by trainsinmaine
This is a layman's question, and it may have been asked before, but if so, I'm not aware of it.
I have read for years that passenger rail service is a money-loser. This is true not only in the U.S., but (I gather) in other countries as well. My question, simply put, is "Why?" I presume it has to do with overhead ---especially, perhaps, the costs of liability insurance and ongoing track maintenance. But has this always been the case? Was it so back in the '50s, when U.S. railroads began eliminating passenger service on a widespread basis? Or was that chiefly because they had lost passengers because of competition with cars and planes?
I plead ignorance regarding this. I have a hard time believing that railroads can run freight trains profitably but that Amtrak can't wean itself off the government because it can't turn a profit. (I would add that Amtrak took over passenger operations because the railroads themselves had the same complaint.)
As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "'Splain!"
I have read for years that passenger rail service is a money-loser. This is true not only in the U.S., but (I gather) in other countries as well. My question, simply put, is "Why?" I presume it has to do with overhead ---especially, perhaps, the costs of liability insurance and ongoing track maintenance. But has this always been the case? Was it so back in the '50s, when U.S. railroads began eliminating passenger service on a widespread basis? Or was that chiefly because they had lost passengers because of competition with cars and planes?
I plead ignorance regarding this. I have a hard time believing that railroads can run freight trains profitably but that Amtrak can't wean itself off the government because it can't turn a profit. (I would add that Amtrak took over passenger operations because the railroads themselves had the same complaint.)
As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "'Splain!"