Amtrack

[cleoeo]

Amtrack is supposed to show a profit "like the airlines and trucking industries do". Yet the airlines and the trucking industries do not have to fund municipal airports or interstate highways. They just pay for the planes and trucks, the fuel, the drivers, and the terminals. Do you suppose Amtrack would be "profitable" if you don't count the cost of track and maintenance?

[paulgro]

Trucking does from the tax on fuel. I don't know about airlines...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."


Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Mod Squad (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html) Permit Man (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/Permit/PermitMan.html)

[CBranski]

Amtrak would have a greater chance of profitability if they didn't have to maintain tracks or whatever, but the fact is they have been given a Catch-22 message from Congress: turn a profit, and keep expensive revenue draining lines running-the same congressman who scream bloody murder about Amtrak being a money pit will fight tooth and nail to keep trains running in their districts that have no hope of breaking even.

The only hope that Amtrak has is to concentrate on short-haul trains that run between major cities in the Northeast and Midwest.

[This message has been edited by CBranski (edited December 03, 2001).]

[ogb]

In Germany the former state railway is making lots of minus although the state pays for the maintenance. But there are small companies now that just have a couple of trains running on certain tracks and they are very successful. The secret is that they can use the same stations and don't have to pay the whole personal, just a driver and someone who controls the train.

[Serendipity]

Well, the British rail network is in such a bloody mess at all levels that I cannot comment without writing a long essay, and time forbids.

[cleoeo]

I've learned something. I've viewed the rail transit systems across the pond as examples of effectiveness. Not so? Where's the hangup?

[ogb]

Trains are horrible. Either they are late or crowded. On my way back from Berlin some weeks ago I had to stand all the 400 km with my luggage weighing more than 40 kg. If you are taking a cheap weekend ticket, you'll be unable to move during the ride. It is only good if you pay the expensive tickets and order a seat. But after my Berlin experience I swore to use my car the next time.

[Serendipity]

A potted history:

First, in the olden days, there were several rail companies. I don't know exactly how they functioned but I imagine that the companies owned the rolling stock, the lines, and the stations and any other infrastructure. Then came nationalisation. This was not a total disaster, but did require heavy subsidy. Then came privatisation, but this time one company, Railtrack, owned the infrastructure and several other companies own the rolling stock. But Railtrack was badly managed and needed heavy subsidy. Along came a few major fatal rail disasters, mostly caused by SPAD's (Signal Passed At Danger - going through a red light, basically), although there's a case in court at the moment involving a chap who for whatever reason accidentally crashed off the road he was driving on and on to a rail line, soon to be crashed into by some trains http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif. The Transport Secretary, Steven Byers, has annexed Railtrack at no notice, leaving all Railtrack's shareholders wondering what will become of their investment (among them, Jesse Ventura, Minnesota's governor and former wrestler. He's lost $4m). Right now I don't know what the state of affairs is.

I hear wonderful things about the efficiency of Japan's trains. It is unheard of for a Japanese train to be so much as 30 seconds late, but for every $3 raised in ticket sales, about $18 comes from gov't subsidy.

[CBranski]

Part of the reason those trains may have been so nice in olden days was competition-it sounds like if a passenger didn't like a particular rail company, they could just get a ride with another company.

When the trains were all put under one flag, the incentives to provide more comfortable timely service went out the window-after all, where would a dissatisfied customer go? I would imagine the problem would be compounded in Europe, where gas is far more expensive than in the US.

I live only 90 miles north of Chicago, and whenever I go down there I use Amtrak. If the traffic in Chicago weren't so hectic and the parking so expensive I'd drive-it's a rare event when a Chicago to Milwaukee train leaves on time.

As for the subsidy of Japanese trains Dippy, you'll find that most forms of public transit are heavily subsidized. Just to give you an example, the $1.50 fare for a Milwaukee city bus only covers about 35% of the ride's actual cost. In fact, my car travel is subsidized to a point.

------------------
Tony Soprano for Sherriff!

[ogb]

I absolutely agree with cbranski. Competition is the base for all good working economy. It was the major mistake to make the railway to one state company. Now that they realise all their mistakes and try to bring it back to privatisation, it maybe is too late.

[This message has been edited by ogb (edited December 05, 2001).]

[Serendipity]

Hmmm. I agree, I like competition, but it has created a lot of confusion here. To go from one major conurbation to another you can use one of several companies, but for many lines that go to te more peripheral parts of the country there would be only one company that owns the license to operate on the lines there. It's a kind of competitive monopoly. Standards and ticket prices vary from company to company. If you ask for a ticket from A to B the price can vary arbitrarily, it seems. There was some research done into this phenomenon, a journalist phoned the ticket office at a London station, asked how much a ticket from London to, say Birmingham would cost. Then he called again 5 minutes later, there was a huge difference between the two prices. So it's good in principle but incoherent in practice.

[Phreakmeister]

Have you guys heard the new name for Railtrack? (And I'm not making this up)
The marketing managers or whatever those bobo's may be called, didn't really like the name NewTrack, so now the name of the company will be:
Nutrack

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?