Amtrak: The Road to Recovery

Devvy

Donor
After a few failed experiments, I've relearned the age old AH rule of thumb; write about what you know.

So...like most things to come out of the UK (my British Rail 12:08 TL in this case), it ends up with an American spinoff. I present to you, the American version, "The Road to Recovery" on how Amtrak could of fared post 1970.

First section up later this evening.
 

Devvy

Donor
1970-1972: The first years

Volpe.gif

John Volpe, the chief architect of Amtrak

With signiciant input by the National Association of Railroad Passengers, the Rail Passenger Service Act was a complicated piece of legislation. It was the brainchild of a John Volpe, the Secretary of Transportation for the US Federal Government. It was his sheer determination that pushed the Act through Congress, and his personal appeals to President Richard Nixon. Nixon was a hard nut to crack, but eventually wilted to Volpe's influence, in part due to Nixon's new environmentally friendly position. How could a President aiming to have a comprehensive environmental policy effectively advocate everyone driving everywhere? After this, Volpe, together with Senator Vance Hartke worked on the Act, eventually presenting it to the Senate Commerce Commission.

The legislation created a new government-backed company, "Railpax" (although later in the year this would be renamed "Amtrak"), which would take over rail passenger operations. Railroads would be invited to "transfer" their passenger operations, effectively allowing them to close down passenger operations and let Amtrak run them instead, in return for either cash or rolling stock. It also set Railpax up with a fund which with to purchase suitable railroad routes. This part had been somewhat controversial, but had been included nonetheless as it was essential for the last demand upon the new Railpax - to innovate and passenger rail profitable again.

Most railroad companies agreed to cede their passenger operations to Railpax; only a few decided to continue operating passenger trains themselves, with the majority granting rolling stock and some cash as keeping passenger-oriented rolling stock made little sense after closing their passenger operations. Long-distance Intercity routes were granted to Amtrak, along with several commuter rail operations - primarily those centred upon Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia & Washington DC cities. Initially the commuter rail operations had been intended to be granted to state-run corporations, but successful lobbying meant that Amtrak took them over, mostly to benefit from economies of scale and a single management vision.

Soon after, arguments started on how to turn around (the by now named) Amtrak. Did it's future lie with gold-service long distance trains, trying to win over passengers by travelling in style? It would quickly be determined not; Amtrak's road to recovery would apparently lie with trying to take on the airlines and cars on short to mid range distances - the kind of destinations you could reach in approximately 3-4 hours, with passengers transported in fast, clean, modern & reliable trains. The fact that Amtrak could arrive and depart from the very city centres of it's destinations gave Amtrak a distinct selling point over the airlines.

This quickly left Amtrak with both a vision to pursue; now all it needed was the routes upon which to run the trains. Prior to Railpax, passenger trains had been run on the same tracks as freight trains, and were frequently delayed or cancelled as a result of freight operations. This would be unacceptable for Amtrak's vision; at least on their core routes. Further out from a core, compromises could be made which involved running their trains on freight tracks. The initial focus areas were obvious from a number of perspectives; the North East Corridor, serving the large cities of Boston, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC. This route was already highly rated, with a good passenger service on, and also acted as the core for most of the commuter rail operations. The other area that would be focussed on was the Mid West - centred on Chicago. The area also had several large cities in close enough proximity to be competitive, as well as a huge number of railroads in every direction, and it was obvious that a pruning of the railroad network was going to be needed if freight railroads were going to break even again. Geography also helped - the flat land meant that railroads had less need to curve around obstacles or have steep gradients, which aided high speed operations.

Most importantly though, both areas were primarily owned by a couple of railroads who were both desperate for cash to address their own pressing financial states. Penn Central, desperately trying to hold up the weight of three railroads incorporated into itself and the Milwaukee Road, struggling to meet the costs of it's expensive Pacific Extension. The Milwaukee Road had attempted to buy out the Chicago & North Western Railroad in a few years prior, only to be refused permission by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Now the tables had turned - the C&NW was interested (now that the ICC were not as powerful as before, and the perilous state of railroad finances made approvals more likely), but the Milwaukee Road was looking for bigger partners to merge with. At the urging of Amtrak - something controversial, considering a government-run company meddling in the private-sector, the Milwaukee Road decided to merge with the C&NW. Amtrak agreed to purchase in cash sections of railroad from Chicago to Minneapolis (via Milwaukee) which would become somewhat over-served by the merged corporation's railroads (which would come to be known as the "Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western Railroad").

The North East Corridor was a quick and easy purchase for Amtrak from Penn Central, which included the whole of the route from Washington DC to Boston, including the branch from New Haven to Springfield. In the Mid West, further purchases from the financially crippled Penn Central were railroads from Chicago to Indianapolis (and on to Cincinnati & Louisville) as well as Chicago to Fort Wayne (and on to Detroit and Cleveland). All these purchases were vitally important in setting the ground for what was to come, but did eat away at almost all of Amtrak's grants from the federal Government. Also arriving fresh out of the builder's yards were the new UAC TurboTrains. These were gas-turbine trains, and high speed ones at that. They started serving the Boston - New York route almost immediately, giving passengers a lot more comfortable a trip, as that section was still unelectrified. Ex-Pennsylvania Railroad Metroliner trains ran on the Washington DC - New York section, taking advantage of the electrified lines.

Metroliner1968.jpg

Metroliner train, still in PRR livery, on the North East Corridor

------------------------------
Notes: As ever, my little notes section makes a return. Few key differences here; 1) Amtrak is able to pursue a high speed rail vision for the US from the outset. Not trying to make the best of all the existing trains, and is more free to innovate. 2) Amtrak is able to take over railroads from it's inception onwards, which is closely linked to....3) Amtrak is running commuter railroads. This means that there is no conflict over priorities and vision (cough....North East Corridor between New Rochelle and New Haven....cough cough), and Amtrak is thus free to upgrade lines where ever it sees fit in later years.

One large butterfly already.....Milwaukee Road and Chicago & North Western have merged. I'm sure some little accountant for the C&NW going over the Milwaukee Road accounts will notice that expenses for their Pacific Extension have been double entered, and thus it's actually very profitable. The Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western could well be around for a while yet.....

PS: Feedback, comments, corrections are always welcome. :)
 
Last edited:
Not to hijack the thread, but what do you know of the South Shore Railroad. the miscl websites are not very informative on how this entity has survived into the 21st Century.

Thanks

Back on topic; parts of your text describe something like the 'interurbans' that provided short hop passenger service between cities from the 19th century into the 1920s.

Locally in Lafayette we have lost most of our Amtrak service in the last decade. Used to be fairly convient for getting to Chicago. Unfortunatly not so much for Indianapolis, the stop downtown was no ones destination. If some miracle had routed the tracks through the airport terminal the trains would have been packed.
 
I was something of a railfan in my youth, and even today I remain fond of train travel and wish it was a viable option in more areas--heresy from an aerospace engineer to suggest highspeed rail over turboprop commuter planes, I suppose, but my interests there are in rockets which won't be competing with trains any time soon. ;) I' a Hoosier, and I remember the attempts to keep the old Union Station open there, and now living in Cinci I see the same. Seeing a TL with more made of the potential will be quite nifty indeed.
 
I am doing some of my graduate research into understanding the roots of our failure to push for High Speed rail at an earlier date in this country. So count me in as an eager reader, and don't be suprised if I ask you for a few of your sources for my project...Keep it comming:D
 
Longer routes can be more competitive than youd think. For instance, we travel from syarcuse to chicago overnight, and its a lot easier on us than flying. Moreover there are more people out there that hate flying than youd think. Moreover, train time can be used by business people far more constuctively than air time can.

With highspeed rail, businesspeople could get on a train in nyc at night, get a good nights sleep, and arrive in chicago well rested for a days work. Maybe even returning that night....
 
As well, trains are cheaper, boarding them doesn't take as long, and Wi-Fi is often readily available (or it was in Britain in any case).
 
Would Amtrak's purchase of the Chicago-Minneapolis route affect METRA operations? (I've only been on a train once- METRA commuter rail from Chicago to Lake Forest, IL in HS. Oddly, I passed a locomotive in C&NW livery on my way to the train.)

Would Amtrak still buy the Auto Train? Would they expand its operations?

Here are some Amtrak commercials for your enjoyment!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MIkduzGx4
 
Would Amtrak's purchase of the Chicago-Minneapolis route affect METRA operations? (I've only been on a train once- METRA commuter rail from Chicago to Lake Forest, IL in HS. Oddly, I passed a locomotive in C&NW livery on my way to the train.)
Since Amtrak's getting commuter rail, too, I think Amtrak ITTL owns METRA. And they appear to be making commuter rail a priority, so presumably any change will only be for the better.
 
High speed rail sounds nice, and expensive. I'd be happy with 100 kph service to Chicago twice daily. Hell a 80kph connection to the Indianapolis airport four times a day would be the bomb. It takes the ass to ass packed shuttle buses a hour or more to get us there & a round trip ticket is now north of $40 :mad: A comfy train seat to the terminal would be the bomb :)
 
Hmm, interesting start. So, how would Amtrak operating the commuter service which in OTL is operated by the MBTA be any different? Consider that the MBTA was founded in the 1960s precisely to offer commuter rail services as other companies (mainly the Boston & Maine and the NY&NH Railroad) were abandoning them, as well as the existing rapid transit and bus operations.
 
At the urging of Amtrak - something controversial, considering a government-run company meddling in the private-sector, the Milwaukee Road decided to merge with the C&NW. Amtrak agreed to purchase in cash sections of railroad from Chicago to Minneapolis (via Milwaukee) which would become somewhat over-served by the merged corporation's railroads (which would come to be known as the Mid West Railroad).

The C&NW-MILW merger was an interesting footnote in railroad history. It was planned as a response to both the Burlington Northern and the (ill-fated) Union Pacific-Rock Island mergers. The Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western (as the merged company would've been known) was originally going to be formed through a purchase of the Milwaukee by the C&NW's parent, Northwest Industries. When Northwest Industries wanted to get out of the railroad business, it offered to sell the C&NW to the Milwaukee. The Milwaukee wouldn't have paid anything, as the only condition of the acquisition would've been the assumption of the C&NW's debt, which would allow for Northwest Industries to gain a substantial tax write-off. Surprisingly, Bill Quinn (the Milwaukee's chairman) decided against it, despite the fact that all the studies that had been done just three years earlier (the C&NW-MILW talks were dropped in 1969 when Northwest Industries decided to try taking over B.F. Goodrich instead; this was just as the I.C.C. itself recommended the combination of the two) showed that a C&NW-MILW merger would've been a sound idea. A short while later, Northwest Industries decided to sell the railroad to its employees, leading to the C&NW becoming "employee owned" until the early 1980's.

A good P.O.D. would be having Heineman (the C&NW and Northwest Industries Chairman) decide to proceed with the C&NW-MILW merger instead of trying to take over B.F. Goodrich in 1969. As a result, the UP/SP plan to split up the Rock Island (with UP getting everything north of Kansas City and SP getting everything south) is approved by the I.C.C. in 1971, thereby avoiding the collapse of the RI. :D Also, your idea of the CM&NW selling one of the two Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis/St. Paul lines to Amtrak is a good one! I assume that the MILW line (with its passenger traffic) would've been the one that was sold?
 

Devvy

Donor
Sweet - plenty of interest! :D Replies below!

Not to hijack the thread, but what do you know of the South Shore Railroad. the miscl websites are not very informative on how this entity has survived into the 21st Century.

Thanks

Back on topic; parts of your text describe something like the 'interurbans' that provided short hop passenger service between cities from the 19th century into the 1920s.

Locally in Lafayette we have lost most of our Amtrak service in the last decade. Used to be fairly convenient for getting to Chicago. Unfortunately not so much for Indianapolis, the stop downtown was no ones destination. If some miracle had routed the tracks through the airport terminal the trains would have been packed.

Trains to airports "might" be on the schedule at some point - stay tuned! ;)

As for the South Shore Railroad, I gather that the owning railroad decided not to opt in to Amtrak and continue operating the passenger service themselves. When they eventually decided that the passenger service was sapping their finances, they applied to close it, the ICC intervened, and the state of Indiana then began subsidising it to keep it open, and eventually purchasing the line themselves when the railroad went bankrupt in the 1980s. Hope that's enough :)

I was something of a railfan in my youth, and even today I remain fond of train travel and wish it was a viable option in more areas--heresy from an aerospace engineer to suggest highspeed rail over turboprop commuter planes, I suppose, but my interests there are in rockets which won't be competing with trains any time soon. ;) I' a Hoosier, and I remember the attempts to keep the old Union Station open there, and now living in Cinci I see the same. Seeing a TL with more made of the potential will be quite nifty indeed.

Well, as with my above comment, expect a more co-operative approach when the time comes between rail and air.

I am doing some of my graduate research into understanding the roots of our failure to push for High Speed rail at an earlier date in this country. So count me in as an eager reader, and don't be suprised if I ask you for a few of your sources for my project...Keep it comming:D

By all means! The only point I'd make on the side, is that I'm a Brit. I understand railroads (or railways as we call them here :) ) fine, but sometimes the US politics, Congress and party politics goes over my head, so there'll be more of a focus on what happens to Amtrak on the ground rather then the background politicking!

Longer routes can be more competitive than youd think. For instance, we travel from syarcuse to chicago overnight, and its a lot easier on us than flying. Moreover there are more people out there that hate flying than youd think. Moreover, train time can be used by business people far more constuctively than air time can.

With highspeed rail, businesspeople could get on a train in nyc at night, get a good nights sleep, and arrive in chicago well rested for a days work. Maybe even returning that night....

At the moment, Amtrak obviously has very limited resources, so I've got them buying shorter routes that should be at least able to almost break even operationally (NOT including capital costs on the infrastructure or trains). But the point it - if you get the shorter routes able to run at quick high speeds, suddenly at later dates the long-distance routes (ie. Chicago to NY) can use those tracks, avoid it's nemesis (freight) and it's travel times drop substantially.

As well, trains are cheaper, boarding them doesn't take as long, and Wi-Fi is often readily available (or it was in Britain in any case).

- You can buy a ticket at a decent price 10 minutes before departure (unless you're travelling on Virgin Trains ;) )
- It's more comfortable, and you can walk around
- Wifi & phone service generally works on board unless you are in the sticks
- Virtually no pain in the arse security (although that point is even more relevant post 9/11)

Would Amtrak's purchase of the Chicago-Minneapolis route affect METRA operations? (I've only been on a train once- METRA commuter rail from Chicago to Lake Forest, IL in HS. Oddly, I passed a locomotive in C&NW livery on my way to the train.)

Would Amtrak still buy the Auto Train? Would they expand its operations?

Here are some Amtrak commercials for your enjoyment!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MIkduzGx4

Well Chicago METRA operations have been passed to Amtrak. The point here being that several of the commuter routes that serve further out destinations can use the purchased "main lines" for at least part of their journey, increasing speed, providing a better ROI for investing in those sections etc etc. So I think the actual OTL METRA network will change here, as Amtrak tries to make the routes fit it's infrastructure better. The less commuter rail has to deal with freight, the better (less constraints on timetable, and more reliable services).

Since Amtrak's getting commuter rail, too, I think Amtrak ITTL owns METRA. And they appear to be making commuter rail a priority, so presumably any change will only be for the better.

Indeed - see above!

High speed rail sounds nice, and expensive. I'd be happy with 100 kph service to Chicago twice daily. Hell a 80kph connection to the Indianapolis airport four times a day would be the bomb. It takes the ass to ass packed shuttle buses a hour or more to get us there & a round trip ticket is now north of $40 :mad: A comfy train seat to the terminal would be the bomb :)

Do you really mean kph or mph? If you do mean kph, then blimey - we should be able to bust those speeds easily!

Hmm, interesting start. So, how would Amtrak operating the commuter service which in OTL is operated by the MBTA be any different? Consider that the MBTA was founded in the 1960s precisely to offer commuter rail services as other companies (mainly the Boston & Maine and the NY&NH Railroad) were abandoning them, as well as the existing rapid transit and bus operations.

My research concluded that MBTA in the 1960s was created not to operate the services (which would still be operated by the railroads), but to subsidise the services. So here, Amtrak has taken over the operation of the passenger services for MBTA, with MBTA now subsidising Amtrak for the operation of those services. Although please correct me if I'm mistaken here!

<snip>

A good P.O.D. would be having Heineman (the C&NW and Northwest Industries Chairman) decide to proceed with the C&NW-MILW merger instead of trying to take over B.F. Goodrich in 1969. As a result, the UP/SP plan to split up the Rock Island (with UP getting everything north of Kansas City and SP getting everything south) is approved by the I.C.C. in 1971, thereby avoiding the collapse of the RI. :D Also, your idea of the CM&NW selling one of the two Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis/St. Paul lines to Amtrak is a good one! I assume that the MILW line (with its passenger traffic) would've been the one that was sold?

Thanks for the info - I've corrected the merged corporation's name in the first post to Chicago, Milwaukee & North Western Railroad. Incidentally, I did actually seriously contemplate that name anyway (it was the main name I came up with when merging the names together), but I thought it was a bit cumbersome!

EDIT: Also, the lines I was thinking of from Chicago north would be the MILW line from Union Station to south Milwaukee, as it's pretty straight, and as you say serves a good deal of passenger areas. Some areas it bypasses to the side of the town, but as those areas (Waukegan, Kenosha, Racine) will be departure rather then destination points, with people driving to the station, then that's OK. From south Milwaukee onwards, I envisaged taking the ex-C&NW route, with an "Amshack" replacing the old Lakefront depot. The C&NW route is a bit shorter, straighter, and doesn't have to deal with bridges across the Mississippi. It means it doesn't have to share with freight through Mississippi potentially, and also leaves open the potential for an easy extension to Green Bay/Appleton at some point. And the C&NW route serves Eau Claire as well!
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Also, the lines I was thinking of from Chicago north would be the MILW line from Union Station to south Milwaukee, as it's pretty straight, and as you say serves a good deal of passenger areas. Some areas it bypasses to the side of the town, but as those areas (Waukegan, Kenosha, Racine) will be departure rather then destination points, with people driving to the station, then that's OK. From south Milwaukee onwards, I envisaged taking the ex-C&NW route, with an "Amshack" replacing the old Lakefront depot. The C&NW route is a bit shorter, straighter, and doesn't have to deal with bridges across the Mississippi. It means it doesn't have to share with freight through Mississippi potentially, and also leaves open the potential for an easy extension to Green Bay/Appleton at some point. And the C&NW route serves Eau Claire as well!

Makes alot of sense. The MILW route from Milwaukee to Minneapolis was (and still is) the superior route for freight, while the C&NW route would be better for passengers. You know, your timeline has inspired me to try and write a railroad AH of my own - provided I can find the time for it. :eek:
 
My research concluded that MBTA in the 1960s was created not to operate the services (which would still be operated by the railroads), but to subsidise the services. So here, Amtrak has taken over the operation of the passenger services for MBTA, with MBTA now subsidising Amtrak for the operation of those services. Although please correct me if I'm mistaken here!

I see. I know that the MBTA however was in a buying spree for the tracks during the 1960s and 1970s (buying it out from the Boston and Maine as well as Penn Central, amongst others, in a piecemeal fashion), so that should be something to keep in mind if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts owns track that is being used by Amtrak.

Also note, too, that the MBTA Commuter Rail had a wider service area in the beginning before contracting and eventually expanding again during the 1990s. For example, Rhode Island also had some service through the MBTA, which got curtailed as the years wore on. In particular, through what is now the Franklin Line, there was service to Woonsocket, RI, and up until the 1980s Pawtucket had MBTA service. If service in Rhode Island can be preserved and/or expanded, that would make me happy. (As well as getting a direct connection between North Station and South Station.)
 

Riain

Banned
Remember that the TGV didn't operate until 1981, but if my conversations with Devvy in this are indication, America won't be trailing too many people on high-speed rail technology in this world....

The Metroliner was doing 125mph in 1969, the US can go fast when it wants to.
 
Trains to airports "might" be on the schedule at some point - stay tuned! ;)

The Chicago region has a decent connection. I used it a couple times back when. Indy has nothing worthwhile, tho the airport there services a dozen cities in a 120km radius

As for the South Shore Railroad, I gather that the owning railroad decided not to opt in to Amtrak and continue operating the passenger service themselves. When they eventually decided that the passenger service was sapping their finances, they applied to close it, the ICC intervened, and the state of Indiana then began subsidising it to keep it open, and eventually purchasing the line themselves when the railroad went bankrupt in the 1980s. Hope that's enough :)

That clairifies ownership & part of how it survived. The other part it is It threads through a fairly densely populated region, the south shore area, South Bend, FortWayne, & the many smaller towns between them.

Do you really mean kph or mph? If you do mean kph, then blimey - we should be able to bust those speeds easily!

Kilometers per hr. The tracks between Indy & Lafayette have a long history of congestion. In the past two decades there have been extended spikes in the freight traffic of forty plus trains per day through here. That is the long beasts we have here in the Midwest. Made clearing the city slow, and frequent speed reductions along the way, which became permanent once you approached the new industrial districts north of Indy.
 
Top