Amtrak was created to relieve the freight companies' of the legal requirement to offer passenger service.
> Railroad corporations operated under charters received from the states, [...] These charters usually vested the railroad with a public mission and some pub- lic responsibility. Railroads were chartered to carry passengers and freight, for which they were incidentally permitted to charge fares.
> AMTRAK has not, during its brief existence, attempted to operate its own trains with its own personnel, but has instead chosen to rely upon contracts with the railroads. The result has been the immediate freeing of railroads from the passenger deficit. AMTRAK has also created a type of cost-plus subsidy, with no incentive to the operating railroad to improve services or control costs. The results are generally
what one would expect.
I've heard it said Amtrak was designed to fail so that freight would have no competition. It seems to me this is the case, since anytime Amtrak tries to expand (or even re-establish service as in Mobile-New Orleans), the freight companies immediately go to court to prevent being forced to share their infrastructure.
Because all the US passenger rail companies went out of business. Amtrak was essentially created out of the wreckage to maintain some passenger rail service. (It's a very complicated history.)
Amtrak makes almost all of its money on the Northeast Corridor which it then basically throws away in the rest of the country.
I don't know. Passenger service collapsed in the decade leading up to the formation of Amtrak. Other than bailing out and heavily subsidizing a bunch of failing railroads, I'm not sure what the fix was--although the Federal government could have made a much bigger investment at the time than it did. (Basically, spend what it would take to create popular Shinkansen routes.)
Most cargo is going long distances that passengers should fly for. The needs of freight and passengers is different enough that they should almost never be on the same track.
When humans are on a train speed counts and they are willing to pay extra for it. When freight is on a train they can save money by going slower.
> Railroad corporations operated under charters received from the states, [...] These charters usually vested the railroad with a public mission and some pub- lic responsibility. Railroads were chartered to carry passengers and freight, for which they were incidentally permitted to charge fares.
> AMTRAK has not, during its brief existence, attempted to operate its own trains with its own personnel, but has instead chosen to rely upon contracts with the railroads. The result has been the immediate freeing of railroads from the passenger deficit. AMTRAK has also created a type of cost-plus subsidy, with no incentive to the operating railroad to improve services or control costs. The results are generally what one would expect.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
I've heard it said Amtrak was designed to fail so that freight would have no competition. It seems to me this is the case, since anytime Amtrak tries to expand (or even re-establish service as in Mobile-New Orleans), the freight companies immediately go to court to prevent being forced to share their infrastructure.