5 ms·

The freight system is great, the passenger train system in the U.S., not so much.

philwelch 2y ago
Back when passenger rail still made sense, and was run by private industry, it was great. But it’s been mostly obsoleted by automobiles and airlines. There’s a certain population density where it’s still competitive with airlines, but in the US that only exists between Boston and DC, which is also the only profitable part of Amtrak and would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized and focus their investments on that route instead of being forced to run a bunch of subsidized nostalgia routes for train geeks.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  Most of your railway is not electric, India has electrified 95% of its rail, so did China. It makes sence
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The US has reliable access to cheap fuel, and diesel locomotives are still very efficient, especially compared to diesel trucks.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      electric trains are like 2x more powerful, less maintenance and carbon-free
      - anthk 2y ago
        This. With the climate change, any oil powered industry it's doomed from the start.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        America's locomotives are diesel-hybrid electrics, so pretty efficient and maintnence is reasonable. You'll see those in Australia and Canada as well, and even China (only 72% electrified, so if you take a train to Lhasa, it will be a diesel hybrid electric...athough they are currently working on an electrified line). 100% of the trans-siberian railroad is electrified, which is impressive.
- epcoa 2y ago
  “Train geeks” have no meaningful public policy pull, it is silly and counterproductive to insinuate they have much to do with lobbying and promoting long distance rail especially east of Chicago where most of the routes aren’t particularly touristy. > would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized That’s a bold claim. While I’m not knee jerk anti-privatization, I’m extremely skeptical that privatizing the NEC will be anything but a fleecing of the public since most of the problems are due to aging infrastructure requiring billions of dollars of investment - which even with your beloved cars and airplanes is not something handled much by the private sector. People who argue it’s bad now just assume you’re too much of an idiot to imagine it could be worse.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    Under their former CEO Richard Anderson, Amtrak achieved profitability for the first time in its history and had a solid long term business plan that entailed focusing on Acela and investing in improvements there at the expense of the unprofitable outlying routes (many of which are west of Chicago). We could privatize Amtrak next year and they could follow that same business plan—in fact, they’d probably have to. But unfortunately Anderson’s tenure and plan did not last very long, since “Amtrak CEO” is a three year political appointment. > “Train geeks” have no meaningful public policy pull, it is silly and counterproductive to insinuate they have much to do with lobbying and promoting long distance rail So who do you think managed to stuff $22 billion of Amtrak subsidies into the 2021 infrastructure act? Fairies? There are tons of small, dedicated lobbies that are organized and effective enough that they can pressure the government into these sorts of policies, and the train geeks are certainly one of them. Or maybe they just managed to infiltrate the ranks of policy staffers. These people hated Anderson because he was threatening their favorite “historic” long haul routes, like the Seattle-Chicago “Empire Builder”, in favor of focusing on Acela.
    - epcoa 2y ago
      > So who do you think managed to stuff $22 billion Well congress ultimately, but as far as actual influence? Maybe start with: Labor unions, manufacturers throughout the supply chain, maintenance vendors - you know entities with actual money and financial interests. Also, local constituents and representatives where the train service happens to go, like it or not the train service is hugely important to the chamber of commerce in general of a place like Syracuse for instance where an air carrier just pulled out and one of those destinations is Chicago - it matters not much from optics that the journey takes longer than 100 years ago. The idea that the “train geeks” have anything measurable to do with it doesn’t pass any smell test. Moreover, the companies and organizations that are involved and do exist don’t magically disappear in any imagined privatization future. I also have a hard time believing that a motley bunch of train geeks somehow has any pull over the ReDUcE GoVERNmENT SpENDInG crowd. > We could privatize Amtrak next year and they could follow that same business plan The NEC corridor still needs billions of dollars of upgrades and maintenance. Again that is something that the public sector has almost invariably footed the bill on. As for your initial thesis in this comment, it’s straight up garbage that has been discussed to death, and you have to assume I’m an uninformed moron to believe it uncritically. I’m not going to repeat this: https://viewfromthewing.com/amtrak-is-lying-they-are-nowhere-close-to-profitable/ https://viewfromthewing.com/amtrak-is-lying-they-are-nowhere... The NEC is profitable if you hand wave away most of the costs like maintenance, and the infrastructure so the those brand new trains they just bought (the $10 billion spend just after Mr Andersons tenure, so as not to derail your narrative) can go more than 80mph (there are still major chunks north of NYC that can’t manage that). I believe you are being willfully disingenuous so will not continue this conversation further.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized and focus their investments on that route instead of being forced to run a bunch of subsidized nostalgia routes I don't think that's a fair assessment. There's a public non-monetary value that is gained by having broader accessibility to routes that aren't necessarily profitable. USPS has a universal service obligation for the same reason. We also do the same thing (even more explicitly) with air travel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
  - philwelch 2y ago
    I don’t think anyone actually relies on Amtrak service in any meaningful way. The only line that anyone might rely on, Acela, is profitable by itself. USPS has a universal service obligation but also a legal monopoly. Meaning that if you try and start your own postal service, the feds will literally shut it down and throw you in prison. Its probably no coincidence that USPS also has abominably nonexistent spam filtering, to the degree that the majority of USPS service I’ve received in my entire adult life consisted of myself throwing away and/or shredding the vast majority of crap that they shove in my mailbox six days a week. And any suggestion that maybe they cut down to shoving crap in my mailbox 5 or even 4 days a week is treated like it would be the end of Western civilization.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      The point of universal service isn't to have routes that a lot of people use. The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access. The places that are profitable to serve are going to get service anyway.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        > The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access. Can you name one city or town in the US that is dependent on Amtrak for basic transportation? For instance, is there a single town anywhere in this country that doesn’t have a highway or airport but does have a train station with Amtrak service?

Back when passenger rail still made sense, and was run by private industry, it was great. But it’s been mostly obsoleted by automobiles and airlines. There’s a certain population density where it’s still competitive with airlines, but in the US that only exists between Boston and DC, which is also the only profitable part of Amtrak and would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized and focus their investments on that route instead of being forced to run a bunch of subsidized nostalgia routes for train geeks.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
Most of your railway is not electric, India has electrified 95% of its rail, so did China. It makes sence
- philwelch 2y ago
  The US has reliable access to cheap fuel, and diesel locomotives are still very efficient, especially compared to diesel trucks.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    electric trains are like 2x more powerful, less maintenance and carbon-free
    - anthk 2y ago
      This. With the climate change, any oil powered industry it's doomed from the start.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      America's locomotives are diesel-hybrid electrics, so pretty efficient and maintnence is reasonable. You'll see those in Australia and Canada as well, and even China (only 72% electrified, so if you take a train to Lhasa, it will be a diesel hybrid electric...athough they are currently working on an electrified line). 100% of the trans-siberian railroad is electrified, which is impressive.
epcoa 2y ago
“Train geeks” have no meaningful public policy pull, it is silly and counterproductive to insinuate they have much to do with lobbying and promoting long distance rail especially east of Chicago where most of the routes aren’t particularly touristy. > would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized That’s a bold claim. While I’m not knee jerk anti-privatization, I’m extremely skeptical that privatizing the NEC will be anything but a fleecing of the public since most of the problems are due to aging infrastructure requiring billions of dollars of investment - which even with your beloved cars and airplanes is not something handled much by the private sector. People who argue it’s bad now just assume you’re too much of an idiot to imagine it could be worse.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Under their former CEO Richard Anderson, Amtrak achieved profitability for the first time in its history and had a solid long term business plan that entailed focusing on Acela and investing in improvements there at the expense of the unprofitable outlying routes (many of which are west of Chicago). We could privatize Amtrak next year and they could follow that same business plan—in fact, they’d probably have to. But unfortunately Anderson’s tenure and plan did not last very long, since “Amtrak CEO” is a three year political appointment. > “Train geeks” have no meaningful public policy pull, it is silly and counterproductive to insinuate they have much to do with lobbying and promoting long distance rail So who do you think managed to stuff $22 billion of Amtrak subsidies into the 2021 infrastructure act? Fairies? There are tons of small, dedicated lobbies that are organized and effective enough that they can pressure the government into these sorts of policies, and the train geeks are certainly one of them. Or maybe they just managed to infiltrate the ranks of policy staffers. These people hated Anderson because he was threatening their favorite “historic” long haul routes, like the Seattle-Chicago “Empire Builder”, in favor of focusing on Acela.
  - epcoa 2y ago
    > So who do you think managed to stuff $22 billion Well congress ultimately, but as far as actual influence? Maybe start with: Labor unions, manufacturers throughout the supply chain, maintenance vendors - you know entities with actual money and financial interests. Also, local constituents and representatives where the train service happens to go, like it or not the train service is hugely important to the chamber of commerce in general of a place like Syracuse for instance where an air carrier just pulled out and one of those destinations is Chicago - it matters not much from optics that the journey takes longer than 100 years ago. The idea that the “train geeks” have anything measurable to do with it doesn’t pass any smell test. Moreover, the companies and organizations that are involved and do exist don’t magically disappear in any imagined privatization future. I also have a hard time believing that a motley bunch of train geeks somehow has any pull over the ReDUcE GoVERNmENT SpENDInG crowd. > We could privatize Amtrak next year and they could follow that same business plan The NEC corridor still needs billions of dollars of upgrades and maintenance. Again that is something that the public sector has almost invariably footed the bill on. As for your initial thesis in this comment, it’s straight up garbage that has been discussed to death, and you have to assume I’m an uninformed moron to believe it uncritically. I’m not going to repeat this: https://viewfromthewing.com/amtrak-is-lying-they-are-nowhere-close-to-profitable/ https://viewfromthewing.com/amtrak-is-lying-they-are-nowhere... The NEC is profitable if you hand wave away most of the costs like maintenance, and the infrastructure so the those brand new trains they just bought (the $10 billion spend just after Mr Andersons tenure, so as not to derail your narrative) can go more than 80mph (there are still major chunks north of NYC that can’t manage that). I believe you are being willfully disingenuous so will not continue this conversation further.
kube-system 2y ago
> would work a lot better if Amtrak could be privatized and focus their investments on that route instead of being forced to run a bunch of subsidized nostalgia routes I don't think that's a fair assessment. There's a public non-monetary value that is gained by having broader accessibility to routes that aren't necessarily profitable. USPS has a universal service obligation for the same reason. We also do the same thing (even more explicitly) with air travel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
- philwelch 2y ago
  I don’t think anyone actually relies on Amtrak service in any meaningful way. The only line that anyone might rely on, Acela, is profitable by itself. USPS has a universal service obligation but also a legal monopoly. Meaning that if you try and start your own postal service, the feds will literally shut it down and throw you in prison. Its probably no coincidence that USPS also has abominably nonexistent spam filtering, to the degree that the majority of USPS service I’ve received in my entire adult life consisted of myself throwing away and/or shredding the vast majority of crap that they shove in my mailbox six days a week. And any suggestion that maybe they cut down to shoving crap in my mailbox 5 or even 4 days a week is treated like it would be the end of Western civilization.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    The point of universal service isn't to have routes that a lot of people use. The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access. The places that are profitable to serve are going to get service anyway.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      > The point is to have routes that few people use, so that places that are otherwise unprofitable to serve have access. Can you name one city or town in the US that is dependent on Amtrak for basic transportation? For instance, is there a single town anywhere in this country that doesn’t have a highway or airport but does have a train station with Amtrak service?