I thought that Amtrak would never have been necessary if the freight railroads wanted anything to do with passengers anymore, and feel that passenger trains on their lines just get in the way of their freights. Am I wrong here? Let me know...
I'm old enough to remember all the feather bedding that the UNIONS demanded from the railroads. That does not excuse the Companies from ruining a great way to see the country. My wife and I have taken the trans Canada trip and it was superb. The US railroads never kept up the track good enough for high speed rail service they put all the prfits in their pockets instead, and then whined for subsidies.
There is a way today to make a profit on passenger rail, but that will require subidies from those entities who want and need that rail service. (There is a paradigm for minimizing those subsidies, but a lot of that stuff is proprietary, so I have to careful what I post.)
The Class I's, by the way, have no problem running corridor service passenger rail if they are paid for it, and BNSF actually uses Amtrak as a profit center. So there is hope.
Passenger trains have different requirements from freight. While there are times when it may make sense to share a line between passenger and freight service, such arrangements are often problematic.
Unless a freight line happens to go somewhere that a direct road doesn't, or unless a particular route has a very high demand, a bus service is apt to provide better efficiency than a train service using freight rails. A passenger train on a dedicated passenger right-of-way may provide better service (which may or may not be worth the cost), but passenger service on shared rights-of-way is often not very good.
One thing that would be neat if it could be done efficiently and practically (though it probably never will be) would be if cars could be *quickly* loaded onto train cars (or even trucks) which could take the cars near their final destination. Given that a train or even truck carrying a bunch of cars uses much less fuel than would those cars individually, this could lead to increased efficiency. Unfortunately, I don't see much way to avoid having the time and expense of loading/unloading/operating these vehicles exceed the cost of simply driving. The only way I can see that something like this might be useful would be if a bunch of people pooled in for a private scheduled service, and the transporting vehicle included a passenger compartment where people could work during their trip. Of course, people who could afford that could probably just as well afford to simply rent a limo.
You are entirely correct, IMHO.
This article assumes that the Class I's want a passenger service back.
Don't think so.
Ummm....roll the tape back to replay the 1940 - 1970's era and watch what the Class 1's did - jettison the passenger trains.
Why, you ask?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
NOT PROFITABLE.
So the government forces the Class 1's to let Amtrak use their right of way. Now that makes sense, doesn't it?
Regional and rural rail transportation would be nice, but then reality butts in with that $$$ thing again.
Instead, let's integrate rail freight and passenger service by transferring ownership and control back to the freight railroads.
I think you need to ask the Class 1's if they even want it. My guess would be "no friggin' way".
What has changed is that Congress now permits rail passenger service to be operated more like a business and provides (albeit insufficient) subsidies.
Did someone say "free enterprise" or "supply and demand" -?
There are only a few markets where light rail passenger service could sustain itself - Lower Mexico Cali and the NE corridor.
This author is wishing for the "glory days" of passenger trains - "Build it and they will come!"
Right.
LVM