Amtrak is in financial trouble again. Perhaps Amtrak is a good counterexample to the idea that all monopolies rake in festering gobs of cash. For Amtrak, this is unso.
I like trains. I like the technology, I like the mode of travel. Taking a train is an act of rebellion in this land of ever-compressing schedules. There's something positively nineteenth century about taking two days to go from Boston, MA to St. Louis, MO. I've selected two books, Survival City and The Loud Hound of Darkness, as traveling companions. It should be delightful.
The downside to trains is the cost. Trains are a far more expensive means of travel than planes. For my trip, I'm paying nearly five times the rate airlines charge for the same route. Oh well, that's what money's for: selecting the agent of one's unplanned demise. However, like some occult illumati conspiracy, Amtrak's money woes are coming to a head exactly when I need dependable transportation to YAPC. I leave Monday and arrive in St. Louis on Tuesday. Will Amtrak be solvent in time to return me to Boston on Sunday?
Stay tuned!
Re:Mixed feelings
jjohn on 2002-06-24T15:31:34
I too would like to see Amtrak succeed. I find it difficult to believe that trains are completely unprofitable these days. Could Amtrak management be to blame? Wouldn't it be wonderful to have competing train companies? As a consumer, I'd enjoy lower ticket prices.Re:Mixed feelings
pudge on 2002-06-24T15:46:11
Passenger trains have been unprofitable since passenger airlines became popular. That's why Amtrak is the only one that does it, and it has always been subsidized by the federal government.
No one -- literally -- wants to get into the private passenger train business. There is no viable business plan in it.
That said, yes, Amtrak management can be blamed for part of the situation they are in, but I don't think they could get buy without government help in any case, unless they significantly cut back operational costs, closed all but the busiest lines, etc.
Re:Mixed feelings
jjohn on 2002-07-02T19:08:00
Passenger trains have been unprofitable since passenger airlines became popular. That's why Amtrak is the only one that does it, and it has always been subsidized by the federal government.
Actually, passenger rail has *always* been unprofitable -- at least compared to freight rail. That's exactly why Nixon created Amtrak. All the freight carriers were going to stop passenger service. One reason why passenger rail service seems so much more expensive than air travel is that air travel is better subsidized than rails.
Airlines do no pay for Air Traffic control or airports. That happens at the federal and state level respectively. AmTrak is responsible for various stations (witness the "AmShack" of St. Louis that is a double wide trailer).If the similiar money were spent on rails, there would be shorter, more reliable routes between cities and a smoother, more pleasant ride for passengers.
We shouldn't have to pick either trains or airplanes -- we should have the choice of either. It's not as if AmTrak is wanting for passengers -- the cars on my trip were at capacity. AmTrak doesn't have the money to add cars to service existing demand! Weird, but true.
There is some adminstrative fat that needs to be cut from AmTrak and that appears to be happening. There must be a way to make passenger train service a viable business -- let's see what Bill Gates can do for this monopoly.
Re:Mixed feelings
pudge on 2002-07-02T19:22:54
Actually, passenger rail has *always* been unprofitable -- at least compared to freight rail.
Not to be pedantic, but the only thing I can compare "unprofitable" to is "profitable". :-) Passenger rail used to be profitable, back when it was the primary means of getting passengers across long distances of land. Freight was probably more profitable, and even back then, they combined freight and passenger cars, but still.
And passenger airlines have never been profitable either, this is true. Southwest is like the only major airline that consistently turns a profit over the past couple of decades.
Wow. I take the train ABQ-L.A. because it's cheaper that flying. It takes a while, tho: leave about 6pm, get in the next day about noon.
My complaints are that it's quite uncomfortable trying to sleep on the train -- I long for something as plush as a dentist's chair even. And there's basically nothing in the restaurant that I can eat; I don't eat dairy products or meat. So I make a point of bringing some Chinese food and some nibbly things. The train is very often quite late, because of engine trouble or whatever.
So every time I fly, I swear that it's such a hassle (especially since flying into ABQ's local weather systems is like flying into a tornado) that I'll take the train from now on; and every time I take the train, I swear that it takes so long that I'll fly from now on.
I'd be a lot happier with trains if they got up to decent speeds tho (even just 110mph) -- instead of chugging along like they do now, at basically highway speeds at best. But I've heard it said that the basic infrastructure (i.e., the tracks) just isn't up to higher speeds, since supposedly speed is important only to trains carrying passengers, and not to trains carrying cargo. I presume it's a matter of decisions made decades ago by corporate lobbies and whatnot.
