Robert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any passenger rail system in the entire
> world (from city transit to nationwide service)
> that doesn't depend upon public funding (subsidies
> or whatever else we want to call it) for its
> survival?

The oft-berated British passenger rail system is claimed by some to make money for it's private franchise owners over it's quasi-private open access rail system. That's one of the reasons most freight still doesn't ride the rails in Britain, they're afraid of losing the profitable passenger business if more freight trains start clogging up the system.

Of course, they're also paying $8 bucks a gallon for petrol, half of which is pure taxes, so I guess it can be argued that the $4-ish a gallon fuel tax is an indirect subsidy of the rail system!
>
> Is it all that realistic to expect Amtrak to
> survive and grow in service and reliability with
> only private and/or revenue funding?

If we can replace the word "Amtrak" with the phrase "private passenger rail" for a moment.....then the answer is a qualified YES:

(1)YES if the private operators only have to pay incremental costs to use the private US rail system, which is dependent on federal oversight to ensure no cost gouging by the freight railroads.

(2)YES if the private operators are allowed to supplement their passenger trains with whatever freight business they can solicit, whether it competes with the host railroad or not

(3)YES if the private operators are not required to serve low usage areas as the pre-1970's Class I passenger systems were - just let 'em operate where they want, not where the government wants. If states want to subsidize service to low rent areas, let the states subsidize the service, not the feds.

(4)YES if the private operators are allowed to spice up their trains as they see fit despite various state regulations/prohibitions, which means allowing alcohol (if airlines are allowed to serve alcohol over "dry" state airspace, then the same should be afforded to passenger trains running through dry states), some on-board gaming (I always thought it would be a blast to have regular poker tournaments on those long passenger train rides), smoking lounges (isolated from the other cars in the consist of course), always-on internet service....... but yeah, I draw the line at prostitution! The point is to let the private operators use whatever marketing scheme they deem as fitting to draw riders.

(5)YES if the private operators can use their own crews with their own wage and benefit packages, and not be saddled with having to implement Amtrak's labor agreements.

(6)YES if the private operators are given sole franchise rights to whatever routes they bid highest for - it would be a disaster if multiple passenger operators were trying to make a go over the same corridors.

Of course, the freight railroads may just decide that it's in their best interests to begin running passenger trains again over their home tracks rather than having another private operator running over their tracks.