Passenger Train Journal Extra Board

Amtrak’s Doomed Trains

Traveling east between Pittsburgh and Altoona, Pa., on Penn Central, Amtrak’s National Limited descends the Alleghenies at Horseshoe Curve in 1974.

Amtrak’s Doomed Trains

PTJ 2024-4by Bill Anderson/photos by the author

At the end of Amtrak’s first two years (May 1973), the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (“Railpax” Act) anticipated there would likely be some hard choices as to the scope of Amtrak’s network. In Washington, D.C., there was a tug of war between the “fewer trains on fewer routes less often” advocates on one end of the spectrum, and the “connect all the dots” advocates at the other end.

Within this whirlwind, some things were not going to plan. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had been hoping that what became Amtrak would simply implode, at least outside the Northeast and perhaps a few other dense urban areas. However, that was not happening. While the passenger deficits the freight railroads had complained about for decades were being confirmed on Amtrak’s financial statements, the “nobody rides trains anymore” mantra was in many cases being disproven.

Little known to the Department of Transportation (DOT) top floor (Office of the Secretary), several floors below in the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) there was something of a counter effort to find the real-world strengths and weaknesses of Amtrak’s routes. This effort disproved strategies such as snipping off short segments that included Los Angeles–San Diego. When the revenue between connecting routes was considered, it was demonstrated that the Amtrak deficit would, at worst, not decline even if all the short-segment expenses were eliminated. However, by early 1973, DOT was under rather direct orders to find some trains/routes to sacrifice. Success would save some face for OMB and the Nixon Administration.

Amtrak

ABOVE: Wearing new Chessie System colors, Baltimore & Ohio GP7 5631 and an Amtrak coach make up the Newport News section of the George Washington, recently arrived at Richmond, Va., in 1973.

As a result, three trains were selected, and in July 1973 Amtrak made application to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to discontinue them. These were the National Limited (New York City–Kansas City), the Floridian (Chicago–Florida), and the Newport News–Richmond, Va., segment of the connection for the James Whitcomb Riley westbound and the George Washington eastbound. Although these trains survived this threat in 1973, the two long-distance trains (and others) were victims of the first serious Amtrak budget cuts six years later.

Amtrak … a Trifurcated Business
Perhaps due to the differentiation associated with the National System of routes at the beginning (1971), within that system there is almost a veritable caste structure: Northeast Corridor (NEC) Spine; State-Supported; and Long Distance. This also seems to weigh heavily in Amtrak’s priority when it comes to the future, and why not? The NEC Spine trains are used by Washington, D.C., and New York influencers (bankers, lobbyists, politicians, high-income elite, etc.) who are the champions for high levels of investment and maintaining high service levels. These trains also show positive cash flow on an avoidable-cost basis.

The State-Supported services have state champions that contribute various amounts for operations and capital for their trains and infrastructure. These contributions to Amtrak substantially, if not completely, overcome the avoidable cost losses that these trains would other-wise be incurring.

Amtrak

ABOVE: A former Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac E8A leads Amtrak’s Floridian at Montgomery, Ala., in 1973.

So where does this leave the Long Distance trains from the standpoint of a champion? Unfortunately, that “champion” is a fragmented constituency, thus making these trains an easier target in any serious effort to cut federal spending.

Many Washington, D.C., influencers have never seen a long-distance Amtrak train, much less ridden one. In other words, they have no skin in the game and couldn’t care less if the regular folks in “flyover country” lose their train.

Observing the World Outside the Capital Beltway
So, in 1973, as the need for the DOT to make a recommendation to Congress was getting harder to avoid, and as the FRA passenger analyst, I booked passage on the three trains that would be the tar-gets to eliminate…


PTJ 2024-4Read the rest of this article in the Fourth Quarter 2024 issue of Passenger Train Journal. Subscribe Today!

This article was posted on: November 18, 2024