Trains.com

What would it take?

4369 views
67 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:46 PM

The real traffic on LD trains is not the end to end passengers.  Most traffic that boards at one end detrains at stops in route.  Passengers boarding at in route stops mostly continue to the destination.  While some passengers will go from intermediate stop to intermediate stop.  When scheduling, Amtrak needs to pay more attention to how traffic volumes are distributed on their LD routes.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 7:57 PM

Convicted One
 
 

Adding one car to take advantage of peak usage times fits the criteria of "growing the business" (I guess) but it really only exploits existing spikes in ridership levels, it isn't really creating new business.

 The eastbound departure time from Chicago is dreadful for anyone not making the full trip to the east coast. I know I once cancelled my entire plans to travel east from Los Angeles via rail after learning that after connecting with the Lakeshore then on to my ultimate destination  they would be dropping me off after 11 PM out in the middle of a corn field  with no taxicab service.

Can we say whether adding cars during peak season to meet its demands is growing the business ?  This poster has no idea.   Does some one who needs or can only book a train during any peak period remember it and then book Amtrak during an off peak period ?

Agree that LSL departure times are difficult.  Only see one solution given present equipment restraints.

Swap back departure times with Capitol. That has been proposed previously but would have undesireable arrival times for Capitol.  As an aside -- Once enough V-2 sleepers are in service changing the LSL back will enable its Boston sleeper to be rotated to a possible 66 & 67 sleeper that would only require one more sleeper for the service. 

Until off peak sleeper demand is met we can only guess if total ridership will increase.  The question has to be how many coach passengers are denied sleeper space?

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:04 PM

blue streak 1
for the Silver Meteor and the additional revenue over costs that happens with the addition of one coach.

Adding one car to take advantage of peak usage times fits the criteria of "growing the business" (I guess) but it really only exploits existing spikes in ridership levels, it isn't really creating new business.

 

I'd be much more impressed if they were to add additional runs (two round trips per day) on the Lakeshore or some such.

 

The eastbound departure time from Chicago is dreadful for anyone not making the full trip to the east coast. I know I once cancelled my entire plans to travel east from Los Angeles via rail after learning that after connecting with the Lakeshore then on to my ultimate destination  they would be dropping me off after 11 PM out in the middle of a corn field  with no taxicab service. (Amtrak had scuttled the connecting shuttle bus service that was implemented for that terminal when their  original route/schedule was first created)

Much like my local bus company, they whittle away at services and features until the product remaining appeals to no one.

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:01 PM

Glancing at some of the PRIIA studies,  for riders of LD trains, 62-68% are 55 and over.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:06 PM

Given the number of "I've never ridden a train before" riders of all ages I see on our tourist line, there won't be a lot who have tried it...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:49 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
 
Convicted One
I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"? . . . [snipped - PDN]

 

How could they know ?  How many have ever tried it ? 

 

- Paul North. 

 

Yes, but  (Sorry man- the devil made me do it) how would you get them to try it?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, December 14, 2015 5:19 PM

Convicted One

  This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.

This is a false assumption by many persons.  Read the PRIIA for the Silver Meteor and the additional revenue over costs that happens with the addition of one coach. ( profits for that car ).  Believe it is approximately $700,000 per year.  So growth by adding additional cars will reduce operating loses.  That still does not make a train ( route ) self supporting but does improve the bottom line.  We know that the Meteor this Thanksgiving had 4 V-1 sleepers and 6 coaches.  Have not seen reports for this December .

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/570/756/2011%20PRIIA%20210%20Report%2009-26-11_final.pdf

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 12:54 PM

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+EAS

 Oh yeah, that clears it up.  Thanks, you've added to my forum experience today.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 14, 2015 12:42 PM

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 11:16 AM

The EAS criteria?  What's that?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 14, 2015 10:27 AM

Murphy Siding

 

 
schlimm
 
Murphy Siding
I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains.  But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population.       Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about.  What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?

 

By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere.   It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight.  Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies.  If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air.   It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation.

Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.   

 

 

 

  What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?

 

 

There could be many.  The EAS criteria could be used to determine where services might be needed, including current LD routes in flyoverland, but also other places not currently served.  Curent patronage would be a factor of course.   Much as it might be nice, providing a heavily subsidized sleeper service for a one-time grandchild vacation or visitors from overseas seems hard to justify compared to many other, more pressing matters.

 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 14, 2015 9:57 AM

Removal of long-distance service not only hurts those who do or will ride the trains, but also their connections that won't see them because of that lack.  Plus the businesses that depend on them.   But certainly improvements are needed.

If Amtrak is inconvenient as to place and time where you live, is there connecting bus service that permits most of the long-distance trip to be by train, where you live?

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 9:05 AM

daveklepper

4.  fairness in spending tax dolllars:   granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.

 

  In my mind, this would be hard to accomplish because of the ruralness of much of the USA.  In my state, 1/4 of the population lives near my city.  It's 3+ hours to the nearest Amtrak station.  Because fly-over country also constitutes run trains through at night country, any Amtrak train I want to get on puts me in a dark part of downtown somewhere at 3 a.m. (if the train is on time.)  The other 3/4 of the population of my state is up to 5 hours away from an Amtrak station.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 8:59 AM

schlimm

If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure."  Or he could google for some discussions.

 

   I don't know if you can have it both ways.  It makes no sense to  grumble about lack of civil discussion on a forum and then dismiss someone's comments as if they weren't worth your time

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 8:56 AM

schlimm
 
Murphy Siding
I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains.  But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population.       Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about.  What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?

 

By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere.   It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight.  Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies.  If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air.   It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation.

Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.   

 

  What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 14, 2015 8:33 AM

If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure."  Or he could google for some discussions.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 14, 2015 8:30 AM

Murphy Siding
I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains.  But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population.       Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about.  What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?

By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere.   It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight.  Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies.  If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air.   It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation.

Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, December 14, 2015 8:23 AM

I have justified public subsidization of LDs many times in the past, and mentioned:

1.  Mobility for the handicapped and elderly

2.  encouraging domestic and foreign tourism

3.  backup transportation for emergnencies

4.  fairness in spending tax dolllars:   granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.

Tags: LD susidy
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 7:14 AM

schlimm
 
rrnut282

Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship?  Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic.  I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip."  Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere.  I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation.  (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)

 

 

 

I would suggest you re-read the posts.

 

With all due respect, I would suggest you re-phrase your response. I know you don't mean it to sound that way, but your response has an air of unfriendliness to it.  I read it as the other poster asking for some clarification.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, December 14, 2015 7:08 AM

schlimm
 
Murphy Siding

 

 
schlimm

If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit.  The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.

 

 

 

 Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?

 

 

 

 

ALL.

 

   I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains.  But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population.

      Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about.  What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:27 PM

rrnut282

Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship?  Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic.  I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip."  Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere.  I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation.  (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)

 

I would suggest you re-read the posts.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:26 PM

Murphy Siding

 

 
schlimm

If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit.  The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.

 

 

 

 Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?

 

 

ALL.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:31 PM

Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship?  Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic.  I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip."  Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere.  I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation.  (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:38 AM

oltmannd
This is because the frt RRs aren't going to allow even on extra minute of delay to their trains when you add on the passenger trains

 

I would opine that if the "successful" premise of this thread was met, that would mean it was profitable.

 

And if it was profitable, I think you'd see the freight railroads anxious to run the show themselves. They would make it work if there was sufficient greenery.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, December 12, 2015 10:51 PM

schlimm

If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit.  The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.

 

 Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:34 PM

daveklepper
Except when growing the business means far less need for extremely expensive highway widening,

 

You may have just hit upon a solution!!  Add a line item to everyone's income tax form "would you prefer to pay a 10% tax surcharge to rebuild highways in this country, or a 6% tax surcharge for passenger rail expansion?" And let the tax payer choose.

 

Then watch the &%^$#^$ scramble to keep their jobs come next election!! lol!!

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:26 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
How could they know ?  How many have ever tried it ? 

 

In a way, I think that was my point. Just with a different perspective.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:20 PM

Convicted One
I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"? . . . [snipped - PDN]

How could they know ?  How many have ever tried it ? 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:18 PM

I believe that they have a higher priority in preserving their jobs than in making mass transit a growth industry, does that blow some of the fog away?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy