Midwest High Speed Rail

[Anonymous]

You' connect the ends of the spokes with thru cars (maybe a single connecting train, if the spoke ends don't touch) with guaranteed connections.  If you went to a hub/spoke/corridor model for operations, the whole nature of Amtrak changes.  You wouldn't be talking about corridor trains generally running 2 or more hours late.  The plan would necessarily include proper capacity and operating incentives as part of the deal.

We seem to be always stuck on Amtrak LD vs corridor when the problem isn't chosing between them, but how best to deploy the assets overall.

And this is the part that confuses me.  How do you get guaranteed connections?  If you make the outbound train wait for the inbound train, then you basically have an LD train, with LD train performance.

Example.  SF to Reno is 30 minutes late, so Reno to SLC leaves 30 minutes late.  It get delayed by two hours enroute, so SLC to Denver then leaves 2 1/2 hours late.  And so on.

Unless you take the trains off the freight lines, or give them absolute priority.  Occassional breakdowns in connections can be worked with.  If connections are consistently missed... 

I also go by the "overnight rule".  If most of these HSR passenger trains are overnighters, then being a little late or early to the destination won't matter for the LD passengers, since the next connection isn't scheduled to depart until the evening hours.

Also, the overnight rule would allow HSR passenger trains to be complemented by conventional passenger trains.  Although an HSR overnighter would cover roughly 1000 miles give or take, the conventional overnight would cover 300 or so miles.  So, the HSR overnighter between say SF and Salt Lake is complemented by the conventional Boise-Salt Lake overnighter.

[oltmannd]

You' connect the ends of the spokes with thru cars (maybe a single connecting train, if the spoke ends don't touch) with guaranteed connections.  If you went to a hub/spoke/corridor model for operations, the whole nature of Amtrak changes.  You wouldn't be talking about corridor trains generally running 2 or more hours late.  The plan would necessarily include proper capacity and operating incentives as part of the deal.

We seem to be always stuck on Amtrak LD vs corridor when the problem isn't chosing between them, but how best to deploy the assets overall.

And this is the part that confuses me.  How do you get guaranteed connections?  If you make the outbound train wait for the inbound train, then you basically have an LD train, with LD train performance.

Example.  SF to Reno is 30 minutes late, so Reno to SLC leaves 30 minutes late.  It get delayed by two hours enroute, so SLC to Denver then leaves 2 1/2 hours late.  And so on.

Unless you take the trains off the freight lines, or give them absolute priority.  Occassional breakdowns in connections can be worked with.  If connections are consistently missed... 

Two things.   First the corridor part of the trip would have capacity for pretty good time keeping.  If it doesn't, then it's not really a corridor, it's just a joy ride route.  Second, the connections would have enough padding in them to make them reliable. 

Let's say, Phila to Pittsburgh is a corridor and Chicago to Cleveland is another, each with 10 RT a day.  Your NY to Chicago service would ride a NY-Phila-Pittsburgh schedule to Pittsburgh, and then depart as it's own train to Cleveland.  At Cleveland, there would be a gap of a couple hours before the through cars connected to the Cleveland-Chicago "corridor" train.

The train could be overnight, riding an evening train out of NY to Pittsburgh, with a morning arrival in Cleveland.  Then, the connection would be to a mid-morning Cleveland -Chicago train.

In this scenario, Amtrak would have to "invest" in NS's routes to support the Cleveland-Chicago and Harrisburg-Pittsburg portions of the route to support the new service level.  Perhaps a thrid main track or at least some healthly portions of triple track.  The "new" track could even be marginal high-speed (100 mph or so) and more-or-less passenger only.  In return NS would have to support a decent run from Pittsburg to Cleveland.  That wouldn't be too hard because only 150 miles or so is now in jeopary of being trapped on a tenant RR.  So, that Cleveland connection would be highly reliable.

[Suburban Station]

. The point in talking about 2000 was 1. to produce evidence to support my argument, 2. to show that these stats have indicating what they've indicated for several years.

However, since Amtrak apparently has improved its reporting, the numbers no longer indicate that. what does that tell you?

.The NEC does not make money any more than the LD trains do, and the capital costs are such that they cancel out any income that either group of trains brings in. To sum things up, when one counts the books differently, and assigns costs differently, one produces different numbers.

true, partially. The point isn't that, as of now, they make money, but lose less. From a capital standpoint, it makes good common sense.

.
As for inaccurate data, individuals such as the Midwest High Speed Rail Assocation, as well as some Rail Passenger Assocations have argued, that the data being produced by Amtrak's Route Profitability System is suspect. This same data is what is being used to support claims that the NEC and the short trains makes money, when data points to the opposite.

Let's assume it is suspect, there's no proof that it doesn't understate the cost of long distance trains. I have seen no data pointing that it's opposite. what you've given me is even more suspect than what Amtrak itself produces...not to mention dated.

.It is upon that foundation that the claims that the NEC is the financial Albatross around Amtrak's neck are made.

suspect claims on suspect data. Of course, if we really want to get into it, not all long distance routes are created equal either.

.That claim was first made in the 1980s and I think that it could still be made at the present time. That's why I brought up those old articles from the United Rail Passenger Alliance - the claims applied then, and they will continue to apply.

for those looking for evidence that their hunches are right but these numbers are not only dated, but they are from an era in Amtrak where no number should be used.

.
I concede your point that there is no telling which section loses more when the system which measures profit or loss may be flawed itself. I was making efforts to point out that there are plausible, acceptable reasons for continuing the intercity trains, and pointing out how they differed from the shorter distance trains. I'm sorry if I hurt any feelings here - That was not my intention at all.

My feelings aren't hurt, just letting you know that's how it came off. Intercity trains, IMO, are the corridor trains. While this thread has rambled, it's comeout that if the bill passes for Amtrak, Wisconsin will move to extend the Hiawathas to Madison. Hopefully improve travel speeds as well. Long distance trains are nice, as Kummant himself says, in the national park service kind of way. However, corridors are what most people seem to use trains for. I have a reserved optimism in that Amtrak's new boss is their first private sector CEO and hopefully will bring private sector quality to its financial reporting (which, of course, is usually a reflection of investment in IT from top to bottom...meaning, from the point of collection to reports)

[Datafever]

You' connect the ends of the spokes with thru cars (maybe a single connecting train, if the spoke ends don't touch) with guaranteed connections.  If you went to a hub/spoke/corridor model for operations, the whole nature of Amtrak changes.  You wouldn't be talking about corridor trains generally running 2 or more hours late.  The plan would necessarily include proper capacity and operating incentives as part of the deal.

We seem to be always stuck on Amtrak LD vs corridor when the problem isn't chosing between them, but how best to deploy the assets overall.

And this is the part that confuses me.  How do you get guaranteed connections?  If you make the outbound train wait for the inbound train, then you basically have an LD train, with LD train performance.

Example.  SF to Reno is 30 minutes late, so Reno to SLC leaves 30 minutes late.  It get delayed by two hours enroute, so SLC to Denver then leaves 2 1/2 hours late.  And so on.

Unless you take the trains off the freight lines, or give them absolute priority.  Occassional breakdowns in connections can be worked with.  If connections are consistently missed... 

[oltmannd]

Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic.  It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.

Not even worrying about LD passengers, just those who must make a connection between corridors -

Let's say that there are two trains a day between Denver and Omaha, and two trains a day between Omaha and Chicago.  That's two round trip trains.   The passenger arriving in Omaha that is continuing on must now make a connection.  If the train is late, do you 1) delay the connecting train?, or 2) make all connecting passengers wait for the next train (which may not be for another day)?

The way I see it, corridor trains are really only useful for the people who are travelling within that corridor, unless the number of trains in the connecting corridor is rather large (probably four or more a day). 

You're forgetting - most LD rail travellers are in it for the casual haul, not really worried about time constraints, e.g. in vacation mode.  Therefore, if an inbound train is late and the connection with the outbound is missed, more than likely they won't complain too much as they adjust to an unexpected period of local site-seeing et al.  As long as the rail company accomodates them and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves.........

...doubtful.  If the delay was a couple of hours, maybe.  If it was 24 hrs, there'd be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You' connect the ends of the spokes with thru cars (maybe a single connecting train, if the spoke ends don't touch) with guaranteed connections.  If you went to a hub/spoke/corridor model for operations, the whole nature of Amtrak changes.  You wouldn't be talking about corridor trains generally running 2 or more hours late.  The plan would necessarily include proper capacity and operating incentives as part of the deal.

We seem to be always stuck on Amtrak LD vs corridor when the problem isn't chosing between them, but how best to deploy the assets overall.

[n012944]

Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic.  It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.

Not even worrying about LD passengers, just those who must make a connection between corridors -

Let's say that there are two trains a day between Denver and Omaha, and two trains a day between Omaha and Chicago.  That's two round trip trains.   The passenger arriving in Omaha that is continuing on must now make a connection.  If the train is late, do you 1) delay the connecting train?, or 2) make all connecting passengers wait for the next train (which may not be for another day)?

The way I see it, corridor trains are really only useful for the people who are travelling within that corridor, unless the number of trains in the connecting corridor is rather large (probably four or more a day). 

You're forgetting - most LD rail travellers are in it for the casual haul, not really worried about time constraints, e.g. in vacation mode.  Therefore, if an inbound train is late and the connection with the outbound is missed, more than likely they won't complain too much as they adjust to an unexpected period of local site-seeing et al.  As long as the rail company accomodates them and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves.........

 

Obviously written by someone who has never worked in a transportation customer service job. 

 

Bert

[Datafever]

Not even worrying about LD passengers, just those who must make a connection between corridors -

You're forgetting - most LD rail travellers are in it for the casual haul, not really worried about time constraints, e.g. in vacation mode.  Therefore, if an inbound train is late and the connection with the outbound is missed, more than likely they won't complain too much as they adjust to an unexpected period of local site-seeing et al.  As long as the rail company accomodates them and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves.........

Futuremodal, did I really do such a poor job of explaining myself.  I thought that I made it clear that I was not talking about LD passengers.  I was talking about a passenger that needs to transfer from one corridor train to another corridor train.  Total trip may be 30 or 100 miles.

[CG9602]

guess I can't quibble with you there, although I heard it from a fairly reliable source. now that you've called me dumb, i have to tell you long distance riders do not pay the bills. overall rail ridership woudl be much higher if a given set of dollars went to servce corridor markets. It doesn't matter how much antiquated, probably inaccurate data, you pull up.Even with capital costs the nec loses less than LD trains.  

It was not my intention to call anyone dumb here. I was playing "Devil's Advocate," or in this case, LD trains advocate. I was pointing out that for all of the information regarding the NEC and the corridors, there are some stats that are contrary to the conventional asumptions re: Long Distance trains stated hereabouts. The point in talking about 2000 was 1. to produce evidence to support my argument, 2. to show that these stats have indicating what they've indicated for several years. The NEC does not make money any more than the LD trains do, and the capital costs are such that they cancel out any income that either group of trains brings in. To sum things up, when one counts the books differently, and assigns costs differently, one produces different numbers.

As for inaccurate data, individuals such as the Midwest High Speed Rail Assocation, as well as some Rail Passenger Assocations have argued, that the data being produced by Amtrak's Route Profitability System is suspect. This same data is what is being used to support claims that the NEC and the short trains makes money, when data points to the opposite. It is upon that foundation that the claims that the NEC is the financial Albatross around Amtrak's neck are made. That claim was first made in the 1980s and I think that it could still be made at the present time. That's why I brought up those old articles from the United Rail Passenger Alliance - the claims applied then, and they will continue to apply.

I concede your point that there is no telling which section loses more when the system which measures profit or loss may be flawed itself. I was making efforts to point out that there are plausible, acceptable reasons for continuing the intercity trains, and pointing out how they differed from the shorter distance trains. I'm sorry if I hurt any feelings here - That was not my intention at all.

[Anonymous]

You're forgetting - most LD rail travellers are in it for the casual haul, not really worried about time constraints, e.g. in vacation mode.  Therefore, if an inbound train is late and the connection with the outbound is missed, more than likely they won't complain too much as they adjust to an unexpected period of local site-seeing et al.  As long as the rail company accomodates them and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves.........

 

Yeah, "right"!  So I've got reservations at the South Seas Resort in Florida, for my one week vacation. The connection is missed in Atlanta so the RR puts me up for the night at the "Peachtree Dismal" for a fun night of frollicking through the cable channels while I use my $10 meal allowance on a $50 room service bill , and a box of Goody's.

And all it costs me is one less day at the beach.....ohhhhh JOYYY!  

[Anonymous]

Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic.  It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.

Not even worrying about LD passengers, just those who must make a connection between corridors -

Let's say that there are two trains a day between Denver and Omaha, and two trains a day between Omaha and Chicago.  That's two round trip trains.   The passenger arriving in Omaha that is continuing on must now make a connection.  If the train is late, do you 1) delay the connecting train?, or 2) make all connecting passengers wait for the next train (which may not be for another day)?

The way I see it, corridor trains are really only useful for the people who are travelling within that corridor, unless the number of trains in the connecting corridor is rather large (probably four or more a day). 

You're forgetting - most LD rail travellers are in it for the casual haul, not really worried about time constraints, e.g. in vacation mode.  Therefore, if an inbound train is late and the connection with the outbound is missed, more than likely they won't complain too much as they adjust to an unexpected period of local site-seeing et al.  As long as the rail company accomodates them and doesn't leave them to fend for themselves.........

[Suburban Station]

When you consider what has been happening to the US economy as a whole, numbers are up for all trains, not just the ones in the NEC. Loss per passenger does not reflect the high infrastructure and capital costs of the NEC, which, while providing a necessary service, are so high that they obscure or wipe out any profits that are coming from the LD trains.

put down the peace pipe, LD trains do not make money. we've covered this ad naseum. you've provided antiquated data prior to the southwest effect (1984) and prior to any reporting improvements made by David Gunn. We all know that pre-Gunn data is extremely unreliable. According to the new issue of trains, railroads never knew what their costs were.

When examining FY 2000 data, the LD trains show high passenger miles, 284 million, while the Acela had 35 million passenger miles. The other NEC trains had 156 million passenger miles. The LD trains had higher passengers per train-mile that any of the other types of trains in the Amtrak system, at 181 passengers per mile. The Acela had 176 passengers per train-mile, while the remainder of the NEC had 163 passengers per train-mile.

what's the point of talking about 2000?

When you consider how Amtrak has been under pressure from Our Elected Representatives to keep its costs in line, one cannot blame Amtrak for charging what the market will bear.

but aas long as you realize they are filling a given set of equipment, not allowing it to increase. and we've already shown that the nec runs a gross profit (please note that this is different from net income). also note that the load factor woudl indeed be much higher if they charged the same rate per mile as they did for long distance trains.

This also ignores the fact that the average LD trip distance is over 500 miles (Source: Amtrak. For FY 2000, the average trip legnth was 719 miles). Route legnth is not a major factor in determining a train's financial performance, trip legnth is.

yes and no. only if peopel are willing to pay more for a long route tha a short route. also note that sleeper revenues include meals whcih means the cost are much higher for a given sleeper customer in terms of labor. not to mention they've gotta change crews at least once during the tripe.

You also failed to answer how discontinuing the routes will prevent decreases in passenger volume, as when people cannot connect, they will be less likly to take a train. Cutting or reducing a network while expecting it to maintain viability is about as smart as reducng the number of paved roads, in that reducing the network will reduce the amount of overall traffic volume.

 

It's my understanding that load factors on the acelas are frequently 80-90%.

No. According to Amtrak's FY 2006 numbers, the Acela is around 45 percent.

guess I can't quibble with you there, although I heard it from a fairly reliable source. now that you've called me dumb, i have to tell you long distance riders do not pay the bills. overall rail ridership woudl be much higher if a given set of dollars went to servce corridor markets. It doesn't matter how much antiquated, probably inaccurate data, you pull up.Even with capital costs the nec loses less than LD trains.  

[CG9602]

I didn't read the midwest HSR one, the only recent one was a bit editorial for my liking, esp since it was written by the president of the national corridors initiative. I think the most telling is how much the numbers have changed over the years. clearly revenue growth in the nec has far outsripped the long distance routes.

When you consider what has been happening to the US economy as a whole, numbers are up for all trains, not just the ones in the NEC. Loss per passenger does not reflect the high infrastructure and capital costs of the NEC, which, while providing a necessary service, are so high that they obscure or wipe out any profits that are coming from the LD trains. When examining FY 2000 data, the LD trains show high passenger miles, 284 million, while the Acela had 35 million passenger miles. The other NEC trains had 156 million passenger miles. The LD trains had higher passengers per train-mile that any of the other types of trains in the Amtrak system, at 181 passengers per mile. The Acela had 176 passengers per train-mile, while the remainder of the NEC had 163 passengers per train-mile.

There are few measures that show long distance to be more profitable.

Except for the ones that discuss train-miles and revenue passenger miles, which are the units of measurement that are the most accurate.

please check prices from phl-to nyp for friday, they are as high as $101 for a regional train (not an acela). it's 90 miles. you're telling me that ridership isn't capped? chicago-milwaukee is $21 and it's about the same distance.

When you consider how Amtrak has been under pressure from Our Elected Representatives to keep its costs in line, one cannot blame Amtrak for charging what the market will bear. This also ignores the fact that the average LD trip distance is over 500 miles (Source: Amtrak. For FY 2000, the average trip legnth was 719 miles). Route legnth is not a major factor in determining a train's financial performance, trip legnth is. The LD routes are actually numerous itineraries (trips) that happen to take place on the same route. The overall train load may be upwards of 66 percent - functionally sold out- while embarking or disembarking even a modest number of passengers at each stop. So, when discussing profitability or loss on a passenger train, one has to use the most accurate measurements, and also take into account how far each passenger is traveling, and the capital requirements.

Load factors are low because Amtrak wants it that way. If they lowered the prices, load factors woudl be way up and the train would be bursting at the seems. And please email them and ask them how they account for monthly riders (which exist on the corridor services). There is no such discrepancy in the long distance data. From a more commonsense standpoint, if it takes 18 hours for a long distance train, how many crew members is that? engineers? dining car and cafe car?

You also failed to answer how discontinuing the routes will prevent decreases in passenger volume, as when people cannot connect, they will be less likly to take a train. Cutting or reducing a network while expecting it to maintain viability is about as smart as reducng the number of paved roads, in that reducing the network will reduce the amount of overall traffic volume.

It's my understanding that load factors on the acelas are frequently 80-90%.

No. According to Amtrak's FY 2006 numbers, the Acela is around 45 percent.

[daveklepper]

Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, and Toledo all deserve better service.   The first step would be for the NY State track and signal improvements to continue through Buffalo and then join  with Pennsylvania and Ohio rail improvements to continue to Cleveland, with a dawn to dusk NY-Cleveland schedule, replacing one of the existing NY-Buffalo round trips.   Then Cleveland would be part of the Midwest high-speed network, with corridor service of some type to Chicago and to Cincinnati and St. Louis.  Possibly also to Pittsburgh as you suggest.   And the Lake Shore on a somewhat faster schedule, would continue to be the through train, much as the Florida trains and the Crescent provide through service on NE Corridor.   And obviously good connections at Albany are required, better than the one train a day, to Boston.   But Massachusetts thinking is still car oriented, possibly because of rather than despite MIT.   The absense of North Station - South Station rail connector is the best evidence.

 

Suppose Federal and State spending had been limited to getting the farmers out of the mud and insuring decent paving and road connections to all communities.   And then all expressways and parkways and interstates were constructed by private enterprise and required tolls to earn a profit, pay real-estate taxes, and pay off the debts incurred in construction.   I would bet than an impartial economic evaluation of what would have happened would turn up the conclusion that much of the passenger network that survived to just before Amtrak would be profitable today, assuming the same kind of cost reduction and labor saving and added efficiencies that have been applied to freight railroading had had their analogies in the passenger service, as they have been on some of the more forward looking commuter operations.   (mechanised coach cleaning, power operated doors, etc.)

[nanaimo73]

Since Cleveland "service" consists of the Lake Shore and the Capitol in the middle of the night, would it be feasible to add a daytime (no sleepers) train from Chicago to Cleveland, which would split there for Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Those trains could be serviced in those cities overnight and continue to NYC in the morning. NYC to Buffalo, and the Pennsylvanian, could do the same westbound, arriving in Chicago the next day. 

[Datafever]

Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic.  It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.

Not even worrying about LD passengers, just those who must make a connection between corridors -

Let's say that there are two trains a day between Denver and Omaha, and two trains a day between Omaha and Chicago.  That's two round trip trains.   The passenger arriving in Omaha that is continuing on must now make a connection.  If the train is late, do you 1) delay the connecting train?, or 2) make all connecting passengers wait for the next train (which may not be for another day)?

The way I see it, corridor trains are really only useful for the people who are travelling within that corridor, unless the number of trains in the connecting corridor is rather large (probably four or more a day). 

[Suburban Station]

The Revenue Passenger Mile is an accurate unit of measurement for passenger volume.
Note that it is *_not_* the same as "numbers per passenger" basis. If you focus upon the. Examining the passenger trains on a per passenger basis ignores the figures, from Amtrak, that demonstrate the load factors in excess of 60 percent for the LD trains, versus the 40 - 45 percent for short distance trains (Source: Amtrak). As for the corridors such as the NEC being profitable, it would be interesting to separate the NEC from the rest of the system. Then all could really see the costs of the stations, the caternary, the maintenance, et cetera. Perhpas the claims that one form of train subsidizes the other would finally be put to rest, when people see just how very expensive the NEC really is.

or they'll see how passenger rail can be run without political constraints from uncertain budgets to misinformed citizens in other areas of the country. perhaps freed from the burden of providing commuter access at cost (rather than market rate)and having politicians set your pricing policy (see law that ended the large discounts).

 

See link:

 http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/numbers.htm (1984), http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/highcost/index.htm (1984), http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/longdistancedemand.htm (2001-2), http://www.midwesthsr.org/news_library.htm, http://www.nationalcorridors.org/PressRel10022006.html.

I didn't read the midwest HSR one, the only recent one was a bit editorial for my liking, esp since it was written by the president of the national corridors initiative. I think the most telling is how much the numbers have changed over the years. clearly revenue growth in the nec has far outsripped the long distance routes. there are few measures that show long distance to be more profitable. please check prices from phl-to nyp for friday, they are as high as $101 for a regional train (not an acela). it's 90 miles. you're telling me that ridership isn't capped? chicago-milwaukee is $21 and it's about the same distance. Load factors are low because Amtrak wants it that way. If they lowered the prices, load factors woudl be way up and the train would be bursting at the seems. And please email them and ask them how they account for monthly riders (which exist on the corridor services). there is no such discrepancy in the long distance data. From a more commonsense standpoint, if it takes 18 hours for a long distance train, how many crew members is that? engineers? dining car and cafe car?

You will also find political support for train shrink when constituents tell their representatives that if they don't get their train, then they don't want their dollars going to support someone else's train.

bingo. of course, it's okay that their state gets billions in federal farm aid while others don't. politics, not a way to run a business.

Also, the numbers that have been listed are in contradiction to my personal experiences aboard the LD trains, in which I have found to be operating close to capacity.

that's probably true, since I imagine amtrak doesn't want to operate empty cars...esp long distance. It's my understanding that load factors on the acelas are frequently 80-90%.

[Datafever]

Also, the numbers that have been listed are in contradiction to my personal experiences aboard the LD trains, in which I have found to be operating close to capacity.

Which numbers do you feel are contradictory?  Amtrak's numbers regarding ridership levels?

Which LD trains do you take, and for which segments?  If your experience is not an adequate sample of the entire LD network, then there is the possibility for bias. 

[wjstix]

I don't think anyone's advocating ending long-distance train service, it's just that on many lines, that's all that's available. If you live in eastern North Dakota and want to visit the Twin Cities, your only rail choice is the Empire Builder, which picks you up at 3 a.m. on it's way east, and brings you back home at like 4 a.m. It would be nice to have a second train running the same route but on a different schedule, and maybe some local trains say Fargo-M/SP.

Also we need shorter distance connecting trains. To get from here (St.Paul) to Denver, I would have to take the train to Chicago, stay overnight, then go from Chicago to Denver. If I could go from here to Kansas City and transfer to the Denver train there, it would cut a day off my travel time or more.  Having a great LD train doesn't do any good if you can't get to it!!

[CG9602]

The Revenue Passenger Mile is an accurate unit of measurement for passenger volume.
Note that it is *_not_* the same as "numbers per passenger" basis. If you focus upon the. Examining the passenger trains on a per passenger basis ignores the figures, from Amtrak, that demonstrate the load factors in excess of 60 percent for the LD trains, versus the 40 - 45 percent for short distance trains (Source: Amtrak). As for the corridors such as the NEC being profitable, it would be interesting to separate the NEC from the rest of the system. Then all could really see the costs of the stations, the caternary, the maintenance, et cetera. Perhpas the claims that one form of train subsidizes the other would finally be put to rest, when people see just how very expensive the NEC really is. See link: http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/numbers.htm , http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/highcost/index.htm , http://archive.unitedrail.org/documents/longdistancedemand.htm , http://www.midwesthsr.org/news_library.htm, http://www.nationalcorridors.org/PressRel10022006.html.

You will also find political support for train shrink when constituents tell their representatives that if they don't get their train, then they don't want their dollars going to support someone else's train.

Also, the numbers that have been listed are in contradiction to my personal experiences aboard the LD trains, in which I have found to be operating close to capacity.

[oltmannd]

I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains.  Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see anyone travelling from LA to Chicago if they have to make 5 different connections, each with multi-hour layovers and/or overnights.  Such a system would probably be the end of long distance train travel. 

 End point to end point travel is only a small piece of the total market of the western LD trains.  As a % of total trips between LA and Chicago, the train has such a small % as to be meaningless. 

The only way that LD train travel will be able to survive is by improving the labor and equipment productivity - that's where all the cost is. 

Recognizing that there are corridors embedded within the current LD routes doesn't mean the end of through traffic.  It might just mean that some small number of through coaches and sleepers may connect between trains on the route.

[Datafever]

Summarized from Amtrak's monthly performance reports:

            NEC      State Corridor     Long Distance
Revenues   751.9         302.0              388.8
Expenses   550.9         538.8              843.3

For the period of twelve months ending October 2006

Revenues include ticket revenue + Food & Beverage revenue (higher for LD)

State Corridor receives about 65% of deficit from states, rest is from fed

Almost all LD deficit comes from fed (not counting that portion covered by NEC surplus)

While there is seasonal variation in revenues & expenses, the month to month percentages remain fairly constant 

[Suburban Station]

Suburban Station, the source for my figures was Amtrak itself - their own numbers. As for operating losses being paid for by the NEC, I think it is the other way around. The operating cost of the NEC is/are what creates the losses for the entire system, combined with Amtrak's overhead "Administrative" costs.

Let's ignore, for the moment, Admin costs since we don't know how they break down. I'd appreciate a direct link because I see what datafever posted and it contradicts your assertions, as far as I can tell.

NEC Ticket revenue $69.9M
NEC Operating expenses $46.1M

Gross Profit: $23.8

Annualized: $285.6

Corridor Ticket revenue $24.2M
Corridor Operating expenses $41.1M

Gross Profit: -$16.9

Annualized: -$202.8

LD Ticket revenue $27.1M
LD Operating expenses $66.5M

Gross Profit:$-39.4

Annualized: -$472.8

This assumes  there is no seasonality to the revenues (which is obviously invalid) but the general gist of the numbers is clear. As I mentioned, I believe that long distance in the east is actually understated since it benefits from access to NYP which is paid for by the NEC. Moreover, station costs, where applicable, is largely borne by the corridor trains.

As for the passenger mile traffic, how can you say that the stat is meaningiless when the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the STB, and the AAR all use Revenue Passenger Miles to measure profit or loss for passenger carriers?

Seems to me profit and loss can be measured with P&L statements.

Ridership tells you nothing about how long each passenger rode, or how much the carrier is paid for transporting the passenger.

it's seems fairly obvious to me, and I may be missing something, that Amtrak receives more revenue per mile of operating cost on a $60 ticket for PHL-NYP than an $80 ticket from NYP-CHI. Heck, even if it's a $45 ticket.

The Revenue Passenger Mile does, though. It is the ridership numbers which are meaningless, not the RPM numbers. The industry does not measure things in terms of "per passenger," because that figure is the inaccurate unit.

maybe we shouldn;t be taking cues form an industry that doesn't know how to measure profit. However, ridership is important, as it indicates how many people are using the service. It isn't useful is you're trying to compare routes though.

The operating loss for all of NRPC, aka Amtrak, is $ 1.3 billion. Only $ 350 million of that is attributable to the LD network - the rest of the loss is from these shorter distance trains. Care to explain how $ 350 million is 80 percent of $ 1.3 billion?

It was my understandign that Amtrak's total subsidy was $1.3 bn. I'm not familiar with how much goes to Corp Admin, Capital, and Operating.

Amtrak has been criticised before for cooking the books in favor of the shorter distance corridors, while others have argued that it is the LD trains and not the capital intensive NEC, which are the money makers for Amtrak. For the shorter distance trains, how many seat-miles could be generated by each train, versus the seat-miles for a longer distance train? How much potential revenue could be generated by the longer distance trains compared with the shorter distance trains?

criticized by whom? and what proof did they have?

On a completely different tangent, if the Elected Representatives want to use federal money for the NEC, then those of us who live in fly over country want our train (s) as well.

which is why people in the NEC want it to be split off. There's even a private offer on the table. Peopel tire of hearing incorrect data about how the NEc shouldn't get this or that. Traffic congestion and population density make it somewhat of a unique market of which only California approaches. People take trains in Europe,but traffic is an absolute nightmare in many places there.

[jeaton]

You are really making some serious assumptions about the viability of the neighbor's charter bus operation.  However, one thing is certain.  The his costs for wages, benefits and payroll taxes per employee will be nowhere near that faced by Amtrak. Unless the neighbor wants to send me a copy of his books, I have no way of trying to make any comparisons to his bus service and Amtrak sleeper service. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amtrak IG report said that sleeper service has a $100 million loss.  FY 2006 reported sleeper revenue of $135 million.  It follows that in order to cut the overall Amtrak deficit by the $100 million through elimination of sleeper service it would be necessary to cut costs by $235 million.  Since I don't have any idea as to how the costs break out, I can't state for certain that the cost reduction could or could not be accomplished.

If the service had been eliminated for FY 2006 and the the $100 million savings had been realized, then the Federal Amtrak Grant operations could have been reduced to $385 million and the total grant would have dropped to $1.1 billion. 

[Paul Milenkovic]

To illustrate the problem, say a certain train is reported to cost $1 million per year but only generates revenue of $800,000. A prudent business practise says that the service should be eliminated, but suppose the amount that would be saved, i.e, the direct cost, is only $500,000. By eliminating the train revenue drops $800,000 but cost only drops by $500,000. The action reduces company total profits (loss) by $300,000. Kind of the spot between a rock and a hard place.

Well, that's the problem right there -- the question of marginal costs vs allocated costs.  The proper response to the I. G. Meade report is to say yes, based on fully-allocated costs, the first-class passengers are receiving hundreds of dollars in subsidy for every trip, but based on marginal costs, the first-class passengers with their sleeping cars and dining cars are contributing to the bottom line.  The Empire Builder receives subsidy, yes, and it serves multiple purposes and multiple markets, including lifeline service to the small towns, and the high-fare paying first class passengers are covering their part of the incremental cost of providing that service plus a little bit extra, and therefore those passengers are not a public expenditure but are in a small way contributing to the operation of the Empire Builder which serves many other purposes.

At least that is what we should be saying it it were true, and if we could find such a thing to be true (that first-class passengers are covering their marginal costs), we need to be shouting this from every mountain top.  But is it true?  URPA famously claims it is and NARP believes it.  But where are the numbers?  I have looked at those Amtrak monthly reports and other statements, and I haven't found evidence of this (yet).  I have looked at URPA's Web site, and I have yet to see hard numbers on their claims.

The I.G. Meade report argues that first-class passengers are carried at a loss, any way you crunch the numbers.  The claim is that the revenue is lower than you might think (the figure is 20 cents/mile) on account of various forms of discounting from "full fare."  The claim is that operating costs are higher than you might think, by allocating the direct operating costs of the baggage car, diner, lounge car, crew dorm, sleeping cars, and the second P42 locomotive to first class along with the wages of all of the crew members associated with this.

One of the way the Meade report comes up with its numbers is that it reports rather high numbers to the cost of owning and operating a Superliner car.  You could argue that the marginal cost of operating a Superliner car is the cost of emptying the holding tanks and changing brake pads, but that argument is coy because a Superliner car released from sleeper service could be rebuilt (at some expense) to carry coach passengers, and even if the argument was operating sleepers vs selling them to Canada, it costs money (that Amtrak apparently doesn't have judging by the dead line at Beech Grove) to keep those sleeping cars in operation.  So why does it cost so much money to keep Superliner cars out on the road?  How come my dad's neighbor with the blue and white charter buses kept in his cow barn doesn't face the same level of expense?  Is the hourly rate of operating a Superliner car padded with all manner of management and NEC capital expense, or does it really take buckets of money to keep one of those things rolling?

 

[Anonymous]

I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains.  Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see anyone travelling from LA to Chicago if they have to make 5 different connections, each with multi-hour layovers and/or overnights.  Such a system would probably be the end of long distance train travel. 

Well, a hub and spoke system utilizing HSR would probably result in faster travel time overall than current LD's, even with changing trains and layovers.  LD's don't exactly break any speed records, so my thought is that those who choose to travel by Amtrak's LD's aren't too concerned about keeping a tight schedule, more than likely it's leisure travel.  What a hub and spoke HSR does is to capture the scheduled traveller from the airlines between those intermediate distances, while also allowing the sight see'ers to tag along on the same consists.  E.g., you've doubled your prospective clientele.

[CG9602]

Suburban Station, the source for my figures was Amtrak itself - their own numbers. As for operating losses being paid for by the NEC, I think it is the other way around. The operating cost of the NEC is/are what creates the losses for the entire system, combined with Amtrak's overhead "Administrative" costs. NEC has its riders managed? How?

As for the passenger mile traffic, how can you say that the stat is meaningiless when the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the STB, and the AAR all use Revenue Passenger Miles to measure profit or loss for passenger carriers? Ridership tells you nothing about how long each passenger rode, or how much the carrier is paid for transporting the passenger. The Revenue Passenger Mile does, though. It is the ridership numbers which are meaningless, not the RPM numbers. The industry does not measure things in terms of "per passenger," because that figure is the inaccurate unit.

The operating loss for all of NRPC, aka Amtrak, is $ 1.3 billion. Only $ 350 million of that is attributable to the LD network - the rest of the loss is from these shorter distance trains. Care to explain how $ 350 million is 80 percent of $ 1.3 billion?
Amtrak has been criticised before for cooking the books in favor of the shorter distance corridors, while others have argued that it is the LD trains and not the capital intensive NEC, which are the money makers for Amtrak. For the shorter distance trains, how many seat-miles could be generated by each train, versus the seat-miles for a longer distance train? How much potential revenue could be generated by the longer distance trains compared with the shorter distance trains?

On a completely different tangent, if the Elected Representatives want to use federal money for the NEC, then those of us who live in fly over country want our train (s) as well.

[Suburban Station]

The GAO report has been accused of inaccurate cost statements. The total Amtrak "loss" last year was $ 1.3 billion, of which LD trains account for $ 350 million. The rest of the "loss" is generated by the shorter distance trains and the North East Corridor.

I'm not going to speak to the passenger mile traffic as the stat itself is rather meaningless. Operating losses are somewhat greater than $350 million and to some extent are understated be/c they use facilities that are largely paid for by the NEC (a good chunk of the rest of the loss is capital, LD accounts for 80% of the operating loss). It's also important to note that the NEC has it's riders managed. ever compare a fare for Was-NYP to NYP-Chicago? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your revenue per mile is far higher on the NEC. Additionally, lucrative NYP slots are given to long distance trains.

From a financial aspect, the 15 trains in the long distance network, on average each generate $23,868,066 in gross revenue (before any subsidy), and the 142 trains in the NEC and short distance networks only generate $7,035,810 each on average in gross revenue.

I'm not sure where this cam efrom but it's wrong.

The average load factor on the 15 long distance network trains was 55.1%, on the 102 short distance trains, 40.7%, and 45.2% on NEC trains. Source: URPA and Amtrak.

assuming the load factors are accurate off course, it's comparing apples to oranges. the nec runs far more trains and charges far more per mile. It's load factors are also designed to be that way through pricing (otherwise the prices woudl be the same as other trains AFAIK).
there's a lot of bad information out there and it's generally used by long distance train supporters.

[Datafever]

I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains.  Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see anyone travelling from LA to Chicago if they have to make 5 different connections, each with multi-hour layovers and/or overnights.  Such a system would probably be the end of long distance train travel. 

[oltmannd]

Generally, the problem with the LD trains isn't the ridership, it's the performance and cost.  On many of the routes, their is a need for more capacity, both host road trackage and, to a lesser extent, Amtrak equipment.  Amtrak has zero dollars for any capacity expansion, so the question becomes where to find the money.  Kummant seems to be of a mind that money should come from public/private and State/Amtrak partnerships and the target should be corridor travel where he believes there are major growth opportunities.

If there exist potential corridors along the existing LD routes, then these partnerships can be developed to fund the necessary investment.  The midwest and southeast LD routes would seem to be ideal candidates as they connect lots of decent sized population centers.

An example: The Crecent connects the NEC with Charlotteville, Greensboro, Charlotte, Spartansburg, Greenville, Anderson (Clemson U), Atlanta, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa (U of Alabama) before trundling off into sticks on the way to New Orleans.  NC is already trying to play connect the dots with Chartlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh, but south of there, SC, GA, and AL are not interested other than to study the living daylights out of it.  I think that if the Fed would show up with money on the same basis as highway money, that would generate some traction something might happen.

If Amtrak can interest AL, GA and SC in joining in NC's (and VA's) fun, then there's the real chance of developing multiple freqency operation along the route.  As it is now, GA can get 80% funding to do another lane on I-85 and not have to bother with cooperating with any other state gov'ts.  To do pass rail development, they get far less federal money, it would only be available if they could coordinate with other states on the route and the capital savings from doing rail rather than road is not available in any form to offset the ongoing operating costs.

The Lott/Lautenberg bill and Kummants leadership might just change game.....or not.  This is Amtrak we're talking about, after all.