Has anone observed / checked the consists of the eastern LD trains? A quick check of the eastern trains reservations today showed no sell outs of coach. All sleeper positions showed only one or two openings including Cardinal sold out.. Is Amtrak still running same number of sleeper cars?
Here are some details from last week:
Capitol Limited (WB) had 5 cars - 2 coaches, a diner/cafe, 2 sleepers. Coach was pretty tight but there were several sleeper rooms available. This was down 1 coach, 1 sightseer, 2 sleepers, 1 baggage car from just two weeks earlier.
Silver Meteor (NB) had 9 cars - 3 coaches, cafe, diner, 3 sleepers, baggage. Everything seemed pretty full. This was down 2 coaches from 2 weeks earlier.
Silver Star (NB) had 8 cars - 3 coaches, cafe, diner, 2 sleepers, baggage.
A check of Amtrak reservations has almost every LD train sleepers from NYP with only one room left for the next seven days. For the one room on the Cardinal left the fare NYP - CHI was $1100+. Coach wide open on all trains. BC somewhat spotty. Who says more sleeper space not needed?
blue streak 1 A check of Amtrak reservations has almost every LD train sleepers from NYP with only one room left for the next seven days. For the one room on the Cardinal left the fare NYP - CHI was $1100+. Coach wide open on all trains. BC somewhat spotty. Who says more sleeper space not needed?
In FY14 the Cardinal carried 8,602 sleeping car passengers, which was a 25 per cent increase over FY13.
Assuming 28 passengers per sleeper, the Cardinal had 8,736 sleeping spaces for sale in FY 14 if it ran one sleeper per train. The occupancy rate would have averaged 98.4 per cent. If it had two sleeping cars during FY14, the occupancy rate would have been 49.2 per cent. If it had one sleeper for half of FY14 and two sleepers for the other half, as has been suggested, the occupancy rate would have averaged 65.6 per cent.
If the Cardinal had only one sleeper in FY14, it appears that it could have sold additional sleeping car capacity. But if it had two or 1.5 sleepers for FY14, it may have had excess capacity. How much of the additional space could have been sold is problematic.
Whether the Cardinal is representative of the system is problematic.
The key question is whether the incremental revenue generated from adding additional capacity, i.e. more sleeper capacity (cars), would cover the incremental operating costs?
In a for profit business the question would go one step beyond the operating breakeven point. Would the incremental revenue cover the incremental operating costs and contribute something to the fixed costs?
Sam1 In FY14 the Cardinal carried 8,602 sleeping car passengers, which was a 25 per cent increase over FY13. Assuming 28 passengers per sleeper, the Cardinal had 8,736 sleeping spaces for sale in FY 14 if it ran one sleeper per train. The occupancy rate would have averaged 98.4 per cent. If it had two sleeping cars during FY14, the occupancy rate would have been 49.2 per cent. If it had one sleeper for half of FY14 and two sleepers for the other half, as has been suggested, the occupancy rate would have averaged 65.6 per cent. If the Cardinal had only one sleeper in FY14, it appears that it could have sold additional sleeping car capacity. But if it had two or 1.5 sleepers for FY14, it may have had excess capacity. How much of the additional space could have been sold is problematic.
Sam1 you were close but no cigar. Actually 1.25 sleepers. If you check Amtrak's performance reports for July, Aug, Sep table 3.6 you will see those were the months of 2 sleepers. October 2014 also had 2 sleepers then back to one table 3.5.
Sam1 The key question is whether the incremental revenue generated from adding additional capacity, i.e. more sleeper capacity (cars), would cover the incremental operating costs?
This might be the 'key question' if Amtrak were a for-profit business, but it's not. The business of Amtrak is getting as many people aboard as possible -- 'serving' as many people as possible, if you like -- while covering as much of its operating cost out of the farebox as it can.
Adding capacity to get more people aboard -- and to get them acquainted with Amtrak -- may add to costs in the short term. But a marketing department worth its salt will then adopt strategies to make sure any new capacity left over is filled, with an incremental increase, not loss, to the bottom line.
I hate Amtrak's strategy this winter of cutting capacity, of running short trains and filling up the sleeping cars with crew. Make it too hard to buy a bunk, and guess what? People will simply stop thinking of Amtrak when it's time to plan a trip -- put it out of their minds altogether. Then those stubby little trains will be good enough for all year.
dakotafredI hate Amtrak's strategy this winter of cutting capacity, of running short trains and filling up the sleeping cars with crew. Make it too hard to buy a bunk, and guess what? People will simply stop thinking of Amtrak when it's time to plan a trip -- put it out of their minds altogether. Then those stubby little trains will be good enough for all year.
One would think extra cars (sleepers and coaches) would be added in winter for the Florida trains. That was the case years ago.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 Sam1 In FY14 the Cardinal carried 8,602 sleeping car passengers, which was a 25 per cent increase over FY13. Assuming 28 passengers per sleeper, the Cardinal had 8,736 sleeping spaces for sale in FY 14 if it ran one sleeper per train. The occupancy rate would have averaged 98.4 per cent. If it had two sleeping cars during FY14, the occupancy rate would have been 49.2 per cent. If it had one sleeper for half of FY14 and two sleepers for the other half, as has been suggested, the occupancy rate would have averaged 65.6 per cent. If the Cardinal had only one sleeper in FY14, it appears that it could have sold additional sleeping car capacity. But if it had two or 1.5 sleepers for FY14, it may have had excess capacity. How much of the additional space could have been sold is problematic. u were close but no cigar. Actually 1.25 sleepers. If you check Amtrak's performance reports for July, Aug, Sep table 3.6 you will see those were the months of 2 sleepers. October 2014 also had 2 sleepers then back to one table 3.5.
Sam1 In FY14 the Cardinal carried 8,602 sleeping car passengers, which was a 25 per cent increase over FY13. Assuming 28 passengers per sleeper, the Cardinal had 8,736 sleeping spaces for sale in FY 14 if it ran one sleeper per train. The occupancy rate would have averaged 98.4 per cent. If it had two sleeping cars during FY14, the occupancy rate would have been 49.2 per cent. If it had one sleeper for half of FY14 and two sleepers for the other half, as has been suggested, the occupancy rate would have averaged 65.6 per cent. If the Cardinal had only one sleeper in FY14, it appears that it could have sold additional sleeping car capacity. But if it had two or 1.5 sleepers for FY14, it may have had excess capacity. How much of the additional space could have been sold is problematic. u were close but no cigar. Actually 1.25 sleepers. If you check Amtrak's performance reports for July, Aug, Sep table 3.6 you will see those were the months of 2 sleepers. October 2014 also had 2 sleepers then back to one table 3.5.
u were close but no cigar. Actually 1.25 sleepers. If you check Amtrak's performance reports for July, Aug, Sep table 3.6 you will see those were the months of 2 sleepers. October 2014 also had 2 sleepers then back to one table 3.5.
You got me!
Amtrak's Monthly Performance Reports (MPR) don't shown the number of cars in a train.
Presumably, you took the number of sleeping car passengers (989) from Table 3.6, Sept 2014 MPR; assumed that they rode end points to end points, and concluded that one car could not have accommodated them.
In September 2014 the Cardinal had 12 departures from New York and 13 from Chicago. Assuming 28 spaces per car (assumes one economy room is occupied by the car attendant), it would have had a total of 700 spaces for the month. It would have been short 289 spaces or an average of 12 spaces per train.
Some of the passengers probably did not stay on the car for the entire trip. A passenger could have boarded the train in Washington for Indianpolis. Another passenger could have used the space from Indianpolis to Chicago. If this were true, the deficiency in spaces would have been less than would have been the case under the end point to end point assumption.
Your calculations and conclusions probably are correct. Do you have an independent source to verify that the Cardinal ran with more than two sleeping cars during the months cited?
Presumably the extra cars were taken off the Silver Service trains. If they met the need for the Cardinal without causing a sleeping car shortage on the Silver Service trains, then it would appear that Amtrak met the need without buying more sleeping cars.
dakotafred Sam1 The key question is whether the incremental revenue generated from adding additional capacity, i.e. more sleeper capacity (cars), would cover the incremental operating costs? This might be the 'key question' if Amtrak were a for-profit business, but it's not. The business of Amtrak is getting as many people aboard as possible -- 'serving' as many people as possible, if you like -- while covering as much of its operating cost out of the farebox as it can. Adding capacity to get more people aboard -- and to get them acquainted with Amtrak -- may add to costs in the short term. But a marketing department worth its salt will then adopt strategies to make sure any new capacity left over is filled.....
Adding capacity to get more people aboard -- and to get them acquainted with Amtrak -- may add to costs in the short term. But a marketing department worth its salt will then adopt strategies to make sure any new capacity left over is filled.....
Amtrak is a capital stock corporation. Its preferred stock is held by U.S. DOT. The common stock is held by several private parties.
According to most of the sources that I have read, the initial financial objective for Amtrak was to turn a profit. When that proved to be unattainable, the objective was changed. Amtrak was to be managed like a profitable business or words to that effect.
Amtrak should be managed like a business. It should use marginal pricing and costing models, which are commonly used by competitive companies, to determine the amount of capacity they need. Given its dismal 43 year financial track record, Amtrak cannot afford to run lose leaders.
I don't know of a major business that does not rely on robust marketing models to determine when and where to add capacity. They don't just buy capacity and then hope to fill it. They use advanced mathematical concepts to project the probability that the additional capacity will be used and whether it can be priced to cover the incremental cost.
Sam1 Do you have an independent source to verify that the Cardinal ran with more than two sleeping cars during the months cited? Presumably the extra cars were taken off the Silver Service trains. If they met the need for the Cardinal without causing a sleeping car shortage on the Silver Service trains, then it would appear that Amtrak met the need without buying more sleeping cars.
Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 The key question is whether the incremental revenue generated from adding additional capacity, i.e. more sleeper capacity (cars), would cover the incremental operating costs? This might be the 'key question' if Amtrak were a for-profit business, but it's not. The business of Amtrak is getting as many people aboard as possible -- 'serving' as many people as possible, if you like -- while covering as much of its operating cost out of the farebox as it can. Adding capacity to get more people aboard -- and to get them acquainted with Amtrak -- may add to costs in the short term. But a marketing department worth its salt will then adopt strategies to make sure any new capacity left over is filled..... Amtrak should be managed like a business. It should use marginal pricing and costing models, which are commonly used by competitive companies, to determine the amount of capacity they need. Given its dismal 43 year financial track record, Amtrak cannot afford to run lose leaders. I don't know of a major business that does not rely on robust marketing models to determine when and where to add capacity. They don't just buy capacity and then hope to fill it. They use advanced mathematical concepts to project the probability that the additional capacity will be used and whether it can be priced to cover the incremental cost.
My syntax was sloppy. The 'additional capacity' I intended is that which Amtrak has shaved from various LD routes this winter, not any provided by new equipment (altho I think Amtrak could use that too).
I don't know if Amtrak has done any market modeling on the affected routes. (It certainly should have.) If a need for more capacity could be demonstrated -- now I AM talking new equipment -- that would surely be something to show Congress. Whether it would do any good is, of course, anybody's guess.
Another check of reservations for this Friday shows the same loads. Almost all sleeper spaces sold out including the western trains that this poster though would not attract that many passengers. Now coach is another matter. Seems like end point destinations have many coach seats available. If this trend continues the 25 V-2 sleepers are not going to be enough?
Interestingly, 29 (of 3/2) came through Chesterton IN today (3/3) with one P42 and 5 cars, 2 days after the presumed change to the regular consist.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.