What operating profits from the Short Distance trains? Would that be the $1/4 Billion that they are getting from the States that sometimes gets shown as revenue as well as equipment/maintenance provided by the States in a lot of cases?
The funny thing that I noticed is in the recent attempt to get States to pay for Long Distance services, they are asking for about $600 million, much higher than the Direct loss of some $140 million, but for Short Distance services they just ask for roughly the Direct Loss. Is this representative of Political leverage with a superior product that the voters might not want to lose? See below from the recent NRPC Financial projection.
V.PayneWhat operating profits from the Short Distance trains?
Was thinking of NEC extensions - primarily Lynchburg and Norfolk trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I agree with you there, though my understanding is they do so well as the routes are fairly long (So more overlapping O-D pairs for volume per trainmile) just like the Palmetto route. I have often wondered what would happen if you spliced a overnight segment onto the western end of the Lynchburg route and then incrementally added those cars on the existing Lynchburg route, increasing the trainmile revenue remarkably and creating a Connected Corridor. Since the western extension would be running overnight, the average speed does not need to be as high, reducing the infrastructure requirements from NS if the FRA would allow a lower on-time standard that the high one set for new routes.
Perhaps with more Viewliners, beyond this order and in an all bedroom configuration, the Palmetto route will become the Silver Palm again to Tampa?
I have often wondered as well why they don't add the Cardnial to the end of a NEC train in Washington, or why in general NRPC seems adverse to longer trains, that are more revenue dense per trainmile.
The longer the route, the more likely it is to be late, miss connections, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
At the end of investor held operations (1961 quote) that point was seen to be routes of up to 1000 miles which might have had some degree of financial balance figured in as well, as such would allow a 24 hour cycle with the equipment.
Suppose all routes are 200 miles, covered at a 55 mph average on a 79 mph maximum, so 3.63 hours. Then everybody gets off waits 40 minutes, reboards, and a traveler continues onward another 100 miles till their destination over 1.8 hours. The total average is now 49 mph. A station capable of seating the entire trainload or two assuming crossing routes has to be built and staffed to handle that amount. One might figure the 40 minutes could be used for food service off the train at a lower cost, but if the train is running late will you just tell everyone to skip lunch and get on their departing train immediately? One might say the answer would be shorter connection times, say 10 minutes, but without hourly frequencies that means leaving people behind till the next departure several hours later if the original goal of staying on schedule is to be met.
How would this example be better than just inserting 20 minutes of schedule pad and scheduling at 52 mph?
Or better yet allowing trains to depart earlier than the slower time set up by the pad at intermediate points with modern technology such as text messages, while those without just get told to show up 20 minutes earlier in a printed timetable as a boarding time. Just don't call it being late if you use up the pad time. Print a boarding time and set a departure time electronically in a modification of the airline scheme.
I don't want to set up a strawman arguement. I am just trying to explain my position rationally. I am welcome to an explanation of how the revenue would be greater or costs less (inclusive of the stations and their staffing) per trainmile with shorter routes.
Your post sets up unrealistic parameters to your hypothetical example. As a result it is virtually meaningless. Why not use real cities on real routes?
My comment about delays and missed connections is based on Amtrak performance on longer distance routes.
Perhaps the unrealistic points could be identified? It can be done for any schedule with that info.
My point was clear enough.
V. Payne: All transit/commuter operators know that a one-seat ride draws more passengers than a ride that requires one change. I see no reason why this does not apply to corridor and intercity services. If I have connecting corridors, why do I think I a saving money by having train from A to B turn around and go back to A, and train C to B, connecting to train A to B,, turn around and go back to C, instead of running the first train A through B to C, and the second C through B to A, possibly swapping crews at B, but letting the passengers keep their seats?
Dave: I mostly agree, although with many cross-platform, almost immediate connections, DB does just fine. Corridors in the US are generally thought of as around 300 miles in length. There are many city pairs of that distance of less: CHI-STL, CHI-DET, BOS-NYP, NYP-WASH, et al.. Even with true HSR, distances much greater than that become less attractive by rail. I was thinking Mr. Payne would make more effective arguments by using real examples, rather than theoretical and hypothetical he gave with someone traveling 300 miles, but the trains run only 200 and 100. Essentially he made a strawman argument, as I am not aware of any proposed routing like that. But we do have the corridors I mentioned above, which are around 300 miles. Additionally, he has top speeds of only 79 mph, when all the corridors listed are 110 mph or higher.. I suspect it is all part of his attempt to justify LD services.
If we want all viewliner consists it will take many dollars.
1. Their are about 18 single level train sets now operating. Taking in the need for maintenance spare the bare minimum train sets are 21 - 22..
2. Amfleet - 2s even though much younger have a much higher mileage since they also operate all night long. See fleet plan 2012 for comparisons.
3. present consists of single level trains at low season is 2 locos, 1 baggage, 4 coaches, 1 diner, 1 lounge, & 2 sleepers.
4. At a minimum that will require 22 baggage ( already in production ), 88 coaches, 22 diners ( in production ), 22 lounges, 44 sleepers ( in service ).
5. When View - 2 sleepers are complete that will allow minimum of 3 sleepers on all trains. It may be 2 on Cardinal ( 2 filling up this summer ) and the extras to lake shore or silver service.
6. Based on sell outs now occurring many more coaches will be needed but how many is speculation. Maximum train service length is probable 14 cars. So present 9 cars would need to be 14 cars or 110 additional view -2s for present only single level trains. .
7. The train equipment mix would probably be different for different routes. So maybe as many as 5 (6?) sleepers on some trains. That would require another diner. One reason to store heritage diners serviceable.
8. Although NYP limits trains to 14 cars maybe additional cars could be added at WASH as was done before Amtrak ?
9. The option for 70 additional Viewliners would come some way for the 198 ( 308 - 110 ) listed above. However if the Palmetto is extended back to Miami then another 28 might be needed actually 56 more since it is all Amfleet - 1s ? And if the Cardinal went daily ? ? ?
blue streak 14. At a minimum that will require 22 baggage ( already in production ), 88 coaches, 22 diners ( in production ), 22 lounges, 44 sleepers ( in service ).
so revenue cars to non-revenue ratio only 2:1. Not good. And coach to sleeper only 2:1.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.