Does anybody have any idea how many times since Thanksgiving the Empire Builder has been annulled, terminated, truncated and run excessivly late? Many times this winter as I drive by the St Paul MN station on the way to work there has been a line of motorcoaches lined up at the front door instead of a line of Superliners at the back.
Amtrak must have taken a big hit on leasing busses, putting up passengers in hotels, and lost revenue from cancelled trips and potential riders who decided not to take a risk.
And it hasn't started flooding yet. Most springs they have to cancel the Chicago - St Paul run while the Mississippi puts the tracks underwater.
Maybe they should make it a seasonal summer - fall train?
How about eliminate the route altogether? It obviously is not very essential. In January, it carried only 36,700 passengers and lost $21.5 million.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I don't believe Schlimm really means this. If we're going to eliminate the Builder -- ordinarily the best-patronized of the LD trains -- because of one winter season's bad luck -- we're going to get rid of all LD trains. To me, this is a poor strategy for survival of rail passenger service. We have preserved LD service through thick and thin for 40 years; shall we throw it overboard now, when the hope is for a revival led by corridor service (that might connect eventually with the Builders and Chiefs to re-establish a national network)? I don't think so.
(On second thought: Pardon me, Schlimm, if you were being facetious.)
I am very serious. The EB's performance in nice weather isn't good either. In Jan. 2010, it lost more money than this terrible January. There are very few LD trains that can be justified on any basis. They lose far more money than corridor services by all metrics. They can never be competitive with air because of length of route and speed. Given the limited resources available, the money spent on LD trains would be much better spent in short corridors.
Look at it this way. Jan. 2011, Amtrak lost $218.5 mil., $200 mil from long distance routes (91.5%).
Jan. passengers: total 2,126,000; LD routes 324,000 (15.2%)
So operations for 15.2% of passengers carried generates 91.5% of the loss. To me (and probably most of the public) that is a waste.
There is no arguing with Schlimm's numbers -- only with his conclusion that we should, on the basis of those numbers, eliminate the LD trains. Against that conclusion I can offer only the argument I have used before.
The LD trains are not an absolute black hole. The money spent on their support does buy value for a good many people. The bottom line, for me, is that Washington spills more money than that every day between 12 o'clock and noon.
I hate to wade into another passenger debate but schlimm does make a lot of sense. I love trains, love to ride trains but hate to waste money.
schlimm I am very serious. The EB's performance in nice weather isn't good either. In Jan. 2010, it lost more money than this terrible January. There are very few LD trains that can be justified on any basis. They lose far more money than corridor services by all metrics. They can never be competitive with air because of length of route and speed. Given the limited resources available, the money spent on LD trains would be much better spent in short corridors. Look at it this way. Jan. 2011, Amtrak lost $218.5 mil., $200 mil from long distance routes (91.5%). Jan. passengers: total 2,126,000; LD routes 324,000 (15.2%) So operations for 15.2% of passengers carried generates 91.5% of the loss. To me (and probably most of the public) that is a waste.
Amen! Most of the nearly $30 billion that has been lost by Amtrak since its inception can be attributed to the long distance trains. Had they been discontinued upon Amtrak's formation, more money, at least in theory, would have been available to develop the corridors where passenger rail makes sense.
Sam1 Amen! Most of the nearly $30 billion that has been lost by Amtrak since its inception can be attributed to the long distance trains. Had they been discontinued upon Amtrak's formation, more money, at least in theory, would have been available to develop the corridors where passenger rail makes sense.
Double Amen! Look I like passenger trains and was lucky enough to ride some of the great long distance trains of the past. But that was then, at a time when there were not as many interstates and air travel was transitioning into the jet age and pre-dereg and pre-bargain airfares. Today riding a long distance train like the EB or CZ or Sunset is like taking a cruise liner - non-essential or replaceable by alternates. The taxpayer should not be subsidizing cruises or people who don't like flying. Therefore: 1. It doesn't warrant subsidy. 2. That yearly subsidy for operations + equipment purchases would be better spent on developing the corridors.
Chicago - Seattle, Chicago - Emeryville, New Orleans - Los Angeles may be land cruises. Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM are most certainly not. Look at the average passenger mileages on the LD trains -- they're not primarily being used end-to-end, but rather seving the scores of cities in between.
The government has always supported transportation for the smaller towns and villages -- that's why they have an Essential Air Service program, giving airlines over $100 million to fly to otherwise unprofitable small airports. And that doesn't include costs to build and maintain little-used but "essential" airports, etc.
Why is that OK, but a subsidy to supprt comparable rail service a waste?
If we can spend 40 plus Billion on Highways system and 15 Billion on Airlines, we can find money for Amtrak.
Dragoman Chicago - Seattle, Chicago - Emeryville, New Orleans - Los Angeles may be land cruises. Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM are most certainly not. Look at the average passenger mileages on the LD trains -- they're not primarily being used end-to-end, but rather seving the scores of cities in between. The government has always supported transportation for the smaller towns and villages -- that's why they have an Essential Air Service program, giving airlines over $100 million to fly to otherwise unprofitable small airports. And that doesn't include costs to build and maintain little-used but "essential" airports, etc. Why is that OK, but a subsidy to supprt comparable rail service a waste?
OK. Get rid of the LD routes. Then those segments (Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM) and any others like those could be preserved and given additional service (without sleeper cars), but let them be funded separately from the rest of Amtrak, just like EAS is funded separately from the rest of air transport support.
conrailman If we can spend 40 plus Billion on Highways system and 15 Billion on Airlines, we can find money for Amtrak.
That argument has not worked in the 40 years of Amtrak. If you want to know why, check some of Paul M.'s detailed posts.
Last Year Airlines lost more than Amtrak 9 Billion Dollars for the airlines and Highways doesn't make money either.
You folks are probably aware that one third of Amtrak funding goes to acquire additional funds for the next year. The Empire Builder had a bad January. In my past life, I have had to spend days in motels waiting for the wind to die down so Western Kansas/ Nebraska highway I-70 or I-80 could be opened up either during snow blizzard conditions or during high winds in the spring /summer. There are times when the California Zephyr, Empire Builder and Southwest Chief (though late) made it through, while passengers slept on airport floors waiting for some distant airport to open.I am personally embarrassed by the subsidies for Amtrak ( though it's less than the one trillion invested in Iraq and Afghanistan), but please don't paint this glowing picture of present day airline or long distance Interstate travel. Been there, done that and things will only get worse.
schlimm Dragoman: Chicago - Seattle, Chicago - Emeryville, New Orleans - Los Angeles may be land cruises. Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM are most certainly not. Look at the average passenger mileages on the LD trains -- they're not primarily being used end-to-end, but rather seving the scores of cities in between. The government has always supported transportation for the smaller towns and villages -- that's why they have an Essential Air Service program, giving airlines over $100 million to fly to otherwise unprofitable small airports. And that doesn't include costs to build and maintain little-used but "essential" airports, etc. Why is that OK, but a subsidy to supprt comparable rail service a waste? OK. Get rid of the LD routes. Then those segments (Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM) and any others like those could be preserved and given additional service (without sleeper cars), but let them be funded separately from the rest of Amtrak, just like EAS is funded separately from the rest of air transport support.
Dragoman: Chicago - Seattle, Chicago - Emeryville, New Orleans - Los Angeles may be land cruises. Minot, ND - Havre, MT, Reno, NV - Sacramento, CA, El Paso, TX - Lordsburg, NM are most certainly not. Look at the average passenger mileages on the LD trains -- they're not primarily being used end-to-end, but rather seving the scores of cities in between. The government has always supported transportation for the smaller towns and villages -- that's why they have an Essential Air Service program, giving airlines over $100 million to fly to otherwise unprofitable small airports. And that doesn't include costs to build and maintain little-used but "essential" airports, etc. Why is that OK, but a subsidy to supprt comparable rail service a waste?
But ot's not only Reno - Sacramento. You have Colfax - Elko, Winnemucca - Helper, UT, Provo - Granby, etc, etc, and guess what? You've got the whole Chicago - CA route! And why eliminate the sleepers -- don''t they generate proportionately more revenue than the coaches?
And, Schlimm, the LD funding is separated out in Amtrak's budget -- that's how we know what revenue and expenses were on the LD, NEC, & corridor services. It's rolled up into Amtrak's budget just as EAS is rolled up into DOT's -- it's not buried as if it were a CIA/NSA/DOD item!
Not so fast. You give no numbers to back up your contentions. Here are actual numbers for your stops from the Amtrak state reports that give station usage for 2010:
Elko 6,835
Winnemucca 3,558
Colfax 4,322
Helper 1,808
Provo 5,133
Granby 3,655
Total boardings/alightings from these stops in 2010 = 25,311.
By contrast, one medium sized city, Jackson, on the Michigan corridor generated more than the total of those six places, by itself: 28,506.
And if you had read my post you would realize that LD trains only account for 15.2% of total passengers, but a whopping 91.7% of the operating loss.
If Oversea Country can spend 10 to 30 billion a Year like Japan,UK,China and other Country spend money on their System, we can find money for Amtrak, also We need all 3 in the USA like Amtrak, Highways, and Airlines. We need a Fair and Balance system here in good old USA not just highways and airlines, but we need Amtrak too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.