Can we get the freight railroads to operate passenger trains again?

[wigwagfan]

Ask Genesee & Wyoming how they feel about running passenger trains. (WES Commuter Rail on the Portland & Western Railroad.)

[STrRedWolf]

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.

[Tadman]

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.

This 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.

This 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.

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.

[mtuandrew]

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

[bostontrainguy]

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?

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/not-your-f ... s-railroad

[STrRedWolf]

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?

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/not-your-f ... s-railroad

I think that needs it's own thread (lest we derail this one more).

[Pensyfan19]

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?

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/not-your-f ... s-railroad

I think that needs it's own thread (lest we derail this one more).

And that's why we have this thread!

viewtopic.php?f=46&p=1546277#p1546277

Thanks RedWolf!

[WashingtonPark]

Can we get the freight railroads to operate passenger trains again?
In a word----No.

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.

Unless I misremember, Union Pacific and BNSF are running passenger trains right now on behalf of Metra, the Chicago-area commuter rail agency.

But 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?

[Tadman]

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

You 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.

[mtuandrew]

I don’t mind the “shipping lines can’t own bus lines can’t own airlines can’t own rail lines” thing so much, Tad. Today’s transportation world includes plenty of regional carriers and some national/international ones, playing together with fairly low friction. The joint passenger trains of yore (the California Zephyr probably the most famous of many) seemed to work alright too - no one ever said a single train couldn’t operate over multiple carriers.

[Tadman]

I mind the "railroads can't own airlines/ships" because it was enacted when many railroads were already well on a downswing - the shipping lines mandate came out in the 1930's perhaps and the airline mandate came out in 1948. By that time the depression was happening and the genesis of the rust belt was happening in New England. Perhaps if Boston and Maine was allowed to operate air service to points like Buffalo or Chicago it may have resulted in a healthier carrier overall. Perhaps if Pennsylvania was allowed to keep their bulk ships on the lakes they wouldn't have sunk into insolvency so early.

But another casualty of this was the lack of interline ticketing. It's impossible today to buy a ticket between modes of transport. If I ride from White Plains to Oceanside I need the following tickets:
1. Metro North to downtown
2. MTA subway to Jamaica
3. Airtrain (requring a long wait with folks that dont do english so well)
4. United to Chicago and LA
5. Flyaway bus to LAUPT
6. Metrolink to Oceanside

It's crazy that not even Expedia will help me with this. I can rent a car or hotel, book a cruise, a play or show, or a package thereof, but not the Flyaway bus??? No Airtrain??? How many JFK riders use Airtrain and how many LAX passengers use Flyaway? If LAX has 88m users/year, and assuming half are connectors, that's 44m/year o&d. If ten percent use flyaway and ticketing outlets get a $2 commission, that's almost $9m in commission someone is giving up because we can't figure out interline.

To bring this back to private enterprise, when the gov't kept railroading the railroads, it not only directly hurt them but culturally led to a belief that we can't/shouldn't interline our services.

[mtuandrew]

Then build an interline ticketing app! You could have a pass-through interface that buys and delivers all of those tickets in a single bundled Apple or Google Wallet link, for a modest fee, then sell the platform to Expedia or something. Jeez, it’s almost like you’ve never heard of the free market

[Tadman]

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.

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.

[Pensyfan19]

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.

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.

So can these apps help with transporting freight from passenger trains to passenger planes....????

About UP and BNSF owning Metra Lines, the point is that they still run these passenger lines. If they could do it for those lines, then it is possible for them to run passenger trains on their own trackage, such as the Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and part of the California Zephyr.

[Tadman]

The "it's possible" logic doesn't really work, though. It's possible to shave a tiger, we won't get any takers. Currently UP and BN (and a few private outfits like Keolis) run passenger trains under "purchase of service" contracts. That means Metra is the entity that is responsible for the trains, and they pay UP to supply crews and dispatchers, maybe switch engines, in addition to trackage rights and stations.

In the above case, Metra is called the "common carrier". There are lots of rights and responsibilities to be a common carrier. They set the fares, the schedule, advertise, create the offerings. UP is just the contract operator. They operate whatever Metra asks for. Could be a SW1500 and two flat cars, could be three MP36 and 40 bilevels, or anywhere inbetween.

Yes, it is possible for UP to start selling tickets for a Chicago-Denver-Los Angeles train on uprr.com and run the train daily. But we've raised a few very valid points in the legal area why they can't or won't.
1. UP is not allowed to run their own passenger trains after signing on to Amtrak by legal agreement
2. UP does not want to as such operation will not earn an operating profit to pay for the crew and fuel nor a capital profit to pay for the cars and engines
3. UP does not want to because they are afraid that once they start, the government may try to compel them to keep running and at a certain fare structure that is not feasible

Ergo my earlier statements that, for a private operator to take over Amtrak routes, in matching order to solve the above problems:
1. RPSA and PRIIA canceled
2. A funding mechanism would have to be established
3. A third piece of legislation would have to spell out, on UP/BN/CSX/NS terms, that the above carriers can set rates and alter services to respond to the market.

Then it is both possible, legal, and lucrative for private carriers to run the passenger trains.

Please don't mistake this for being anti-private carrier. I think they would do a far better job if this is administered correctly. But as a business person, these are the hurdles I see.