Interesting Gunn quote

[Big_Boy_4005]

That is an interesting study. What is even more interesting is the original publication date, 1982. So much has changed in the railroad world since that time. Think about all of the mergers. Would the modern freight haulers even allow that level of traffic on their rails? Some of those routes are no longer in existance. Then as Dave said there is the cost of the equipment to run that level of service.

There are a lot of comparisons made in the study, between European passenger service and Amtrak. These really aren't fair, because the distances involved are dramaticly different. The 50 minute flight time between Chicago and Minneapolis, even with all of the associated modern security delays, is short compared to the 8 hour Amtrak schedule. One train per day vs one flight per hour at similar cost, and who do you think wins? High speed service similar to European trains might solve the time issues, but the departure frequency is still a problem.

Amtrak 90, was a path that might have been realistic when it was published, but we have chosen to go down a different road. I wonder what Amtrak 2015 would look like?

[daveklepper]

Again, when you figure in land use, private autos don't come near breaking even either.

As for Amtrak 90, sure if you invest tremendous amounts of money (notice the route restructuring requries new trackage and much upgrading of exsiting, all very expensive, ditto new rolling stock) you can possibly show a profit for a few years until maintanance and renewall catches up with you and novelty riding falls off. But otherwise the comments on the Dau\ylights are right on the money. But again if you include Land Use, passenger rail overall is not the most subsidized transportation mode by any means.

[kenneo]

Ever heard of "AMTRAK 90"?

go to http://www.azrail.org/amtrak90/index.htm

Very Interesting.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Don, I'm not sure if there is any level of rail travel, in North America, that is cost effective. When I say level, I mean, long distance, regional, commuter and light. We are still too hooked on cars and planes. Does the New York Subway break even? How about the northeast corridor?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

What he may be really saying is "Until the next Presidential election".

I saw an interesting documentary on the PBS educational channel a few days ago on the S.P Daylight trains. These were amoung the most heavily patronized and profitable passenger trains in the country for the first dozen years they ran. They started to loose money around 1950, well before the Interstates were built and in-expensive air travel became available. S.P. didn't throw in the towel immediately and tried a number of things including full length domes, replacing the diners with auto-mat vending machine cars, and a large advertising campaign, but nothing worked.

A number of other railroads didn't give up immediately on passenger service either and these were the days of good connections, frequent service, and 1950's labor costs. The Daylight could be considered a corridor train and I believe the western LD trains such as the CZ remained profitable during the summer months quite a bit longer(1960?). The point is, a number of remedies suggested for making Amtrak break-even were tried by at least some of the railroads and they didn't work.

I would agree that there is no hope in making LD trains break even, but that doesn't mean they have to bleed buckets of red ink. I'd shoot for "better", not perfect. Gotta find ways to improve labor productivity and/or reduce labor rates and other costs.

Let's look at the Lake Shore Ltd from NY to Chic:

Assume:

2 sleepers w 30 beds each
4 coaches with 60 seats each

3 crew districts with an engineer, cond. and 2 trainmen each (4 total)

960 miles, 20 hours

1 sleeper attendent
2 coach attnedents
1 lounge car attendent
1 cook + 3 dining car staff
-8 total

Consist: 2 P42s, 1 baggage, 1 dorm, 2 sleepers, 1 diner, 1 lounge, and 4 coaches. approx 1000 tons

That's 240 man-hours to move 300 revenue seats/beds 960 miles - and those man-hours don't come cheap!

That's 3+ tons of equipment per revenue seat/bed - worse than a single driver in an H1 Hummer

Yuck.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Yeah Dave, that's what they are saying. I've only ridden it a couple of times, just for the novalty. I don't live anywhere near it, and the only time I ever see it is when I go to a Twins game. Of course at those times it's packed, SRO. I have noticed that it has been easier to get a parking place near the dome, since so many people are riding in instead.

Even though ridership is higher than expected, there are still concerns about cost, as the line is not close to economic viability.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

These folks aren't exactly flush with free time.

[(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

What he may be really saying is "Until the next Presidential election".

I saw an interesting documentary on the PBS educational channel a few days ago on the S.P Daylight trains. These were amoung the most heavily patronized and profitable passenger trains in the country for the first dozen years they ran. They started to loose money around 1950, well before the Interstates were built and in-expensive air travel became available. S.P. didn't throw in the towel immediately and tried a number of things including full length domes, replacing the diners with auto-mat vending machine cars, and a large advertising campaign, but nothing worked.

A number of other railroads didn't give up immediately on passenger service either and these were the days of good connections, frequent service, and 1950's labor costs. The Daylight could be considered a corridor train and I believe the western LD trains such as the CZ remained profitable during the summer months quite a bit longer(1960?). The point is, a number of remedies suggested for making Amtrak break-even were tried by at least some of the railroads and they didn't work.

[daveklepper]

From what I understand your starter Light Rail is doing great with ridership way over projections.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

What is SPUD? Around here it means our famous potatoes.

SPUD = St Paul Union Depot

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

Move Amtrak back into SPUD? Sounds like a good idea, if they could get many of the tracks back into place. If it is desired to set up a Upper Midwest hub for the Midwest HSR, then SPUD would be an option.

[:)]

Right now the talk is to use it as a hub for commuter rail, light rail, local bus, and Amtrak's 2 trains per day.

The whole thing sounds a little "pie in the sky", since we are still digesting our first light rail line, which I forget how long it took to become reality. This second line may come faster if anyone can agree on the route it should take between the two downtowns, then come up with the funding for it.

Commuter rail has the support of the current governor, but right now it is only planned to connect Minneapolis to the northwest, and falls short of the logical destination of St Cloud 60 miles from downtown. I'm not sure what value such a line really has for commuters.

Maybe the goal is to get this thing going by getting Amtrak in there, then build on that. I'll keep watching the news, and keep you posted.

[Anonymous]

What is SPUD? Around here it means our famous potatoes.

[CG9602]

Move Amtrak back into SPUD? Sounds like a good idea, if they could get many of the tracks back into place. If it is desired to set up a Upper Midwest hub for the Midwest HSR, then SPUD would be an option.

[:)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....Boy, that sounds like a good project....renewing something for once instead of tearing so much down and so on....If improvements could be made incrementally on Amtraks system and gradually build the system to a more useable transportation system, how nice that would be as well as being more functionable and serve more people better.

Fortunately for Amtrak, none of the funding for this project is going to be coming from their already strained budget. As much as I like the sound of the project, it seems like an awful lot of taxpayer's money being funneled into a very small area, ie not a very big bang for the buck.

[Modelcar]

....Boy, that sounds like a good project....renewing something for once instead of tearing so much down and so on....If improvements could be made incrementally on Amtraks system and gradually build the system to a more useable transportation system, how nice that would be as well as being more functionable and serve more people better.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

In days of yore - when the senators and representatives left the sacred environs of Washington DC to visit their home districts, they took the train. Now they take a plane. Does that explain the difference in funding for passenger service?

dd

Nah, that only says they don't want to spend three days getting to California. Now if you moved the capitol to Chicago, you might get some takers.[swg]

I love riding Amtrak, but I'm not sure I would want to spend three days getting to where I had to go either.

---

Mr Gunn actually was in St Paul on Tuesday morning. He and Mayor Randy Kelly rode the Empire Builder from the Midway Depot, one stop east, to Red Wing. Over breakfast, they discussed the possibility of reopening St Paul's Union Depot as a transportation hub, including making it the Twin Cities Amtrak stop.

The Depot's concourse and surrounding land (except for a 3 track strip of railroad land) is owned by the Postal Service, but they want to move out of downtown, in favor of a suburban location. The cost of the depot renovation was listed at $89 million, not including the purchase of the postal property. This is all part of a larger half billion dollar revitalization and transportation plan. The first $50 million was actually appropriated a few weeks ago in a transportation bill.

Mr Gunn said that it wouldn't be possible to move from the Midway Depot before 2009, but that date seemed to coincide with the completion date of the renovation project. So who knows, it may even happen (if Amtrak is still around in 3 years).

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

In days of yore - when the senators and representatives left the sacred environs of Washington DC to visit their home districts, they took the train. Now they take a plane.

dd

Not 100% true, but close. Still, what would one expect. These folks aren't exactly flush with free time.

[dldance]

In days of yore - when the senators and representatives left the sacred environs of Washington DC to visit their home districts, they took the train. Now they take a plane. Does that explain the difference in funding for passenger service?

dd

[vsmith]

Of course our Government is irrational and wants to kill Amtrack, they needs that money to prop up failing the Airline industries so they can continue to binge feed at the airline industry feeding trough.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I liked the implication that the gov't has, so far, been irrational!

And this is different from their normal operation HOW?

[jeaton]

Along with the Amtrak Board of Directors, Dave Gunn has proposed to Congress a number of changes. The changes are outlined in the testimony of David Laney, Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors made to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee last May. His prepared remarks are at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Simple_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554001198&ssid=172

In that testimony you will find a number of proposals that coincide with ideas that are coming out of the Department of Transportation. I think it is clear that that Amtrak's senior management is doing more than asking for money just to keep on the "same o',same o'".

Gunn's objective has always been to get Amtrak into good physical shape and to make sure Amtrak people are working as efficiently as conditions allow. He has been quite forthright in stating that getting Amtrak in good shape will take higher government grants, but he has also stated that once in good repair, any changes that might be sought will be easier to accomplish. He has suggested that that approach is likley to be much less costly than than shutting down and starting "fresh".

I think it is quite simple. It may well be arguable that the rail passenger service provided by Amtrak is not needed and should be dropped to save the taxpayer's money. However, I submit that if conditions subsequent to a shut down make the service imperative, the cost of getting back up will make the present grants look like chump change.

Jay

[oltmannd]

I liked the implication that the gov't has, so far, been irrational!

[Modelcar]

...Believe Gunn has proposed many times all sorts of operations need improved and changed to make the service respond better to our needs....but he has a constant money fight to keep daily operations alive it's almost not possible to achieve.....

[oltmannd]

"The thing you're fighting for here is to keep this mode alive so that at some point, when you've got some rational direction from (the federal government), you have an option," Gunn said.

This in reference to the budget battle.

Sounds like he knows that Amtrak should be different from what it is today.