What do you think about Amtrak?

[hf1001]

What do you like/dislike about amtrak and what could make current US passenger trains better?

[conrailman]

Amtrak needs a New Orders of Superliners cars the 1 are 28 years old and superliner 2 cars are about 12 years about 800 new superliners car order.New order of Viewliners Cars  50 more sleeping Cars and then in Coaches, Lounge, Diners, and Dorms another 300 cars. NEC needs new cars too 300 cars. and more trains service in USA. We needs Amtrak in this Country.

[Prairietype]

It's love - hate.

I love that it exists. I hate some aspects of how they operate as a company.

I love the routes they do have, I hate they limited number of routes they have.

I love that America has a national railroad. I hate that the national railroad is so pruned that in most places it operates as a runt.

I love the affordable ticket prices, I hate the tiered cost pricing they have for availability on some purchases (but I can live with this).

I hate the way Amtrak is restricted in their expansion.

I hate the look of the paint scheme on the trains.

I think that many of their personnel have marginal PR and customer service skills-I hate this.

I hate the way Amtrak has been funded. I hate their marketing effort. I hate the obsessive focus on the Northeast corridor.

I hate the way that the media will pick on a train arriving 28 minutes late as if it were a month late-though comparisons to airline delays are never made, and  neither are highway traffic delays.

I love the side benefits a scenic, comfortable, safe travel.

I hate the criticism that is constantly leveled at Amtrak even though I have mentioned a few here. My two major criticisms are the paint job and the PR skills; I can live with the first but remain steadfast about the second.  

[Paul Milenkovic]

If there was one thing, and perhaps only one single thing, that I could change about Amtrak, it would be the whole cost accounting system.  Specifically, I would like to see breakdowns of direct operating costs, passenger miles, load factors, fuel/electric consumption by consist and route.  The whole notion of figuring out fuel usage, crew cost, car maintenance as broad system-wide values and then proportioning those costs to route segments is singularly unhelpful.

Our guy from Wisconsin DOT complained about not getting straight answers from Amtrak about costs to run the Hiawatha.  Amtrak treats the state contribution to running the state-supported trains as a revenue stream in the way that fares are another revenue stream, and just like Amtrak doesn't include its operating statistics with every purchase of a fare, they pretty much decide what the state contribution is supposed to be and say, "here, if you want that train, this is what you pay."

If Amtrak were a pure profit making company, it could simply charge fares to run the trains and the internal costs would be none of anyone elses business.  If they were a private but stock issuing corporation, they would have to disclose financial information pertinent to the operation of the business to satisfy regulatory requirements along with the need-to-know of the stockholders.  There is a lot of talk about everyone and his uncle wants to second guess the operation of Amtrak and put their two cents in about how it should be done, as if they know any better.  If you have stockholders, you had better believe that stockholders want to second guess how you should run the business, want to second guess what you are doing, and sometimes act like they know better, but that is the bargain of accepting the public's money for the purchase of stock.

Amtrak, I guess, is a corporate structure of which the railroads have or had owned non-trading shares, but given that it takes a public appropriation every year to close the gap between fares and expenses, it takes on a whole slew of stakeholders who want to second guess what Amtrak is doing, want to put their two cents in, and act like they know better about how to run Amtrak, and the bargain of accepting public money to run the thing means one has to accept that, the opinions of persons in the passenger train advocacy community who get stomach upset at the mention of "Amtrak reform" not withstanding.

The premise of asking "What do you think about Amtrak" presupposes that people do want to put their two cents in, and many of us indeed act like we know better about running Amtrak, and express our views whether we know better or not.  That is the price you pay for accepting public money to help run Amtrak, however miserly that support may seem.

The dead horse I am whipping up on is fuel efficiency.  Fuel efficiency is not the only reason to have trains, but it is one of the things people keep bringing up as a reason to fund Amtrak.  Our DOT guy told us one of the things that greases the skids for keeping the Hiawatha train going is that it serves an Air Quality Non-Attainment region, and that factor is often deciding in getting money for another year to keep the train.  But does anyone even know the fuel usage relative to an equivalent number of autos let alone the Diesel engine emissions vs the auto emissions for that train?

I get a certain sense that there are those in the advocacy community that don't want to know the answers to these questions, largely because it would pit one train against another, one route segment against another.

[Anonymous]

Over the past 15 months I have traveled on the Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, Pennsylvanian, and several regional corridor trains between Washington and Philadelphia.

The Amtrak on-line reservation and information system is amongst the best that I have used.  I use it to plan trips and make reservations.  I have never had a problem with it.

I have met many interesting people on Amtrak's trains.  Oh, I have bumped into a few soreheads, but most of the people that I have met have been very nice.  And some of them have been uniquely interesting.

Most Amtrak employees are cheerful and helpful.  But about ten per cent of them need to repeat charm school, although Amtrak is no different than other commercial transport providers. 

Watching the countryside glide by at 79 mph, for the most part, is fast enough to give one the sense that he or she is getting there; it is slow enough to be able to enjoy the many beautiful sights America has to offer.  

Reading a good book or chatting with fellow passengers in the lounge car or having an afternoon snooze is some of the neat things that I enjoy on Amtrak. 

When traveling over night, I book a sleeper.  It is a different experience than traveling in a coach.  If you have a discourteous passenger across the aisle in the sleeper, you can close the door.  If you are in a coach, you may or may not be able to move your seat.  If you are next to an obnoxious passenger in a coach from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and you cannot change seats, it can be a long trip.  On a plane you can say goodbye to the obnoxious person in an hour or so. 

The wine tasting and quiz on the Empire Builder for first class passengers was great.  Knowing the start date of Amtrak got me half a bottle of wine.

Late running trains, especially the long distance trains, are a turnoff.  Of the trains that I mentioned above, only the regional trains and the Pennsylvanian were on time.  The others were off the advertised by as much as five hours.  Fortunately, I did not have any close connections. 

The food on the Empire Builder was OK.  The food on the other trains was passable at best.  The food on the Eagle and Sunset, at least, is pre-prepared off site and warmed up on the train.  It does not compare favorably with the food served up by a good restaurant; in fact, if a restaurant served up Amtrak style food at the prices charged on the train, it would be out of business in short order.

The biggest step that Amtrak, or any provider could take, to improve passenger trains in the U.S. is to focus on the enhancement of existing corridors and the development of new ones where they make sense.  This is where they are likely to attract a significant number of riders, and where they could, if the U.S. developed a rational transport policy, cover at least their variable operating costs. 

[motard98]

Traveling by rail on Amtrak is a great way to travel.  Just last month I rode the California Zephyr from Chicago to Denver and back.  I could've easily flown but the relaxed atmosphere of the train is why I chose to ride Amtrak.

Promotion is the area which needs to be improved.  Amtrak is a tremendous resource and asset to the numerous travel options but is out of the public eye.

[Anonymous]

I'm generally in agreement with the thoughts thus far expressed, though I do like the current paint scheme.  

I like the fact that Amtrak has managed to hold together, against long odds, a national passenger rail system, skeletal though it may be, on a shoestring budget in the absence of any national rail transportation policy.

What I dislike most of all is that in 37 years of existence Amtrak has never done any long range planning. What do they want the system to look like 10-20 years from now? Amtrak has never bothered to answer that question. The excuse given is that Congress only funds them from year to year, so they can't do any planning. I say that's nonsense! Without a plan Congress has nothing to fund, hence the year to year begging which does nothing more than maintain the status quo. 

 

 

 

[terry.hall51]

Mr. Toy raises a good point about long range planning.  With no long range plan, how then, does Congress fund them?  (I'm not looking for an answer).  I work on the general aviation side of airport management, and the airport I serve depends on federal funds for maintenance and new construction.   In fact, we have a large federal, state, and local project currently taking place.  A part of the funding process is to have in place an approved "long range plan" for the airport.  Without it, there is NO money.  And the longer the list, the better. 

 

 

[oltmannd]

I love travelling by train.  I've enjoyed every single Amtrak trip I've taken - even the lousy ones (like the time Amtrak substituted a half dozen 84 seat Amfleet cars for the LSL and my slumbercoach room became a coach seat all the way from Grand Central to Chicago.)

I hate the way that the lack of profit motive at any level, corporate, department, individual, has let the company become the almost irrelevant, bureaucratic quagmire it's now is.

I remain hopeful that Amtrak can relevant and meaningful outside of the NEC.

[MichaelSol]

What I dislike most of all is that in 37 years of existence Amtrak has never done any long range planning. What do they want the system to look like 10-20 years from now? Amtrak has never bothered to answer that question.

I don't know if they could even want to try and answer that question in a fluid and rapidly evolving economy -- 20 years is a long ways out for any company, and I don't know of a Fortune 500 Company that does it that far out.

 Amtrak is in the final stages of a five year plan developed in 2004, for what its worth.

 http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/strategic05.pdf

 

 

 

[ndbprr]

I am going to New Orleans from Chicago in March.  My wife and I can fly in two hours, stay in the Hilton and go to the best restaurant in town for about $750.00.  Amtrak wants $1084 for the experience and it won't be first class and I doubt it would be five star food.  They won't get my money for that price.

[Prairietype]

Not everyone lives in Chicago or is heading to another great metropolis of the magnitude of New Orleans.  What if you live in Topeka and want to go to Albuquerque? A quick check of Orbitz shows a round trip fair for 2 at $1200, and at least 8 hours all told travel.  Getting from that city to other is served best and most economically by rail.  But since you're talking Chicago, the lowest cost flight between Topeka and Chicago runs (for 2) $750 up to $1600, and oddly the total travel time is somewhat longer but not that much longer overall. So I could take Amtrak with my wife to Chicago from Topeka, see Wicked, eat at the best restaurant in town, and stay at a great hotel, but have cash left in my pocket to enjoy.

Amtrak is promoting $35 tickets between Kansas City and Chicago today. 

Amtrak could get my money (and I'm sure they're getting other's money) at that price.  And Topeka isn't the only boarding point along the way.  The closer you get to Chicago, the less expensive it is by rail, conversely the airline cost increase unless your're flying from some place like Denver, or Phoenix, Dallas or St. Louis.

[JT22CW]

I love travelling by train.  I've enjoyed every single Amtrak trip I've taken - even the lousy ones (like the time Amtrak substituted a half dozen 84 seat Amfleet cars for the LSL and my slumbercoach room became a coach seat all the way from Grand Central to Chicago.)

I hate the way that the lack of profit motive at any level, corporate, department, individual, has let the company become the almost irrelevant, bureaucratic quagmire it's now is

Please tell us how it's a "lack of profit motive" when for three decades, Amtrak has been the only passenger railroad in the USA that has had continual pressure on it to turn a profit.  Not even Conrail, when operating passenger trains, had any such imperative imposed on it.  None of the commuter railroads do, certainly, and all I hear is how their trains are "nicer" than Amtrak's.  So it can't be absence of profit motive.

I remain hopeful that Amtrak can (become?) relevant and meaningful outside of the NEC.

Better hope that all the other railroads sell their roads to Amtrak, then.  Where Amtrak has available capital, they generally put their efforts into turning the railroads under their ownership into high-speed corridors, or at least upgrade them for operation in excess of 100 mph top speed.  (The one exception is the Inland Route between New Haven CT and Springfield MA; and given the service reductions on that route, it may change owners to Connecticut DOT should their commuter rail service plans come to fruition.)

[oltmannd]

Having a constant political battle over operating subsidies is not "profit motive"

For example, if I'm the Race St engine house General Foreman and I have 8 guys on 1st trick and figure a way that 99% of the time, I can get the work done with 6 by changing work flow and cutting idle time, what do I get for suggesting a change?  I get a hard time from the union, I get lousy morale and bad attitudes (maybe), I get yelled at for the 1% of the time power isn't ready for an outbound train.  Why would I EVER suggest it?  ...and that becomes the corporate culture.  Now, if I change the culture so that reducing costs and improving revenues is rewarded, then I get employees who think it's their job, not only to get yesterday's work done today, but to constantly be figuring out how to do things faster, better and cheaper.

[oltmannd]

I love travelling by train.  I've enjoyed every single Amtrak trip I've taken - even the lousy ones (like the time Amtrak substituted a half dozen 84 seat Amfleet cars for the LSL and my slumbercoach room became a coach seat all the way from Grand Central to Chicago.)

I hate the way that the lack of profit motive at any level, corporate, department, individual, has let the company become the almost irrelevant, bureaucratic quagmire it's now is

Please tell us how it's a "lack of profit motive" when for three decades, Amtrak has been the only passenger railroad in the USA that has had continual pressure on it to turn a profit.  Not even Conrail, when operating passenger trains, had any such imperative imposed on it.  None of the commuter railroads do, certainly, and all I hear is how their trains are "nicer" than Amtrak's.  So it can't be absence of profit motive.

I remain hopeful that Amtrak can (become?) relevant and meaningful outside of the NEC.

Better hope that all the other railroads sell their roads to Amtrak, then.  Where Amtrak has available capital, they generally put their efforts into turning the railroads under their ownership into high-speed corridors, or at least upgrade them for operation in excess of 100 mph top speed.  (The one exception is the Inland Route between New Haven CT and Springfield MA; and given the service reductions on that route, it may change owners to Connecticut DOT should their commuter rail service plans come to fruition.)

Conrail had zero profit motive for the commuter service they ran because they didn't collect a dime from the fare box.  They were paid a flat fee to operate the trains - whether the trains were any good and anybody rode them or not.  Conrail's goals were to spend as little of their own money as possible and try to avoid too much negative publicity. 

[JT22CW]

Having a constant political battle over operating subsidies is not "profit motive"

For example, if I'm the Race St engine house General Foreman and I have 8 guys on 1st trick and figure a way that 99% of the time, I can get the work done with 6 by changing work flow and cutting idle time, what do I get for suggesting a change? I get a hard time from the union, I get lousy morale and bad attitudes (maybe), I get yelled at for the 1% of the time power isn't ready for an outbound train. Why would I EVER suggest it? ...and that becomes the corporate culture. Now, if I change the culture so that reducing costs and improving revenues is rewarded, then I get employees who think it's their job, not only to get yesterday's work done today, but to constantly be figuring out how to do things faster, better and cheaper

Compared to what? As far as I can see, things at Amtrak are cut to the bone. The fewer trains you run, the higher the overhead; isn't this why the costs of excursion trains are so exorbitant, by comparison? (and excursion trains aren't operated, for the most part, by the owners of the infrastructure they run on, save in the case of tourist railroads.) When it's included in legislature relating to Amtrak that they are required, explicitly, to become profitable; but the maxim "you gotta spend money to make money" still applies, and if not enough money's being spent (we already know how much money is required, from not only close to two centuries of railroading but also the examples of modern rail technology), how can the money be made, on the other end? Too much cost-cutting in business results in a flight of customers and, subsequently, reduced production (note what US car companies did during the 70s and 80s, allowing the Japanese car companies to gain the ground they currently possess; the same principle applies when it comes to spending money on passenger rail, and so many examples of that abound, it's not funny).

Things are quite out of whack on the political end, that's for sure. When you have commuter agencies spending $107 million per mile for light rail of all things (and this light rail, for the most part, on existing rights of way), how are they trying to make things appear to the taxpayer?  (This is more than three times the amount spent to build most new high-speed rail alignments, too.)

[Anonymous]

Flying from Topeka to Albuquerque or Chicago can be pricy.  But if one is willing to drive to Kansas City, which is approximately 62 miles from Topeka, he or she can fly for a lot less.

The refundable round trip airfare for two on Southwest Airlines, for example, from KC to Albuquerque is $1,084.  But the Wanna Get Away fare is $396.  The quickest flying time is 2 hours and 10 minutes.  Southwest has 7 flights a day from KC to Albuquerque and six return flights.  Two of the westbound flights are non-stops; three of the eastbound flights are non-stops.

The refundable round trip airfare for two on Southwest to Chicago is $263.  The Wanna Get Away fare is $196.  It flies between KC and the windy city 12 times a day each way.  All the flights are non-stop and take about an hour and 20 minutes.  Southwest flies to Midway, which makes getting downtown Chicago relatively easy. 

The round trip train fare - coach - for two from Topeka to Albuquerque is $372, assuming one of the passengers qualifies for an AAA discount.  The train to Albuquerque - Southwest Chief - departs Topeka at 1:09 a.m., which means getting to bed late or getting up very early.  It arrives in Albuquerque at 3:55 p.m.  On the return trip the train arrives in Topeka at 5:20 a.m., which would certainly give one an early start on the day.  If one chooses to travel in a roomette, the return fare for two would be $695, which is better than Southwest's full fare but not as good as the Wanna Get Away fare.  Meals are embedded in the cost of the first class fare.

The round trip train fare - coach - for two from Topeka to Chicago is $232.  The train departs Topeka at 5:20 a.m. and arrives in Chicago at 3:20 p.m.  Westbound the train leaves Chicago at 3:15 and arrives in Topeka at 1:09 a.m.

Factoring in the cost of meals gets a bit dicey.  Assuming one eats three meals a day, which most of us do, there might be some incremental meal cost on the train that would not be incurred by flying.  If one took the train, he would have two meals on it plus one meal after arrival.  If he flew, he might have one meal at home, one at the airport, and one at a restaurant upon arrival.  If our flyer eats at home or has a McDonalds at the airport, his incremental meal costs on the train could be greater.

Only the Southwest Chief serves Topeka.  If passengers holding tickets on it miss the train, they are stuck for there for 24 hours.

Getting up in the middle of the night to catch a train does not appeal to most people.  By flying out of KC, a person could get up at a reasonable hour, drive to KC, catch SW's 12:40 departure, and still be in Chicago an hour and 15 minutes before the Chief arrived.  This is why people prefer flying to taking a train, unless the train can compete with the plane on time, price and convenience. 

        

[oltmannd]

Having a constant political battle over operating subsidies is not "profit motive"

For example, if I'm the Race St engine house General Foreman and I have 8 guys on 1st trick and figure a way that 99% of the time, I can get the work done with 6 by changing work flow and cutting idle time, what do I get for suggesting a change? I get a hard time from the union, I get lousy morale and bad attitudes (maybe), I get yelled at for the 1% of the time power isn't ready for an outbound train. Why would I EVER suggest it? ...and that becomes the corporate culture. Now, if I change the culture so that reducing costs and improving revenues is rewarded, then I get employees who think it's their job, not only to get yesterday's work done today, but to constantly be figuring out how to do things faster, better and cheaper

Compared to what? As far as I can see, things at Amtrak are cut to the bone. The fewer trains you run, the higher the overhead; isn't this why the costs of excursion trains are so exorbitant, by comparison? (and excursion trains aren't operated, for the most part, by the owners of the infrastructure they run on, save in the case of tourist railroads.) When it's included in legislature relating to Amtrak that they are required, explicitly, to become profitable; but the maxim "you gotta spend money to make money" still applies, and if not enough money's being spent (we already know how much money is required, from not only close to two centuries of railroading but also the examples of modern rail technology), how can the money be made, on the other end? Too much cost-cutting in business results in a flight of customers and, subsequently, reduced production (note what US car companies did during the 70s and 80s, allowing the Japanese car companies to gain the ground they currently possess; the same principle applies when it comes to spending money on passenger rail, and so many examples of that abound, it's not funny).

Things are quite out of whack on the political end, that's for sure. When you have commuter agencies spending $107 million per mile for light rail of all things (and this light rail, for the most part, on existing rights of way), how are they trying to make things appear to the taxpayer?  (This is more than three times the amount spent to build most new high-speed rail alignments, too.)

Do some benchmarking of Amtrak against the freight RRs from the 1980s to present.  Big productivity gains for the frt RRs.  Not so much for Amtrak.  I'm not talking generally about the T&E and onboard guys, but all the back-office work.  Compare that NS has 1000 guys in Mechanical to take care of 3000 locomotives and a couple hundred thousand frt cars where Amtrak has 4000 guys to take car of <3000 locomotives + cars.  (There's a really, really long and stupid locked thread out there about this, if you can't sleep).  17000+ guys to run a company that operates 300 trains a day?  NS has 30,000 guys to operate 3000 trains a day.  That just seems so totally out of whack to me.

[Dakguy201]

Oltmannd is making a lot of sense.  Motivation to do better is a major key to success here. 

Out of curiosity, I went back and read a good deal of the five year plan.  It made sense, but at this point it would be useful to measure how much of each bullet point has been accomplished.  Sadly, in a lot of cases the answer would be not very much; in particular once you consider the system outside of the NEC.  I'm reminded of the old management saying to the effect that to achieve a result, you must be seen to be measuring progress toward it.

[Anonymous]

I'm in the Seattle WA. area and take the Cascades(Talgo) twice a week to Portland OR.

I really enjoy the Talgo trains, they are so much better than the Superliner style cars.

The one thing that I really like about Talgo is that they carry an OBT(On Board Tech).

There have been times when I was late leaving Seattle, but it had nothing to do with the Talgo train sets. It was because of freight somewhere on the tracks. I have traveled a lot in Europe and the rail service there is outstanding. I really hope that we here in the U.S. can get to that point.

I also do a lot of traveling in the midwest and would LOVE to see the Talgo's there! I have nothing but praise for the Talgo's and their maintenance crews!

Has anyone else had this good experience?

I also understand that they are doing a modification and installing new leather and redoing the interiors too.

[Dakguy201]

    Now, if I change the culture so that reducing costs and improving revenues is rewarded, then I get employees who think it's their job, not only to get yesterday's work done today, but to constantly be figuring out how to do things faster, better and cheaper.

Precisely right!

[choochoobuff]

I don't know, I would love to ride but I have to drive at least 90 miles to catch one and I don't even live in the sticks. I need a shortline just to get to the train.  Sad when you consider that the city I live in used to have three major carriers back in the good old days.

[BaltACD]

I'm generally in agreement with the thoughts thus far expressed, though I do like the current paint scheme.  

I like the fact that Amtrak has managed to hold together, against long odds, a national passenger rail system, skeletal though it may be, on a shoestring budget in the absence of any national rail transportation policy.

What I dislike most of all is that in 37 years of existence Amtrak has never done any long range planning. What do they want the system to look like 10-20 years from now? Amtrak has never bothered to answer that question. The excuse given is that Congress only funds them from year to year, so they can't do any planning. I say that's nonsense! Without a plan Congress has nothing to fund, hence the year to year begging which does nothing more than maintain the status quo. 

Your second paragraph answers the third, before the third even poses the question.  A man that can believe that he will have another meal, can't make a plan on how to become the next president of the US.  To be able to plan for tomorrow, you have to know that today is a sure thing.  Amtrak has never known the security of tomorrrow!