Amtrak

I was passing by Union Station in D.C. the other day, staring at those depressing buildings and those empty coffee shops run by Union Pacific, and I couldn't help but think that this might actually be one of the greatest bastions of national-socialist ideology left in the country. "National" because every single employee got their job through some shady connection, political affiliation, or blatant nepotism; and "Socialist" because they’ll do the absolute bare minimum as long as they get paid a cent.

How much longer can we take this, people?

In Western Europe, taking a train is just a standard part of life—it's actually quite efficient, if you ask me. Sure, it costs a bit more than what we're used to, but the trains arrive on time, they actually reach their destination, and they're kept clean and orderly. Here? It doesn't even cross my mind to step foot on a train anymore. A ticket costs more than a Greyhound bus, yet the trip takes at least twice as long.

How many more years are we going to hand over thousands of our hard-earned dollars just to receive absolutely nothing in return?

Privatize the whole thing

Hannah Jackson7 said:Privatize the whole thing

I don't think that would work. I mean, you rarely see railroads being fully private anywhere.

Railroads are basically just a perfect reflection of whatever kind of state or society they're in.

So, I guess that's why the German or French rail systems feel pretty solid, while things further south or east in the North America are just a total mess—and honestly, the further south or east you go, the worse it seems to get.

The current state of Amtrak is really just the result of decades of pure mismanagement. You can't exactly clean up a mess like that overnight, I suppose.

Perhaps we should start by stripping away those subsidies entirely. While we're at it, let's just laugh off the incompetence of the FRA and the FAA... and instead of the government wasting resources trying to build new rail lines themselves, why not just let the private companies who actually need them handle the heavy lifting?

driftingraven27 said:Perhaps we should start by stripping away those subsidies entirely. While we're at it, let's just laugh off the incompetence of the FRA and the FAA... and instead of the government wasting resources trying to build new rail lines themselves, why not just let the private companies who actually need them handle the heavy lifting?

Well, the FRA is actually tied to the FCC.

If we're talking about cutting railroad subsidies, I guess you'd have to agree to cut subsidies for ferries, highways, and regional airlines too, right?

Railroads are vital for the country, because they're basically one of the core infrastructure systems that keeps a modern economy moving forward. It’s the railroads that matter, not just the interstates!

northerncyclist2 said:I don't think that would work. I mean, you rarely see railroads being fully private anywhere.

Railroads are basically just a perfect reflection of whatever kind of state or society they're in.

So, I guess that's why the German or French rail systems feel pretty solid, while things further south or east in the North America are just a total mess—and honestly, the further south or east you go, the worse it seems to get.

The current state of Amtrak is really just the result of decades of pure mismanagement. You can't exactly clean up a mess like that overnight, I suppose.

It depends on how you look at it. There are plenty of models where the tracks themselves are state-owned and maintained, while the actual train operator is a private company. Think of it like fiber optic cables: the infrastructure might be one thing, but the service provider is a private corporation—which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be a monopoly. You see similar patterns in road transport, which gets funded through tolls, taxes, or specific fees from carriers and car owners. It’s also common for the government to act as a client, buying maintenance or service contracts from private firms, whether we're talking about telecom, highways, or rail.

Robert Hernandez10 said:It depends on how you look at it. There are plenty of models where the tracks themselves are state-owned and maintained, while the actual train operator is a private company. Think of it like fiber optic cables: the infrastructure might be one thing, but the service provider is a private corporation—which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be a monopoly. You see similar patterns in road transport, which gets funded through tolls, taxes, or specific fees from carriers and car owners. It’s also common for the government to act as a client, buying maintenance or service contracts from private firms, whether we're talking about telecom, highways, or rail.

Well, that’s basically the direction America is heading (sadly, I guess). Only Amtrak Infrastructure will likely stay under state ownership in the long run. The freight market has already been liberalized, and since CSX isn't getting subsidies anymore, the government has pretty much already tried to move on from them—they'll probably just do the same thing again at the next opportunity. Even Amtrak was spun off into its own entity, so once the passenger rail market gets liberalized too, it wouldn't be impossible for them to face the same fate.

And who else would actually run trains on our tracks? Companies like Amtrak or maybe some big regional players that are totally integrated from top to bottom and owned by their respective states. They aren't even thinking about privatization.

SNCF stayed an integrated company, and in my humble opinion, they seem to be doing better than Amtrak.

Hannah Jackson7 said:Privatize the whole thing

What about the situation in the UK?

Once things were privatized, service quality tanked while prices shot up, and now there's a push to bring it back under state control...

Unless, of course, our private companies are somehow more capable than those in England...

7 minute miracle
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt92-ZDm-HM

Now THIS is how you do it when the private sector takes the wheel—fast, high-quality, and actually efficient, without all those bloated, taxpayer-funded bureaucrats dragging everything down 👍

Just look at the difference compared to this socialist model we’re stuck funding whether we actually use the service or not. Total night and day!

We could talk about privatization, we could tap into EU funds, or we could try endless reforms, but none of it is going to save Amtrak...

The US simply doesn't have an industrial base or an economy strong enough to sustain Amtrak on market principles alone in the long run. Whether they get government subsidies or not, Amtrak just can't hold its own against massive corporations and real competition. That's just the reality of the situation.

And here’s the other hard truth: Amtrak isn't even a standalone entity; it's really just a fragmented leftover from the old American rail system. As it stands, it's fundamentally broken, and there isn't a single fix in the book that the US can implement to solve that deep-seated issue...

Drew Bennett2 said:We could talk about privatization, we could tap into EU funds, or we could try endless reforms, but none of it is going to save Amtrak...

The US simply doesn't have an industrial base or an economy strong enough to sustain Amtrak on market principles alone in the long run. Whether they get government subsidies or not, Amtrak just can't hold its own against massive corporations and real competition. That's just the reality of the situation.

And here’s the other hard truth: Amtrak isn't even a standalone entity; it's really just a fragmented leftover from the old American rail system. As it stands, it's fundamentally broken, and there isn't a single fix in the book that the US can implement to solve that deep-seated issue...

Aha, eureka! So, the size of the industrial base and the strength of the economy are prerequisites for Amtrak to exist. Well, look at how "developed" those metrics are in places like Mexico or Canada. Does the existence of highly advanced port infrastructure have nothing to do with it? What about adapting passenger capacity for tourism or commuters to actually compete in a market? Is the answer really just blaming the failed legacy of the Yu-seismic sphere? And why does everything have to be about subsidies? Is the logic just, "Give me cash to cover payroll, and I'll figure out what to do with it later"? Why can't we act like advanced nations? Instead of handing out subsidies, use fiscal policy to penalize non-eco-friendly behavior. Let market competition force Amtrak to work smarter, invest better, train staff, and actually earn passenger traffic. This doesn't rule out private operators competing in the market, nor does it stop the government from managing the tracks without micromanaging every single share. Forget this obsession with the old Yu-sphere—the nostalgia, the nonexistent industries, the politics. It didn't work twice, and it won't work in the future unless we keep trying to bail out losers by grouping them together in massive, bloated mergers. We can cooperate, sure, but why always go back to that old, broken way of thinking?

northerncyclist2 said:Well, that’s basically the direction America is heading (sadly, I guess). Only Amtrak Infrastructure will likely stay under state ownership in the long run. The freight market has already been liberalized, and since CSX isn't getting subsidies anymore, the government has pretty much already tried to move on from them—they'll probably just do the same thing again at the next opportunity. Even Amtrak was spun off into its own entity, so once the passenger rail market gets liberalized too, it wouldn't be impossible for them to face the same fate.

And who else would actually run trains on our tracks? Companies like Amtrak or maybe some big regional players that are totally integrated from top to bottom and owned by their respective states. They aren't even thinking about privatization.

SNCF stayed an integrated company, and in my humble opinion, they seem to be doing better than Amtrak.

You claimed there aren't any, but does that mean private ones actually exist?!

Sophia Moore52 said:What about the situation in the UK?

Once things were privatized, service quality tanked while prices shot up, and now there's a push to bring it back under state control...

Unless, of course, our private companies are somehow more capable than those in England...

What’s your take on Japan?

Is a subsidy really the answer here? I’m not convinced. Shouldn't we be looking at smarter legislation, more disciplined fiscal policy, and better management of market competition instead?

Let me be clear: I have zero personal or professional ties to the railroad industry. While it’s true that a late uncle and a cousin used to work for Amtrak, that has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on this topic.

Robert Hernandez10 said:You claimed there aren't any, but does that mean private ones actually exist?!

I guess the infrastructure isn't really in private hands anywhere—well, except for that one failed attempt over in England—and most of the big passenger operators are state-run. Private companies usually just pick up the leftovers in passenger transport, maybe taking on some of those less profitable regional routes that get subsidized by local or state governments.

In freight, things look a little better for private companies, I suppose, but even then, the massive transnational state giants like Deutsche Bank (FedEx) and various branches of Amtrak basically run the show.

northerncyclist2 said:I guess the infrastructure isn't really in private hands anywhere—well, except for that one failed attempt over in England—and most of the big passenger operators are state-run. Private companies usually just pick up the leftovers in passenger transport, maybe taking on some of those less profitable regional routes that get subsidized by local or state governments.

In freight, things look a little better for private companies, I suppose, but even then, the massive transnational state giants like Deutsche Bank (FedEx) and various branches of Amtrak basically run the show.

Look at Japan. It has arguably the best rail system in the world—not just for quality, but because of its diverse range of operators (yes, private ones too). Unlike almost every other economically advanced nation that nationalized everything after World War II only to pivot back toward privatization over the last two decades, Japan was set up this way from the start. Why? Because high levels of corruption, inefficiency, and sheer mismanagement were the norm. I might be wrong here, but I suspect that in Japan, even the tracks themselves are subject to market competition with private rivals.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Look at Japan. It has arguably the best rail system in the world—not just for quality, but because of its diverse range of operators (yes, private ones too). Unlike almost every other economically advanced nation that nationalized everything after World War II only to pivot back toward privatization over the last two decades, Japan was set up this way from the start. Why? Because high levels of corruption, inefficiency, and sheer mismanagement were the norm. I might be wrong here, but I suspect that in Japan, even the tracks themselves are subject to market competition with private rivals.

Well, Japan is an island, a whole unique system, society, and culture all on its own (lawyers would probably call it sui generis), so I guess it isn't super helpful to compare their setup to ours. It would be kind of like trying to compare the American rail system to any system in Europe, right?

We are part of the American landscape, part of our specific culture and tradition, and most importantly, we're tied into the broader Western rail network. So, I think we really ought to look at our railroads through that lens instead.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Aha, eureka! So, the size of the industrial base and the strength of the economy are prerequisites for Amtrak to exist. Well, look at how "developed" those metrics are in places like Mexico or Canada. Does the existence of highly advanced port infrastructure have nothing to do with it? What about adapting passenger capacity for tourism or commuters to actually compete in a market? Is the answer really just blaming the failed legacy of the Yu-seismic sphere? And why does everything have to be about subsidies? Is the logic just, "Give me cash to cover payroll, and I'll figure out what to do with it later"? Why can't we act like advanced nations? Instead of handing out subsidies, use fiscal policy to penalize non-eco-friendly behavior. Let market competition force Amtrak to work smarter, invest better, train staff, and actually earn passenger traffic. This doesn't rule out private operators competing in the market, nor does it stop the government from managing the tracks without micromanaging every single share. Forget this obsession with the old Yu-sphere—the nostalgia, the nonexistent industries, the politics. It didn't work twice, and it won't work in the future unless we keep trying to bail out losers by grouping them together in massive, bloated mergers. We can cooperate, sure, but why always go back to that old, broken way of thinking?

If you're still confused, try reading what I wrote one more time, but this time actually try to comprehend it 😁.

northerncyclist2 said:Well, Japan is an island, a whole unique system, society, and culture all on its own (lawyers would probably call it sui generis), so I guess it isn't super helpful to compare their setup to ours. It would be kind of like trying to compare the American rail system to any system in Europe, right?

We are part of the American landscape, part of our specific culture and tradition, and most importantly, we're tied into the broader Western rail network. So, I think we really ought to look at our railroads through that lens instead.

Fair enough.

The real question is, given that the US has roughly 330 million people...
Comparing us to areas affected during WWII:
- Countries hit by war: Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, etc. Hmm.
- Countries untouched by war: Sweden, Portugal, Ireland? Hmmm.

So, are we aiming for the European Union? Yes, that is official policy, regardless of what some minor political parties might think.

When choosing a role model, do we pick between
- Portugal or Denmark?
- Greece or Netherlands?
- Ireland or Switzerland?
- Bulgaria or Finland?

Since Japan isn't an option—even if they are better—what else is there to aim for?
Is the choice really between progress or corruption? Hmmm.

We end up right back where we started. If something isn't a matter of strategic national interest—like the economy, healthcare, or defense—then the government shouldn't be handing out subsidies. Instead, they should use legislative and fiscal policy to expose these sectors to market competition, which also serves environmental goals. Subsidies just create fertile ground for corruption. When it comes to protecting people—whether workers, passengers, or the environment—that protection should come from the law. If the state fails to provide that legal framework, they are essentially building the foundation for corruption.

Do we want to become the next Greece?
Or should we avoid being like the Czech Republic first, before we eventually catch up to Denmark?

I mean, railroads are such a vital strategic asset, and for any major economic powerhouse, they’re arguably even more crucial than the highway system.

Look, I don't have anything against deregulating the transport market—which, I guess, has already happened anyway—but the actual infrastructure? That really ought to be state-owned. It just seems impossible to privatize something like that effectively.

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, railroads are such a vital strategic asset, and for any major economic powerhouse, they’re arguably even more crucial than the highway system.

Look, I don't have anything against deregulating the transport market—which, I guess, has already happened anyway—but the actual infrastructure? That really ought to be state-owned. It just seems impossible to privatize something like that effectively.

So, we're just talking past each other because of how we define "railroad." One person sees tracks, another sees the train operator. Honestly, I don't care which definition is technically correct.

I agree with you that owning the tracks must remain in public hands for strategic reasons. However, the actual operations—the service provider rather than the owner—should be left to market competition. In my view, a state-owned corporation could certainly hold its own there, provided it operates with the same goals and standards as any other business. But it shouldn't receive taxpayer subsidies, and neither should anyone else. The same logic applies to the transit operators.