[PGR88]

Can anyone tell me - why don’t rail companies in the USA, who own the tracks and rights-of-way (especially the majors) operate passenger service?

One would think they could make mint, especially for East-Coast cities or densely populated areas.

[Publius]

Starting in the 1920s, as the highway system expanded and people began driving, the passenger trains began to lose money. The crack premium trains of the great railroads still made money well into the 1950s.

Once flying became cheaper, the passenger trains only made money from the Post Office contract. Once that went to the airlines in 1967, no passenger train was capable of making a profit. It was the desire of the freight railroads to get rid of a money loser that prompted Nixon to create Amtrak.

Amtrak was intended to be a holding facility for passenger rail until the government could kill it off. In return for the government running passenger trains, the freight railroads would give them priority dispatching on their systems. That never really developed, and Amtrak has never had the gumption to go to court and demand the freight railroads respect the deal they got in 1971 from the government. Amtrak survives today because people want to use it, and Congress doesn't want to fight over such a small item.

I've been working on privatization paradigms for Amtrak since 2006, but every time I think I've found the way to do it, political reality sets in.

[Olog-hai]

Primarily the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and their draconian regulatory requirements. And of course, the creation of Amtrak pushed them out for the most part. Before Amtrak, there used to be high taxation on railroads’ properties as well, and also a 10 percent federal tax on passenger rail tickets.

[discostu]

Because they were all around to watch the passenger companies go bankrupt and no it’s not a profitable business.

[Alberta's Child]

The business models and operating requirements for freight and passenger service are very different.