running part on CSX lines. Now, that contract has been taken over by Alstom (via merger).

I'm seeing that with Metra.