1. I was not able to quickly find the figures for an entire year. Maybe LD would look better in from May through September, but Feb. through April might be even worse. Also several short corridors were hurt by weather and construction in the 1st quarter.
2. Improving increasing service? The revenue would have to have been more than double to cover the high operating expenses, but to do that, the number of trains would need to have been greatly increased, hence even more expenses. Every mile run by the long distance fleet is a huge money loser. Adding more cars and trains merely increases the hemorrhaging.
3. Run like a business? If Amtrak had done so, LD service would have been dropped years ago.
4. Treat as a loss leader? Not when the loss from that service during the 1st quarter represents 108% of Amtrak's total loss in that period. The NEC and short-haul corridors services would actually show a small profit over operating expenses of $14 mil. to cover at least some (tho not much) of the capitalization costs.
5. Amtrak is not a business, of course. But as a government program, it is vitally important to attempt to provide the most service for the money. By that criterion, long distance service is a very poor use of resources.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dragoman You also do not consider the negative impact that loss of LD service might have on the NEC & Corridor revenues, since it would seem likely that at least some of the LD passengers feed into the NEC & Corridors.
You also do not consider the negative impact that loss of LD service might have on the NEC & Corridor revenues, since it would seem likely that at least some of the LD passengers feed into the NEC & Corridors.
This is a key component of my mantra of operating a service instead of running trains. The service has to be complete with segments of income and segments of breakeven or possibley loss when that loss or break even point does actually feed the larger segment. It is like the investor mentality of earning 80% of $100 instead of 50% of 200. Service orientation cannot, or should not, be based on the 80% of 100 return mentality but rather the 50% of 200 return mentality otherwise it is not service but self serving. This is where bean counters and bottom liners have torn apart the infrastructure of American business and manufacturing most noticably in utility services like railroads. If you have a 12 inch water pipe running full being fed by three four inch pipes and close down one of those four inch pipes the two four inch pipesdo not fill the 12 inch pipe anymore leading the bean counter to say the 12 inch pipe is losing money, so close it entirely. That's greed, not service.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Clearly, I generally tend to agree with "henry6", and feel that "schlimm" tends to be over pessimistic. Reasonable people can differ, and I don't think we will convince each other (though others may find the discussion illuminating).
One additional thing I would like to point out about LD services. Until and unless we were to have more than one middle-of-the-night train in each direction (which is the case at a large percentage of stations on LD routes), we will not know what the true ridership potentials are.
To make a comparison to air travel, if the only regular service available between any two cities (even in the most populous corridors, such as San Francisco - LA or NYC - Florida) was one, after-midnight flight, I am convinced that the service would be poorly utilized and would lose money. Yet, that's the comparable situation upon which we are making assessments of LD rail routes.
henry6 Dragoman: You also do not consider the negative impact that loss of LD service might have on the NEC & Corridor revenues, since it would seem likely that at least some of the LD passengers feed into the NEC & Corridors. This is a key component of my mantra of operating a service instead of running trains. The service has to be complete with segments of income and segments of breakeven or possibley loss when that loss or break even point does actually feed the larger segment. It is like the investor mentality of earning 80% of $100 instead of 50% of 200. Service orientation cannot, or should not, be based on the 80% of 100 return mentality but rather the 50% of 200 return mentality otherwise it is not service but self serving. This is where bean counters and bottom liners have torn apart the infrastructure of American business and manufacturing most noticably in utility services like railroads. If you have a 12 inch water pipe running full being fed by three four inch pipes and close down one of those four inch pipes the two four inch pipesdo not fill the 12 inch pipe anymore leading the bean counter to say the 12 inch pipe is losing money, so close it entirely. That's greed, not service.
Dragoman: You also do not consider the negative impact that loss of LD service might have on the NEC & Corridor revenues, since it would seem likely that at least some of the LD passengers feed into the NEC & Corridors.
In 1957, the year I graduated from high school, there were 38 passenger train movements a day through Altoona. The service level was high. Yet, people abandoned the trains in droves for the economics and convenience of the car or the speed of the airplane.
By 1967 the level of service had been cut drastically, not because of greed or failure on the part of management to understand the concept of service, but because the Pennsylvania, as well as most other railroads, could not generate enough passenger revenues to cover the cost of the service.
Most business people understand the need to look at the whole picture. They understand the concept of loss leaders. They understand that sometimes it is necessary to lose money on a segment of service or product line to enhance the total mix of products and services. But at the end of the day, they have to cover their costs or go out of business.
By the middle 50s it was clear that the railroads could not make money hauling people because there were not enough people who wanted to take the train at the prices being offered. So the plug was pulled, which is how capitalism is intended to work. Although the losers don't like the outcomes, it remains the best system for allocating scarce economic resources.
Unfortunately, the government lost sight of fundamental economics and created Amtrak, which has been a drain on the public treasury ever since. And it will remain so as far into the future as I can see.
Sam, you are bringing up another important point here. The economic times and thinking or philosophies of the 50's and 60's are not the same as today. But what was ignored back then has become the realities of today which means there has to be a shift of some kind. Three most prominent are the availability and cost of fuel, the air pollutants, and land use. Upon graduating high school in 1961 I had a choice between railroading or radio broadcasting. The rail picture at that time (and in New Jersey) was that roads were going to be closing down railroads. So I chose broadcasting. The ensuing concept of investment business practice was rather than operating a business also took its toll, first in railroading as certain services and branch lines supposedly became so expensive they didn't pay for themselves and were thus eliminated The trunks were thus no longer fed and more losses incurred. (Ironically, radio has suffered the same fate but about 15 years later than rails did.)
My point is that today there is a different social and economic and environmental climate that changes the thoughts toward transportation over all, and in this discussion, Amtrak (or passenger service) specifically. But I do ask how much of a drain has Amtrak been on the US budget? As much as any week in any of the wars which have been waged since 1970? The cost of how many Congressmen's pensions in any given year? Healthcare for our Congressmen? In perspective, it may be as much as a week's worth of groceries for one of us against that of a city of 50 or 60 thousand for a year. So, I can't agree that it is that much of a drain. And with passenger growth of the past year or two, plus successful services like Downeast, Sounder, Acela, and other corridor projects, it becomes less of a drain.
The numbers are clear. The LD routes are not essential to feed traffic on the corridor and NEC services as the number of passengers who use these trains at all is only 15% of Amtrak's total. If there were more trains (service in daylight) on the LD routes, the result would be even greater losses. Oddly, henry, who has been beating the dead horse of service, seems to think HSR is not sensible in another thread. There is simply no rational purpose in continuing to run LD nostalgia trips and cruise liners like the CZ, EB, etc. The only reason they have continued for 40 years is because of purely political deals with Senators from the plains and mountain regions. "I'll support Amrak only if you run a train in my state." Although I do not believe Amtrak needs to show a profit (the examples of 80% vs 50% profits as greed are totally irrelevant when we are talking about a service that loses/wastes enormous amounts of money), a state-run service still needs to use the taxpayer's dollars wisely where they can provide the most service. Justifying the waste of LD routes by pointing out other examples of government subsidies and/or waste is a false argument that hasn't worked in these 40 years.
You area right, Schlimm... but you are thinking inside the same ol' same ol' box. Things have to be rethought and redesigned not necessarily the way things are or always have been. So any Amtrak or passenger trains in the future should be a more rationalized system and service than exists. Yes, maybe your definition of LD train will be gone entirely or incorporated more into the marketing of the entire service or there will be a totally new LD service application that bears no resemblance to the past or present.
Also, I have never said that HSR is not sensible but that HSR may not be sensible in all situations, especially because it is not defined but in broad, general terms. That statement is based on the fact that HSR is currently a political term and not an actual term as far as the public is concerned. Yes, those in the industry or in the foam pit do have finer, more technical, understandings of what is and what can be high speed, but politicians and the public are not privy to them.
“The world we have created today, as a result of our thinking thus far, has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.” -- Albert Einstein
[quote user="schlimm"]
Try the link below and click 17 months ridership growth
The amount of riders on the Crescent route is being limited by selling out. Finally snuck in a reservation for Apr 23 and will give report. But sleeper service sold out. One measure of Crescent might be to add in Lynchburg service ridership. Would make for a very crowded 18 car train! The riders that piled on and off the train north of CLT limited the reservations on Crescent from New Orleans - CLT.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669129
OK, for 6 months (Oct. 2010 to Mar. 2011) LD ridership represents a meager 15.1% of the Amtrak total, which is almost the same as Oct. to Jan. So what's the point? Each LD train uses up a disproportionate amount of the subsidy. Short corridors (300-400 miles) are the answer, first as HrSR routes as oltmann mentions (up to 110 mph) and then with gradual increases in speed so that the length of the corridor can be increased to 600 miles. Only when the total time from starting point to destination is under four hours are train services (many trains per day at convenient times, no sleepers) practical and competitive.
Again, loss of LD? = loss mobility for many handicapped and wounded, including veterans. +loss of tourist dollars. +loss of connectivity between corredors. +loss of ability to handnle some types of emergencies. Not a good idea in my opinion.
I agree with Dave here...what would be the cost of replacing this service with something else for these people? And again, in a new world, a new day, we have to throw out what we have been doing and start from scratch and a LD train might just fit into the service part of running trains. One of the things Amtrak, because of government ownership, is handicapped by not being able to fully and openly market beyond the running of trains. Does it really have the power and resources to exploit the scenery of the Emprie Builder route and offer stop overs, make it a tourist's journey with special events at the end points? No, not now. The government wants it to run trains not provide services and products.
1. Loss of mobility? LD trains carry very few handicapped passengers. Room for one per Superliner sleeper, so maybe 3-4 on an entire train?
2. Loss of tourist dollars? To where: Glacier - east and west stations, 25K last year; Williams Junction (for Grand Canyon) 7.6K; Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction - 42K.
3. Connectivity? Some losses of interchange at Seattle, Portland, Oakland and LA on the west end, Chicago, KC and Houston on the east. But the money saved by d/cing the LD routes could be used to expand corridor services and serve far more passengers.
4. Emergencies? What emergencies can the western LD trains possibly handle, given the problems. delays, cancellations this past winter. Not reliable.
The biggest problem is to continue a service that prior to the Interstates and jet air travel was heavily used because it was competitive. Trains traveling 2000 miles, taking 25 to 40+ hours, with high prices (CHI to LA: train $188 (+225 for sleeper); air $105) are a non-starter for 99+% of the public. By contrast corridors are competitive on time and cost and thus are patronized. henry's "service" mantra has nothing to do with the problems of LD trains. Their very nature makes them non-competitive. Adding 5 more trains from CHI to LA would only increase the losses.
There does not seem to be any justification to continue the cost of providing these services.
Amtrak is a government sponsored commercial operation. Therefore, it should be judged on its merits and not how much the government, or for that matter any other entity, spends on other activities.
Amtrak has lost an average of $643 million per year since its inception. The compounded opportunity cost of the losses is approximately $71 billion. This is the amount that the government would have had at the end of 40 years if it had invested the money as opposed to underwriting Amtrak's losses.
Most Americans would agree, I think, that security (national, state, local), education, housing, health care, transport infrastructure, some utility services, etc. are in the public interest. Whether they think a government funded intercity railroad is in the public interest is debatable. I don't. It is a commercial enterprise, irrespective of the ownership. It should be able to cover its costs, or it should be allowed to die. The taxpayers, most of whom don't ride intercity trains, should not have to pay for them.
Put yourself in the shoes of a stockholder in Greyhound, Trailways, Eastern Airlines, etc. in May 1971? You were generating a small return on your investment. Management had been successful in offering intercity passenger services whilst the railroads had come to realize that they could not make a go of intercity passenge rail and needed to get out of the product line before it wrecked their businesses. In steps the federal government, announcing that it is going to sponsor a government owned passenger train system to compete with the companies in which you have invested your money. Fair?
Of course, this argument will go on forever. People like me, who think that markets are better allocators of scarce economic resources, will never justify having the government run a commercial operation. Others, with a different point of veiw, which clearly has legitimate points to support it, will never see my point of veiw.
But Sam, as a governement operation rather than a private operation, the board of directors and it managers are not free to make sound decisions but rather have to look over thier shoulder's to see what Congress is going to say or do. They know they need capital investments for structure and equipment but are limited by what Congress decree's. A private enterprise could look at a situtation and decide on whether to bond or othrewise finance a need. I know boards can be tough on decsions, too, but public poitics is not there.
schlimm 1. Loss of mobility? LD trains carry very few handicapped passengers. Room for one per Superliner sleeper, so maybe 3-4 on an entire train? Since there all all types of handicapped person I find figures for this number may be hard to come by. But you have many persons that cannot drive for whatever reason. Intermediate stops are important. transportation needs to be co-ordinated. Some bus routes do not stop at locations where Amtrak stops. 3. Connectivity? Some losses of interchange at Seattle, Portland, Oakland and LA on the west end, Chicago, KC and Houston on the east. But the money saved by d/cing the LD routes could be used to expand corridor services and serve far more passengers. Although I do not expect LD travel to fully break even the operating expenses could be reduced or eliminated per passenger if those trains that sell out were lengthened. The new cars, motors on order will have enhanced HEP capability to allow the lengthening. Length restrictions at NYP of 14 cars would mean that the southern trains will need to loose cars at either WASH or PHL? Phl may have more car storage space for the near future than Wash. The Lakeshore splitting at Albany may allow a lengthened train west of Albany.
Since there all all types of handicapped person I find figures for this number may be hard to come by. But you have many persons that cannot drive for whatever reason. Intermediate stops are important. transportation needs to be co-ordinated. Some bus routes do not stop at locations where Amtrak stops.
Although I do not expect LD travel to fully break even the operating expenses could be reduced or eliminated per passenger if those trains that sell out were lengthened. The new cars, motors on order will have enhanced HEP capability to allow the lengthening. Length restrictions at NYP of 14 cars would mean that the southern trains will need to loose cars at either WASH or PHL? Phl may have more car storage space for the near future than Wash. The Lakeshore splitting at Albany may allow a lengthened train west of Albany.
blue streak 1, you are speaking total service instead of just running a train and understand that new thinking has to happen. Schlimm...you are right based on the way things were and are because they are based on the way things were. We've got to stop thinking the way things were and are and start a whole new thought process starting from scratch. What if we decided we could get by withe lighter guage by installing PTC and/or by keeping freight seperated from passenger thus allowing higher speeds and greater safety at the same time? Then we could come up with whole new ways to design service. How about a passenger vehiclle body that could be transferred from road to rail instantly? The possiblities of having something different are endless.
blue streak: For the most part it is the LD trains out west that are the ones beyond becoming viable through technological improvements. Some trains in the east and southeast have shorter runs and overlap some potential corridor areas, such as Atlanta to the north and Buffalo to the west. henry: I have no idea what you are talking about "from scratch." The problem with most of the LD routes is both distance and lack of potential passengers. PTC would not help. HSR would only marginally resolve the problem at an absurdly high price, and even then you still would need 12 hours CHI-LA. try driving on I 80 or other Interstates west of Omaha toward the coast. Pretty empty, except for OTR trucks. People fly. Airplanes are as accessible for handicappers as trains are, though not very. Small towns could apply for EAS funding, if we still have a federal government left.
What do I mean? Simply we have to rethink and redesign our entire approach to our transportation system as if it doesn't exist. Not change, enlarge, add to or take away from what we have, maybe not even use what we have, but to design a system that only uses what we've learned as to application of air, land, and water.
I believe one still needs to deal with the realities of time and space.
There are people who cannot fly and cannot travel long distances in buses or automobiles. The specific case I know of is a veteran who lives near Alberqueqe NM and travels to Dallas to visit his family once a year, going via Chicago since there is no longer a Texsas Zephyr. Some long distance trains do sell out regularly, and having more equipment would reduce their losses if not putting them into avoidable cost profit. The Canadians seem to feel their remaining long distance trains are worthwhile preserving and investing in upgrades. Why they can recycle 60-year-old stainless steel equpment and have it as reliable as new equipment and Amtrak seemingly cannot is a good question. Everyone I know who has ridden the Canadian gives it very high marks. Sleeper travel on it is expensive, but it deliveres what is expected for the price.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.