What would it take for the freight companies to provide passenger service?

Question

It would probably be more efficient if the government contracted them to do the job.

Answer 1

they would have to put seats in, make a passenger compartment ect...thats what airlines are for

Answer 2

they never wanted it that is why the states and cities run the commuter service. no profitl.... look at Erie.. Penn RR and Conrail  they all got rid of the passenger for and wanted to keep the freight.

Answer 3

Plain and simple, it would have to make money.  

Quickest way for that to happen is an open-ended, farebox ratio subsidy.  Passenger pays $1 fare, government matches with an additional 40 cents for long-haul, $1.10 for regional transit, and $3.00 for urban transit.  That's an outlandish subsidy, but comparable to the farebox ratios already achieved by the non-profit government owned transit agencies that run them now.

Of course, this would work EXTREMELY well, because bureaucratic institutions are optimized to merely survive, but private companies are optimized to make giant loads of money!  Before you know it, "all the cool people" would be riding trains again.  

Then, people would howl and scream about why they're handing taxpayer cash over to freight companies!??  

Nevermind the much larger sum they hand to trucking companies (by subsidizing roads, and before you say "gasoline tax", truckers do 99.9% of the damage to the roads, and pay not even 50% of the gasoline tax) or to airlines (by subsidizing airports, air traffic control and TSA!)

Now as far as subcontracting what Amtrak does to the freight railroads, it used to be that way, and it sucked.  Amtrak used to hire the freight company's crews, use the freight company's shops etc.  Being a reasonably well run concern, they decided that it was cheaper to use their own crews and their own shops.  Now there are standardized coach designs, standard crew training and procedures, and one central shop (well two - Wilmington for electrified northeast corridor stuff, and Beech Grove for everything else.)   All trains into L.A. get serviced by the same facilities.  It's hard to beat that.  If the freights took passenger trains back, Amtrak would probably still exist, as a subcontractor providing all those services, and also as a terminal railway owning the various union stations and approach tracks.

Answer 4

Snow flakes in h**l is the beginning.

Answer 5

Billions of dollars.

Railroads do not like passenger trains messing up the running of their freight trains.

Answer 6

actually they did between chicago and new orleans they have an amtrac train that runs on the canadian national or illinois central rr lines, Some of the ic engineers would take the runs and swith crews out and a fresh crew comes on board. now if they still do i dont know. Passenger serviive is not profitable and this is why it is subsidized by the government now.... In the northeast the amtracks are profitable but cross country runs arent that profitable

Answer 7

At present, there's no money in it. And the railroads don't have a desire to provide that type of service. Especially now when it is desirable for our society to become a victim of some large company for monetary reward. Everything changes, and maybe one day this will change too, and passenger service will come back. But not any time soon.

Answer 8

The main, and most expensive reason, is passenger rails are much more level and smoother than freight rails.