Too many destinations...something like 500 cities served. Some of those routes have got to be losers.
Here is the explanation from the Amtrak Historical Society:
The Chiefs, the Limiteds, the Zephyrs. They were more than passenger trains. They surrounded us with impeccable comfort and tantalized our palates with elegant dining fare as they whisked into a world of romance and mystique.
During the 1940s the passenger train began fighting a battle against the airplane and private automobile. By the 1960s the passenger train was rarely considered as a means of travel. Schedules were erratic, trains were run down, and more often than not the journey was a miserable experience.
Then, in October, 1970, in an attempt to revive passenger rail service, congress passed the Rail Passenger Service Act. That Act created Amtrak, a private company which, on May 1, 1971 began managing a nation-wide rail system dedicated to passenger service.
__________________________________
I’m old enough to have ridden the Super Chiefs when they were in their prime, but as the explanation notes they went downhill rapidly with the advent of air and interstate. In the 70s, Amtrak had reasonable rates and we could go to New York from North Carolina on an overnight ride cheaper than flying. Some parts of the journey were slow due to bad track and the trains were always late even then. Now the rates are often higher than flying and the schedules are just as bad.
Amtrak was supposed to be a temporary measure until somebody figured out how to run passenger rail profitably in a world of freeways and airplanes. That was 40 years ago. Clinton gave them a big boost in funding that was only supposed to last 5 years at the end of which they were either supposed to become self sustaining or cease to exist, neither happened. If you take the time to understand those facts all your questions are answered.
Wow... Total highway miles of road in the United States (all public roads/streets):
1960: 3.5 million miles
1960: 3.7 million
1980: 3.8 million
1990: 3.9- million
2000: 3.9+ million
2009: 4.05 million
Total Rail miles (excluding doubled tracks and sidings):
1960: 207,334 miles
1970: 196K
1980: 165K
1990: 120K
2000: 99.2K
2010: 93.9K
(AMTRAK miles: 24K in 1980... declining to 21.1K in 2009)
Meanwhile: there were 254.2 MILLION registered passenger vehicles in the US in 2009. Why take the train if you spent the money to have the convenience of a car?
(Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics/Research and Innovative Technology Administration)
“I’m asking why private companies don’t do this.”
Because private companies want to make a profit.
So off the bat, you've eliminated most of the country for being viable for rail.
Now, Amtrak already owns the real estate for the NE Corridor. It would be vastly expensive for another company to create a new corridor.
So basically by default, you have a monopoly situation for the train corridor in the NE. And the fedgov, for once in its life, would have to do a realistic assessment of the most cost-effective means of running that corridor, and whether it would be cost-effective to convert it to high-speed rail. Given how nutso they have gotten with hi-speed rail projects in other parts of the country, I ain't holding my breath.
Recommend the Starlight between LA and Seattle, along the Pacific coast, as the one I like best so far.
But just in case the marketplace would have supported private passenger service, the government included a provision in the 1971 law prohibiting any private company from operating service over any route operated by Amtrak. Almost all major inter-city routes would require use of the same track as Amtrak for at least some distance.
A notable exception is the Florida East Coast Railroad. This company was in the middle of breaking a 14 year long strike when Amtrak was formed and although it serves every city on Florida's east coast, Amtrak stays off of it. The company announced a couple of months ago that it would re-enter the passenger business as early as 2014.
That claim was 430 miles / gallon per ton of cargo* A single box car can carry up to 100 tons.
If a truck is hauling 25 tons of cargo at 5 mpg, that turns into 125 mpg per ton, which isn't quite as efficient as a train but isn't too shabby.
*(or it might have been gross ton including the cars' tare weight)
When we drive a car on a long trip, don’t we use highways that get gazillions in federal/state funding from a number of alphabet-soup government agencies to buld and maintain them? And then when we fly, don’t we rely on government funds to build airports, maintain the air traffic control system and enforce safety requirements and pay for TSA grope-downs? Why then are we whining about funding to run passenger trains? Without trucks full of bucks from Uncle Sugar, could the airlines even stay in business? Would there be any highway without a high-cost toll? When we accept that we can rarely travel without some sort of subsidization, we can get closer to admiring Amtrak for doing as much much as they do with less than they need to provide as much as we have now. Remember 9/11 when planes were grounded? Amtrak still ran, even though there weren’t enough cars to really handle the load. If we don’t learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it.
I just happened to have the TV on to Vacation Homes and they are showing a private rail car. Amtrac charges $250 for hooking up to a train and $1.75 a mile.
Passenger service was offset in the early settling of the West when rail companies ran mixed trains of heavy and light weight freight and passenger and also had U.S. Mail service. Trains at that time delivered goods to a town where the train station was the focal point of activity. Plus they delivered future customers for those goods.
Trains with mixed light weight freight and passenger consists were also used until the late 1050's with Railway Express and other front-end revenue cars adding revenue to subsidize the passenger business.
When roads and airplanes improved to reduce the time-in-transit of travel, and door-to-door delivery of goods, services and people, the passenger rail business joined the buggy whip industry in the history books and folklore of the US.
All travel is made with regard to convenience and cost. Both are sorely lacking in the Amtrack or any other passenger rail business model. Which is why no private company will venture very deeply into that shallow revenue stream. Additionally; passenger trains require approximately one employee per revenue car, six employees for every dining car, and two engineers for the motive power on consists that are usually about 15, 85-foot long, revenue cars. Whereas freight trains might require two engineers for 100 car consists where each 50-foot long car is generating between $6,000 and $12,000 in revenue. Plus, freight doesn't complain if the train is too hot, too cold, food lousy, seats uncomfortable, etc.
The only train travel I would consider is one of sightseeing where the train trip is the vacation.
A friend clued me into the American Association of Private Rail Car Owners. Click here for their Website.
They hook up to the ends of Amtrack trains and have 5 star dining, elegant staterooms and observation cars with attendants to serve beverages, etc. It is akin to going on a cruise. But without the seasickness patch and the all too often outbreak of illness onboard ships. And if the train is delayed, your vacation just got extended.
As a General trudging around Europe going from one fine road system to another that looked straight from the 1800’s.
He envisioned a universal road system throughout the U.S. in grid like fashion simply as a means to easily transport military stuff in time of necessity. Hence the Interstate system.
Until and unless the military finds a need for a high speed train system it will not happen.
Government won’t allow high speed rail to be private. Can you imagine getting approval?
High speed rail only works if its noded, because being able to go 150mph is meaningless if you are stopping every 10 minutes. To make money, you then have to have a lot of people that want to ride.
Too far and planes are much faster, too close and there isn’t enough advantage over driving.
300-600 miles between major cities is generally the sweet spot when you do the time and cost ananlysis.
There are not very many large city pairs that fit that criteria in the U.S.
That said, I think that the ability to due semi-fast rail, with your car along would be profitable. The appeal there is to save money on a rental at your destination, while keeping your bags locked in your trunk.
Going 1,500 miles in 10 hours, with your car, would appeal to many people.
Trains run on rails that requires rights of way & track beds also high speed rail requires several things paying passengers ,well maintained rail beds ,well maintained rails/rolling stock,routes were you don’t have lots of stops cause you have to stop restart & that slows you down then you have the towns the train runs thru will bitch about noise & then demand the trains slow down to keep quiet .
Aircraft on the other hand take off climb to altitude were for the most part they aren’t heard & go to where ever they have to.
1. Why can't private passenger trains operate like plane companies?There are only 2 airlines (plane companies) that turn a profit, Southwest and Alaska.
The seeds of Amtrak go back to the Wilson administration or earlier.
The short answer is that the US Railroads were heavily regulated and dependent on mail contracts and their competition was effectively government subsidised with lower operating costs.
The US Government killed private passenger rail, the railroads were a somewhat unwilling accomplice.
Amtrak was an attempt to keep the trains running while ignoring the actual causes of the problem.
Dreams from My Freightcar: A Story of Pace and IncompetenceSounds more like a trip to the death camp.