Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Valleyline]

Running one train per day or less over long distance routes is not a formula designed to attract masses and this has been Amtrak's problem from the beginning. Passenger services at all but major stops are either deficient or non existant and seriously discourage passenger growth. I have used and supported Amtrak since its beginning but when the per passenger subsidy statistics were published ($300 plus per passenger for the Sunset Limited) my view changed. No one has been able to forecast any significant reduction in the per passenger losses even if Amtrak is granted everything it wants for capital expenditures. And Amtrak, to the best of my knowledge, has been unable to justify federal expenditures that would truly make it a viable alternative to the automobile or airlines over long distance routes. Lacking that, it seems that Amtrak or its successor(s) will be limited to serving high density corridor routes that states will be forced to sigificantly fund or lose.

[passengerfan]

With all but one or two U.S. Airlines on the verge of bankruptcy and some experts predicting the American taxpayer may be forced to come up with 18 or 19 Billion dollars just to get them a temporary reprieve why not give amtrak say two billion a year for the next ten years and see what happens. The airlines are already subsidized with the air traffic control system and all of the equipment that intales. Another major expense is coming for the major airports the strengthing of the runways for the new Airbus destined to enter service next year. Only San Francisco International is already ready for this plane except certain alterations are necessary to the terminal building. All of this for airports at Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Washington and New York is going to cost the taxpayers additional billions. I say if Airbus is going to build yhe plane then let those governments pay fior the changes to the airports where the new plane will land. If Amtreak was given two billion a year for the next ten years we could have one of the finest rail systems in the world. Stop all of the hidden subsidies to the Airline industry and lets give Amtrak a fair and balanced deal.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Perhaps another way to help the situation along would be for us all to take a very sharp look at our Congress folks....and try to move the situation a bit to maybe creating a better funding for passenger rail in this country....and one way to try to do that is at the upcoming ballot box.

Or better yet, let the folks in those states which are the most vociferous about Amtrak's "lack of funding" fund it themselves, and quit trying to make the nation's taxpayers pay for this perpetual boondoggle! If the NEC states really want the NEC, then the NEC states should be soley responsible for the funding of the NEC.

It'll never happen, and you know why? Once you folks are forced to pay most or all of the costs of running and maintaining passenger rail (instead of foisting that responsibility on those of us who do not receive the benefits of that taxation), you all will decide that passenger rail isn't worth the taxation after all.

As long as someone else pays for it, Amtrak's just great. Once you all are forced to pay for it, it'll be a different story.

For the last time, put your money where your collective mouths are, and fund it yourselves!

[Modelcar]

...Perhaps another way to help the situation along would be for us all to take a very sharp look at our Congress folks....and try to move the situation a bit to maybe creating a better funding for passenger rail in this country....and one way to try to do that is at the upcoming ballot box.

[daveklepper]

The 6-times explanation came from one of the rail reporting services, I believe it was "Nawdry" but it might have been one of the others, including Shirley Tennison's frequent mailings.

I much prefer the incremental approach anyway. Look, even with all its problems, Amtrak is attracting more passengers every year. Give David Gunn the money he needs and most of the problems will be solved. I don't expect it to run like a Swiss watch the way the European railways do but I'd be happy to settle for a decent average of what railroading was like in its so-called "Golden Age." Sure we can now rapsodize about how great the Super Chief and El Cap and UP City trains were like, but there was also plenty of material for that best seller, something like "To H_ll in a Day Coach!" Get the equipment repaired, get the Northeast corridor bridges repaired, then ask for money to extend catenary down to Richmond. A Boston connecting tunnel is essential, so the corridor can be Bangor to Richmond. That Chicago rail program is also essential for commuter and freight as well as Amtrak's Union Station access. In the USA, it would be incremental or nothing, since the chances of getting new rights of way for real high speed rail seem pretty slim..

[Anonymous]

This is probably an old reply to even older conversations, but here's my take on this subject:

No entity is ever going to be able to efficiently operate inter-city passenger rail service utilizing another's physical plant. Here in the Northeast, freight capacity trends toward increases while maintenance budgets, equipment purchases, and dispatching methods trend toward near gridlock--at times. The best funded, most well-run company in the world could not satisfy its customers offering the schedules available to it by using a freight railroad's left-over track time.

Besides all that, you'll never see any train on the Water Level Route west of Albany, NY running more than 79 m.p.h. unless some MAJOR money is spent on track and signals.

Just my opinion...

[Junctionfan]

Can't find anything in the Alstom site to tell if they follow the FRA standards or not. Since you know about thease things better than I do, what is wrong with the Pendolino design that I am missing?

By the way, those DMUs of the Colarado Railcar are cool eh?

[Overmod]

On the FRA regs, start here:

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/49cfr238_03.html

or the beta site for the e-CFR (not the "official" Federal Register html version)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=70c26f058e5a09d71961fb39fa903edb&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv4_02.tpl

(don't forget to remove any spaces or wraps in this)


On the Colorado Railcar DMU: It's not hard to find

http://www.coloradorailcar.com/safety.htm

[Junctionfan]

I can find neither using Yahoo or Google. Need help please.

[Overmod]

In case you don't know, search on "49 CFR part 238"

There's a pretty good discussion of what would be appropriate for an "American Pendolino" on the Colorado Railcar DMU site.

[Junctionfan]

First I will look at the FRA regulations than I will check out the Alstom site again.

[Overmod]

They're not legal for service in the United States unless they meet FRA regulations. You might contact Anna Bennett at Alstom and ask whether any of the Pendolino variants are US compatible, or how the design might be adapted. ( [e-mail] .com )

[Junctionfan]

Hmmmmm.....I don't know. I think I know the answer but why? What would the FRA have against them?

[Overmod]

Hint: Do the Pendolinos conform to FRA impact and loading requirements?

[Junctionfan]

Does anybody have any comments about my suggestion that Amtrak might benifit using Alstom's Pendolino class tilting trains?

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I got a little ambitious, I went into Amtrak's web site, and I got some figures from their audited consolidated financial statements for FY's (fiscal years*) 2000 - 2003. I am not sure whether farebox recovery would just pertain to passenger related revenue or a combination of passenger related revenue + commuter revenue Nevertheless I used three revenue numbers: Passenger Related Revenue. Passenger Related Revenue + Commuter Revenue, and Total Revenue; the total revenue would be income from all sources except subsidies.

I then divided each of these revenue figures for each year, in turn, by the total expense for the year. The passenger related revenue only income/expense ratio averaged 43% for the four fiscal years. Adding in the commuter revenue raised that ratio to approximately 50% on average. The total income/expense ratio for the four fiscal years averaged around 65%. So the income to expense ratio is more like 65%, depending on how it is measured, rather than 80%. If Amtrak's income to expense ratio were in the 80% I don't think it would have been in as much inancial trouble over the years.

I did something else. I used the income and expense figures for FY 2001 which were provide by Trains. com I added the income of the long distance trains, and I added the expenses of the long distance trains. I subtracted the income of the long distance trains from the total FY2001 income, and I subtracted the expenses of the long distance trains from the total FY 2001 expenses.

Removing the income and the expenses of the long distance trains for FY 2001resulted in a substantially lower loss for that fiscal year, and a substantially lower operating ratio as well.

*For those of you who may not be aware of it the federeal government's fiscal year (FY) runs from October 1 in the calendar year preceding the year of the fiscal year to September 30 in the calendar year of the fiscal year. For example, FY 2001 ran from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001.

[Overmod]

Dave, where'd you find the report, and what's the URL?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: their assumption DOES have the advantage of being completely accurate for today's situation ... as most of the roads do exist, the high-speed lines don't, and the lion's share of the equipment used to build railroads runs on liquid fossil fuel.

Perhaps a reasonable argument to decouple the construction cost from operating cost (at least politically -- which I suspect would be the operative assessment method) would be to have the Government and private entities assure an appropriate amount of biodiesel production and distribution to cover what's needed for the new-line construction as it is implemented. Subsidies, SBIR/STTR grants, licensed technology from ORNL, etc., including grants, e.g. for things like fuel-stabilization treatment, that can cover some of the provision costs of "distribution equipment" -- filling stations and delivery trucks, etc.

Once that's in progress, it would be possible to require use of some percentage of 'renewable-resource-derived' fuel on the high-speed line construction -- heck, while we're doing this, on any Federal-matching-funds capital construction. If this gives Exxon Mobil, BP and the rest an excuse to get into either blended or full biodiesel, don't expect me to complain. (Note that this is separate from either fuel synthesis or tar-sands recovery). I'm tempted to give this a name with a cute acronym, like Environmentally Good Zero-Added-Carbon Technology. ;-}

With respect to higher utilization of the equipment: An interesting possibility here would involve the use of advanced purchase tickets (including e-tickets billed to credit cards) to schedule 'extra' trains. If Amtrak has the capability to run 4 trains per day in a corridor where demand only 'requires' one, the four schedule slots are assigned, but the daily train only operates in the most 'convenient' of these -- that's the train that 'walk-on' passengers know will be there on time. If enough tickets have been paid for by the appropriate 'sailing time' for a train in another 'slot' (or the time needed to launch a balancing move to have a trainset at the right section of the line to run such a movement), that train will then operate (and be promoted as such) -- the cutoff perhaps representing either an appropriate percentage of the marginal operating expenses or politically-acceptable minimums (note that shortfall could then be attributed to marketing expenses, etc. in a private company, at least over a reasonable frame of time). The usual shenanigans with incremental seat auctions, standby boarding rates, etc. would apply as soon as the train makes quota, the principle being to recover more than the marginal cost of transporting the extra passenger mass or accommodating an extra stop or two.

If the service take rate actually comes up to the point where quotas are regularly met on at least one leg of an equipment cycle, the 'reverse move' could be subsidized. Danger here is that discounting would siphon off potential patrons from trains in other dayparts; there are ways to assess this and address compensation.

I do think that it'll be a mix of timing, amenities, and service and comfort that would make these services successful. Quite simply, something with these fixed expenses and highly-capitalized track and infrastructure systems will not be 'competing' with discount airlines and the like by providing 'equivalent' services -- there has to be a mix of service and experience, and I might add a mix that creates return business, not something that gets a bunch of one-time riders who talk about how nice it was but don't go back.

Steve Crumbaugh is ringing the right kinds of bells. If we have the right high standards for the high-speed trains, we need comparable standards for all the infrastructure and provisions for "passenger handling" at what have come to be called the 'interfaces' where passengers leave fast rail to go to their ultimate destinations. These quite often WON'T be conventional "commuter" trains, and it's interesting to brainstorm on exactly what they might contain in addition to the capability of accommodating rush-hour travel. Don's argument does apply to All Those Commuter Cars sitting idle between rush hours...

With regard to freight: I'm still not convinced that early support for the network proposal will come from these entities. Keep trying to make it happen however.

[daveklepper]

This matter about a report that states that the private auto is six times more fuel efficient than high speed rail . How did they arrive at the figure? Simple. They included the fuel required to BUILD the high speed rail line and assumed the highway already existed. That is the explanation! I forgot to ask how long the fuel required to build was assigned, but I assume normal accounting practice would say 20 years.

[Anonymous]

How about an auto train to the West Coast? How about more dome cars fo those who care about the scenery? How about more bar cars for those who don't care about where they are? Sell more cigars, etc. and make some money. We've already trains that smoked at the front, so now they can smoke at the back end. We need commuter lines that meet the trains and take to other locations on the west coast in particular. We need commuter lines that run down the medians of city expressways so that they have free advertising for the people stuck in traffic. The trains have to try and take 'em where they want to go when they want to get there.

[Anonymous]

It wasn't long ago that people would argue that the airlines could make money just moving freight.... Notice that most airlines are now having problems turning a profit, even though their freight business is stable..... It takes both passengers and freight to turn a profit... The railroads never turned a profit moving just passengers, the railroads back in their hey day moved the mail too.....

Interesting, two major 
package delivery companies are interested in faster ground transportation....UPS and FedEx..... Build a high speed rail network connecting major hub cities, and you'll find these two companies supplying freight......especially concerning the increase frequency factor.....

With high speed rail, there would be no need to run a train overnight, except for a transcontinental over the Rockies to the west coast from either the Midwest or Southwest (Chicago and either Dallas/Houston)....

[Anonymous]

Highways are already being delayed, due to a lack of federal and state funds, mainly because the gas tax per gallon hasn't gone up to reflect the inflation rate lately..... In Texas, the state is turning to building new toll roads to build its new highways....

I'm convinced that we would be better off building a starter network of high speed rail, some 7-8,000 miles, than rebuilding any urban freeway..... Keep in mind that federal highway spending is for new highways, or rebuilt highways.....not for repaving current roads....The state maintains the roads....and I'm not cutting that funding...... Adding another two years is nothing.....the state of Texas is delaying new highways a decade or more already......

I'll post my map again.... Notice that Indy will be served with a line between Chicago and Atlanta.....and on to Florida.....

Speed is very important.... allowing any railroad operator the ability to run with much more frequency.... For example, Amtrak operates 3 trains to serve a daily on the Texas Eagle in each direction.... It takes up to 22 hours to serve Dallas to Chicago, an overnight train, very similar to the trains Amtrak operates between Chicago and Dallas..... Cut that time to 6 hours, and Amtrak can operate 4 daily trains in each direction..... 900 miles divided by 150 mph, not 186 mph, is 6..... a whole lot better than 1 every day......

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Quote Rail tickets do pay a substantial portion of Amtrak's costs, accounting from 60-80%, according to the figures I can recall.

According to the AAR s booklet "Railroad Facts -2002 Edition" Amtrak's FY 2001 passenger revenue was somewhere around $1.3 billion while its total operating expenses were approximately $3.3 billion. That translates into a 40% farebox recovery rather than a 60 - 80% farebox recovery. I don't know offhand what its percentage farebox recoveries were for FY 2002 and 2003, but the 40% figure seems to be consistent with Amtrak's farebox recoveries for past fiscal years.

I'm going to have to go to Amtrak's web site and look up their FY 2002 and 2003 annual reports to see whether the percentage of farebox recoveries has improved over the last 2 - 3 years, but it's late, and I'm too lazy to do it now.

To me the question is not so much whether you get rid of Amtrak or rethink it, but what to do about rail passenger service in the US both long term and short term. The status quo is unsat; dtto for throwing a lot of money at the problem.
.





.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that what Amtrack (slamtrack to some) needs is real spending as in major bucks. There are only three places that I know of that such funds may be obtained. (1) The federal government (they have funded railroads before) with a track record that is not the greatest for getting along. (2) Life Insurance Companies - They have their own problems or (3) A national lottery devoted only for the developemnt of the nations passenger rail and rail realted services only for the public usage in licensed open access. Just think of it America gets to enjoy a new and improved transportation system at the expense of the American People. Sounds a bit like taxes doesn't it

[Junctionfan]

I wonder if it would be easier and maybe cheaper for Amtrak to invest in Alstom's Pendolino class tilting trains instead of thinking about using TGVs.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

Reasoning schmeesoning, it was the BIG eraser of politics meh thinks.
Mitch

I thought so.....stupid politicians...[V]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

Reasoning schmeesoning, it was the BIG eraser of politics meh thinks.
Mitch

[Junctionfan]

Why did Amtrak stop service to Houston and Columbus anyways? What kind of reasoning did they use?

[Overmod]

Dave, was re-reading your post and another penny dropped:

Check your European noise-control reference to see if their 'energy-efficiency' criterion is related to the source of the energy. They may be describing the relative effectiveness of electric high-speed rail in reducing the need (and cost) of fossil fuel, in areas where alternative power (e.g. wind and nuclear) supply a meaningful amount of the traction electricity. On that basis, even a train using multiple times the effective kJ per passenger of an equivalent IC road vehicle could still be considered as 'using less energy resources' (insert other semantics or criteria as required) than that vehicle... or be seen as preferable to it on welfare-economic terms.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see CHI-Florida service, via INDY, restored. It could split in Nashville with one section going to ATLANTA and beyond to Florida and the other going on the Floridian route to Florida through Birmingham and Montgomery, with perhaps another section splitting at Montgomery for New Orleans, thus providing another needed route in the growing southeast.

OIf course, nothing remotely similar will ever happen unless more funds are provided to improve the tracks through Indiana. That's what hurt ridership on the KY Cardinal which was thoroughly ridiculed.