joe-daddy wrote: Uni "TED" is history today. How long before we start seeing smaller airports closing, Fox News just said it won't be long. . .Will the Railroads be able to capitalize on the opportunity? Railroad stocks have been strong for some time.Joe
Uni "TED" is history today. How long before we start seeing smaller airports closing, Fox News just said it won't be long. . .
Will the Railroads be able to capitalize on the opportunity? Railroad stocks have been strong for some time.
Joe
Many of the small airports in question serve cities that haven't had rail passenger service since long before Amtrak. I don't think that all of the feeder routes operated by the regional carriers will be discontinued but the amount of service will shrink considerably.
-Morgan
Samantha wrote: oltmannd wrote: Don't forget to back out the cost of meals that would have been eaten at home instead of on the train against the cost of the train.And add in the cost of a hotel in State College for the "fly" scenario since you will be arriving the night before (assuming you didn't need to be in State College before mid-day)How about a flight to Pittsburgh or Philly and a rent-a-car? Might be cheapest over all. And gives you wheels (so you can go visit the Horseshoe curve in Altoona )This is all just nibbling around the edges. Other than a railfan, who would consider the train for such a trip?It is difficult to estimate how much the meals at home would cost compared to meals eaten on the train or in the airport. That is why I came up with a range and spit the difference, assuming a net albeit indeterminate credit for meals taken at home. I also assumed that the meals eaten on Amtrak, in the case of the coach passenger, where selected from the cheaper side of the menu. Some coach passengers pack their meals and eat them at their seats or in the lounge car. It is not worth factoring the savings into the scenario. As a rule, it cost me double to eat away from home, especially if I have a glass of wine or two.My response was in response to a question posted by alphas, who I assume lives in State College. I assumed that he was going home. Accordingly, I did not factor in a night for hotel. However, if he had a one day business meeting in Austin, he could fly in the day before, attend an all day meeting, and fly home the next day. In this scenario he would incur two nights of hotel expense. If he came on the train, which would be the reverse of the posted scenario, he would arrive in Austin at 7:00 p.m. the night before the meeting, attend the all day meeting, and depart the next morning. He would have had the same number of hotel nights, which would be two: the night before the meeting and the night after the meeting. If he came by train, in all probability, he would be late arriving into Austin. As I mentioned, the Texas Eagle has one of the worst on-time performance records of any of Amtrak's long distance trains. Year to date it has been late into Austin, on average, by approximately 90 minutes. So he could expect to arrive about 9:30. This means that he gets to the hotel about 10:00, if he is staying downtown, or later if he is going to one of the suburban areas, such as Dell Diamond. He probably won't get to bed until after 11:00 p.m. This, plus the fact that he probably had two less than sleep tight nights on the train means that he is likely to have a tough time staying awake during the meeting. I was comparing an all surface trip via Amtrak and bus vs. flying. Whether flying to Pittsburgh or Philadelphia is the cheapest way to go depends on whether a person needs to rent a car and, if so, for how long. If the travel is for one or two days, flying to Pittsburgh on Southwest, renting a car and driving to State College could be the cheapest and best option. Flying to Philadelphia puts one approximately 195 miles from State College, whereas Pittsburgh to State College is approximately 140 miles. Moreover, Altoona and the Horseshoe Curve can be visited on the way to State College from Pittsburgh; the curve would require a side jaunt of about five miles. On the other hand, Altoona is southwest of State College, which would lengthen the trip from Philadelphia.I grew up in Altoona and graduated from Pennsylvania State University. My brother lives in McKeesport, and I visit him at least once a year. Usually, I fly to Pittsburgh, although on occasion I take the train. I am reasonably familiar with the options. We usually drive over to Altoona to see the house that we grew up in, visit the curve, and often times drop by the Railroader's Museum in Altoona. We also have a couple of Texas Hot Dogs in Altoona. If you get to my former hometown, don't miss out on the dogs at the Texas.
oltmannd wrote: Don't forget to back out the cost of meals that would have been eaten at home instead of on the train against the cost of the train.And add in the cost of a hotel in State College for the "fly" scenario since you will be arriving the night before (assuming you didn't need to be in State College before mid-day)How about a flight to Pittsburgh or Philly and a rent-a-car? Might be cheapest over all. And gives you wheels (so you can go visit the Horseshoe curve in Altoona )This is all just nibbling around the edges. Other than a railfan, who would consider the train for such a trip?
Don't forget to back out the cost of meals that would have been eaten at home instead of on the train against the cost of the train.
And add in the cost of a hotel in State College for the "fly" scenario since you will be arriving the night before (assuming you didn't need to be in State College before mid-day)
How about a flight to Pittsburgh or Philly and a rent-a-car? Might be cheapest over all. And gives you wheels (so you can go visit the Horseshoe curve in Altoona )
This is all just nibbling around the edges. Other than a railfan, who would consider the train for such a trip?
It is difficult to estimate how much the meals at home would cost compared to meals eaten on the train or in the airport. That is why I came up with a range and spit the difference, assuming a net albeit indeterminate credit for meals taken at home. I also assumed that the meals eaten on Amtrak, in the case of the coach passenger, where selected from the cheaper side of the menu. Some coach passengers pack their meals and eat them at their seats or in the lounge car. It is not worth factoring the savings into the scenario. As a rule, it cost me double to eat away from home, especially if I have a glass of wine or two.
My response was in response to a question posted by alphas, who I assume lives in State College. I assumed that he was going home. Accordingly, I did not factor in a night for hotel. However, if he had a one day business meeting in Austin, he could fly in the day before, attend an all day meeting, and fly home the next day. In this scenario he would incur two nights of hotel expense. If he came on the train, which would be the reverse of the posted scenario, he would arrive in Austin at 7:00 p.m. the night before the meeting, attend the all day meeting, and depart the next morning. He would have had the same number of hotel nights, which would be two: the night before the meeting and the night after the meeting.
If he came by train, in all probability, he would be late arriving into Austin. As I mentioned, the Texas Eagle has one of the worst on-time performance records of any of Amtrak's long distance trains. Year to date it has been late into Austin, on average, by approximately 90 minutes. So he could expect to arrive about 9:30. This means that he gets to the hotel about 10:00, if he is staying downtown, or later if he is going to one of the suburban areas, such as Dell Diamond. He probably won't get to bed until after 11:00 p.m. This, plus the fact that he probably had two less than sleep tight nights on the train means that he is likely to have a tough time staying awake during the meeting.
I was comparing an all surface trip via Amtrak and bus vs. flying. Whether flying to Pittsburgh or Philadelphia is the cheapest way to go depends on whether a person needs to rent a car and, if so, for how long. If the travel is for one or two days, flying to Pittsburgh on Southwest, renting a car and driving to State College could be the cheapest and best option. Flying to Philadelphia puts one approximately 195 miles from State College, whereas Pittsburgh to State College is approximately 140 miles. Moreover, Altoona and the Horseshoe Curve can be visited on the way to State College from Pittsburgh; the curve would require a side jaunt of about five miles. On the other hand, Altoona is southwest of State College, which would lengthen the trip from Philadelphia.
I grew up in Altoona and graduated from Pennsylvania State University. My brother lives in McKeesport, and I visit him at least once a year. Usually, I fly to Pittsburgh, although on occasion I take the train. I am reasonably familiar with the options. We usually drive over to Altoona to see the house that we grew up in, visit the curve, and often times drop by the Railroader's Museum in Altoona. We also have a couple of Texas Hot Dogs in Altoona. If you get to my former hometown, don't miss out on the dogs at the Texas.
I lived in Duncansville for 4 months in 1978 when a Conrail Mech. Dept. trainee. Two months in Juniata, two months in Sam Rea. Spent lots and lots of time there in the 80s and early 90s. Haven't been back there in the last 15 years. Maybe a vacation side trip this summer, tho'.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote:SNIPThis is all just nibbling around the edges. Other than a railfan, who would consider the train for such a trip?
Ditto, absolutely!
In the USA, perhaps the only viable rail alternative to air is certain places and itineraries within the NE corridor, namely the previously mentioned Acela services. The technology exists for rail to compete head to head with airplanes, but the investment is substantial and the opponents are potent.
gardendance wrote: alphas wrote: You didn't compare Austin to State College air vs train. I've done it a couple of times because I'm a foamer. Amtrak Eagle overnight to Chicago, change to the old Broadway Limited, overnight to Philly. I'm assuming the closest station to State College would be Lewistown, but I think I remember some schedule notes about Harrisburg to State College bus connection.
alphas wrote:
You didn't compare Austin to State College air vs train. I've done it a couple of times because I'm a foamer. Amtrak Eagle overnight to Chicago, change to the old Broadway Limited, overnight to Philly. I'm assuming the closest station to State College would be Lewistown, but I think I remember some schedule notes about Harrisburg to State College bus connection.
Assuming a person is traveling from Austin to State College on Wednesday, August 13th, which should give him or her the best fare (midweek), this is what the fly vs. train options would look like.
The quickest flight from Austin to the State College takes 6 hours and 54 minutes. It costs $498. The cheapest flight takes 7 hours and 58 minutes and costs $455. Most of the options require two plane changes; however, several one change of plane options are available, but the fare jumps to $615.
The quickest all surface option using Amtrak whenever possible would include the Texas Eagle from Austin to Chicago, the Capitol Limited from Chicago to Pittsburgh, and Greyhound from Pittsburgh to State College.
If our traveler opts for coach class, the fare would be $172 from Austin to Pittsburgh, plus $24 for the bus from Pittsburgh to State College, for a total transportation outlay of $196. If our train traveler eats in the dinning car and does not blow his budget in the lounge car, he is looking at another $40 to $80 for meals and libations. Let's split the difference and call it $60. This brings the tab for transportation and meals to $256 or $199 less than the cost of flying.
The Texas Eagle departs Austin at 9:31 a.m. and arrives in Chicago at 2:14 p.m. the next day, if it is on time, which in the case of the Eagle is a big if. It's on time arrival record into Chicago is a blazing 4.1 per cent over the last 12 months. The Capitol Limited departs Chicago at 7:05 p.m. on August 14th and arrives at Pittsburgh at 5:30 a.m. on August 15th. The dog (Greyhound) departs Pittsburgh at 8:45 the same day and arrives in State College at 1:45 p.m. The total travel time would be 52 hours and 44 minutes.
If our traveler does not want to sit up for two nights in a coach, he could opt for a roomette. The fare, which includes meals, would be $496, plus $24 for the bus from Pittsburgh to State College. The total for the sleeper option would be $520 plus the cost of breakfast upon arrival into Pittsburgh. The dinning car on the Capitol does not open until 6:30 a.m. If we add $5 for breakfast, the total outlay for this option is $525 or $70 more than flying.
If time is not a factor, taking the train and bus could be a reasonable option. But for most people time is a factor. And this is why the Texas Eagle has a low average passenger load factor south of St. Louis. Very few people in Texas believe that it is a serious option.
Just a comment from the peanut gallery...
If somebody could move Bergstrom's convenience to my home town, I'd love it! Likewise, if Amtrak still ran on the local Class 1 I would probably use it, at least traveling in a southwesterly direction. However, my local airline facility is McCarran (which is, IIRC, about the third-busiest airport on the planet) and the public ground transportation alternative is a bus ride through some of the most desolate countryside this side of Mars.
So, what do I choose? My very own (fully paid for) Toyota, with which I can load up and leave in less time than it would take me to get from short-term parking to the terminal building at McCarran. Since I already have my own vehicle, I don't have to rent one or take a taxi when I reach my destination. I am not a business traveler, so driving gives me the option to stop off and enjoy the scenery or the local culture - an option not available to the Amtrak passenger. Likewise, I get a chance to see the scenery close-up. I have seen clouds. They don't impress me.
Make no mistake. I love to ride trains - when they are conveniently scheduled, operate between clean, well-maintained stations and run on time. Unfortunately, here in the Dessicated Desert the answer is none of the above.
Chuck
alphas wrote: Samantha, the Austin airport is my favorite. Bright and new, easy to get to, car rentals just a walk across the street, good and varried food, short lines at the ticket counter and security, friendly employees, short waits for luggage, and a good terminal layout. I fly it about 4 times a year. Its only 6 hours from when I leave my house, fly United commuter from State College to Washington Dullas, about a 1 1/2 layover in Dullas, and United non-stop to Austin.
Samantha, the Austin airport is my favorite. Bright and new, easy to get to, car rentals just a walk across the street, good and varried food, short lines at the ticket counter and security, friendly employees, short waits for luggage, and a good terminal layout. I fly it about 4 times a year. Its only 6 hours from when I leave my house, fly United commuter from State College to Washington Dullas, about a 1 1/2 layover in Dullas, and United non-stop to Austin.
just as my corporate anecdote skews towards peak usage, your inidividual anecdote skews towards off peak usage. Not everyone can use Austin and State College airporst with their quick in and out times. Some must use congested airports such as Washington Dulles.
The 2 hour international, 90 minute domestic rule is primaryily to allow for security backups, at least that's what the limousine company I worked for told us. For your layover at Dulles did you have to go through an additional security check? My hometown, Philadelphia, has security check at each terminal, so if your connecting planes are terminal C gate A and L, maybe more than 1000 feet apart, you don't need to go through security. On the other hand if you're connecting from terminal C gate A to terminal D gate A, maybe less than 500 feet apart, you do have to go through security.
Other airports have different arrangements. Tampa for example has 2 centralized security locations, once through them you have unfettered access to half the gates in the entire airport. So terminal A, sub-terminal A, gate A to terminal A, sub-terminal H gate L could be a longer distance with no security check than terminal A, sub-terminal A gate A to terminal B, sub-terminal A, gate A with a security check.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Depends on what airport you're leaving from. I allow 45 minutes for the State College, PA regional airport to get ticketed and clear security, but I've never needed more than 15-- even though most of the planes are now the 50 seat jets instead of the old 34 seat props on the commuter airlines that service it. Only during 06:00-07:15 when 5 planes leave do I allow an hour.
joe-daddy wrote: Samantha wrote: snipI have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours. Always, when it is the busiest, Monday mornings, Thursday afternoons and/or Friday mornings. I always plan 2 hours total to get to the airport, else I will miss 1/3 of my flights.
Samantha wrote: snipI have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours.
I have experienced situations where getting through security is more challenging. But to say that security, parking, etc. adds hours to an air trip depends on the origin and destination. Also, it depends on how good a traveler is at planning. If one travels during peak periods, he or she is likely to experience greater delays than if they can fly off hours.
Always, when it is the busiest, Monday mornings, Thursday afternoons and/or Friday mornings. I always plan 2 hours total to get to the airport, else I will miss 1/3 of my flights.
I worked at a luxury limousine company which specialized in corporate airport trips. Our rule was arrive at the airport before departure: 2 hours international, 90 minutes domestic. Naturally if the customer asks for tighter scheduling we'd explain the rule, give them what they ask, document that it was at their request, and keep our fingers crossed.
The president of the customer companies never asked us to deviate for his trips. Some smaller fish would ask. I don't remember any asking a second time if they missed their flight, although I did notice a few individuals who stopped using our service. We didn't have any tactful way to tell if they got fired, got their corporate travel privileges restricted, or decided on their own to use another service. Their employing company however did continue using us.
I acknowledge that my corporate anecdote skews towards peak usage, but not everybody can go off peak, in fact if they did then it would no longer be off peak.
While I would love to join in on dissing the airlines and the whole "feel-good" airport security situation, the fundamental reason why airlines have it over AMTRAK is availability.
I live in the Detroit metro area, but if I want to travel by rail to almost anywhere, I have to go to Chicago first. As a case in point, I have relatives in Memphis. To get there by rail, I have to to to Chicago, then wait for the City of New Orleans. The return connection is less desirable. If I want to go to NYC, I have to go to Chicaga, and then travel back east, through Toledo, a mere hour or so south of Detroit. An extra 6+ hours on the train (not counting layover time).
By plane, I pick my city pairs and there are, usually, multiple flights per day. Maybe I have to suffer an intermediate stop, but there are lots of direct flights. From 2 or 3 per day to, maybe, a dozen or so per day. The train, well, from Detroit there are 3 per day, but many locations are served only by 1 a day, or not even.
What I'm getting at is it's a matter of convenience. If the train is convenient, people will take it, especially if the cost is about the same. Problem is, the train is, generally, neither convenient nor perceived to be such. Two strikes.
Interesting discussion!
joe-daddy wrote: Samantha wrote:snipIn this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations. snip Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes. That is great news thanks for clearing up my obvious misconception about airport funding. So there is absolutely no reason not to invest in a pay as you go 250 mph rail infrastructure as well, right? Someone dropped you off at the right gate curb, you had no line at security and the boarding and taxiing only took zero minutes? Simply amazing! You'd think the rest of us airline customers would be a much happier lot, eh?Joe Daddy
Samantha wrote:snipIn this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations. snip Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes.
snip
In this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations.
Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes.
That is great news thanks for clearing up my obvious misconception about airport funding. So there is absolutely no reason not to invest in a pay as you go 250 mph rail infrastructure as well, right?
Someone dropped you off at the right gate curb, you had no line at security and the boarding and taxiing only took zero minutes? Simply amazing! You'd think the rest of us airline customers would be a much happier lot, eh?
Joe Daddy
If an operator could cover the costs of building and operating a viable passenger rail system, using the same financing tools available to airports, I would be all for it. See my comments regarding transport subsidies.
I drove to the airport. It took about the same amount of time as it would have taken to drive to the Amtrak station in Austin. The gate to gate time, which includes taxing at both ends, was 55 minutes or about 20 minutes longer than the flight time. There were about 20 people in front of me at the security line in Austin. I don't remember how many people were in line at Dallas' Love Field. As is the case at Austin's Bergstrom Airport, Love has multiple security lines, and they move quickly. In fact, at Love they have an "experienced flyer" line for people who pack lightly and know what can and cannot be taken on the airplane.
joe-daddy wrote: oltmannd wrote: Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail. Today, Acela NYC to Wash DC, 2.5 hrs, 160 bucks , smooth, comfortable, pleasant. Airlines same price at least twice the time or more. Acela is ~100 mph?I travel a lot by air and you cannot go anywhere in less than 4 hours portal to portal. Add an hour for every 500 miles. NO tarmac waits included here. Even at 200 mph trains heavily erode the airplane.
oltmannd wrote:
Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail.
Today, Acela NYC to Wash DC, 2.5 hrs, 160 bucks , smooth, comfortable, pleasant. Airlines same price at least twice the time or more. Acela is ~100 mph?
I travel a lot by air and you cannot go anywhere in less than 4 hours portal to portal. Add an hour for every 500 miles. NO tarmac waits included here. Even at 200 mph trains heavily erode the airplane.
The construction of Denver International Airport did not cost the taxpayers $6 billion. The only cost to the national taxpayer would be the revenue difference between tax free bonds and fully taxable bonds generated by the bondholders and paid to the U.S. Treasury. If the bonds were general obligation bonds, as opposed to the more common revenue bonds that are issued to build airports, the local taxpayers could get stuck with some or all of principal outstanding in the case of a default. The probability of such an event is extremely rare. Last year, for example, less than one quarter of one per cent of the municipal bonds outstanding were defaulted on.
If the airport board had issued $6 billion of fully taxable bonds, at the U.S. Treasury long bond rate, which today would be 4.375 per cent, the interest cost would have been $262.5 million per year. Issuing tax free or municipal bonds, in the same environment (the average rate would be about 3.8 per cent) would have attracted an interest charge of $228 million or a difference of $34.5 million. The difference could result in a reduction in U.S. Treasury revenues, but the exact amount would depend on the marginal tax rates of the investors. If all of the bond holders were in the 35 per cent marginal tax rate, the annual loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury would be $12.1 million a year.
The loss in revenue to the national treasury would be offset in part by a reduction in the business expenses of the users and occupants of the airport. Interest is a cost of business that is passed on to the users. Because the airport was constructed with tax free bonds, the airlines pay lower landing fees and the vendors pay lower rentals. This results in greater taxable income than would otherwise be the case. And the greater taxable income means more tax revenues for the national treasury. The caveat would be if an airline using Denver International Airport is losing money and, therefore, does not have any taxable income. At the end of the day, the loss to the national treasury is minuscule, especially when one considers the size of the U.S. budget.
The bonds are serviced (interest and principal) with revenues generated by the airport, e.g. landing fees, vendor rentals, hangar fees, etc. The airport‘s revenues, costs, expenditures, expenses, etc. are captured in an enterprise fund as opposed to the general fund. In other words, it is run like a business, with the citizens of Denver and its surrounds being the stockholders.
The liability for the taxpayers, as well as the bondholders, is the potential failure of the airport to cover its operating and capital expenditures. In this case, if the airport board or authority defaulted on the bonds, the general taxpayer would be liable for the interest and principal on the bonds, or at least this is how the bond debentures state the liability in most situations.
The one way shuttle airfare from LaGuardia to Washington, D.C., is as low as $81. The flying time is 1 hour and 39 minutes. If one adds an hour to clear security at LaGuardia, the total time portal to portal is approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes. If one lives in Manhattan or Brooklyn, as I did for years, and is going to central D.C., Amtrak is a better deal. But if one lives on Long Island and is going to one of the Virginia or Maryland suburbs, the airplane is a better deal. It is an even better deal if one opts for BWI or Dulles.
Last week I flew from Austin to Dallas. I cleared security in less than 10 minutes. The wheels up to touch down time was 34 minutes. The cost was $103.50 return. It is 196 highway miles from Austin to Dallas. The flying distance is somewhat shorter.
Trains can be viable in relatively short, high density corridors, providing the traveler is going from center city to center city. But in Texas, as an example, most travelers are going from one outlying area to another outlying area. This is the major challenge to those of us who would like to see more passenger rail options in Texas.
oltmannd wrote: SNIPYou may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.
Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
True enough, but there are trains capable of sustained 250 mph and the record is over 380 held by the French, not Japan. With a 300 mph rail coridor connecting main cities, the airline monopoly on people travel would crumble. As fuel prices continue to escalate, we are close to the viability point. Cost too much you say? Denver International Airport cost tax payers over 6 Billion, and there is a similar airport purchased on the public dole in every wide place in the country. Spend a third of that money on a true high speed rail infrastructure, like NY - Chicago - LA and things start looking up for rail.
Sorry if I got too close to politics.
just my 2 cents
Flashwave wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town. Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time). Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......Okay, maybe it was more like 6. We spent 2 hours waiting to leave Indianpolis to get to Chicago. That meant we spent another good half hour waiting to get to the terminal to get out. Then we spent another 2 or 3 hours waiting on a late plane making up a good portion of this flight. The same happeneded again in California, we were literally on the ground long enough, we could have gotten our luggage out of the bottom of the plane and walked to the terminal before we could even see the building. it was almost 8 hours. Time they may not have. But with rising fuel costs, I suspect the airlines will take a hit harder than Amtrak. The planes are limited to their size, for the same increase, Amtrak could take an extra pair of sleeper cars.
Mailman56701 wrote: Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town. Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time). Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......
Flashwave wrote: oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr? Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey. I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town.
oltmannd wrote: Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it. You may have answered your own question. Between major cities that are far apart, the train can never compete with an airline! That game was over 50 years ago. Even at the "match the airlines" prices, Amtrak loses money.Even if Amtrak was free, then the question becomes, "Hmmm for only an extra $120 I can fly in four hours what would take me 20 hours by train." How many people's time is worth less than $10/hr?
Mailman56701 wrote: oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak. That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?" If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it.
oltmannd wrote: SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it! Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too. The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak.
SR1457 wrote: Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it!
Just checked on coach fare Atlanta, New York., one way, with Sr Discount was still over $200, no wonder more people flying. Couldnt believe it!
Amtrak generally sets their lowest coach fares to match the airlines lowest on the "big city" OD pairs.
Just tried it for Oct 13. Fare is $120 in coach with no discount. The train you are looking at is likely pretty full. Amtrak does the same thing the airlines do. The first-comers get the cheap seats and as the seats fill up, the price goes up. Fridays and Sundays fill up pretty fast. Mid week, you're most likely to get better fare. Stay away from holiday weekends. Longer lead time helps, too.
The same things that work when trying to get a cheap airfare also work for Amtrak.
That doesn't make much sense, if thats their "strategy". "Hmmm, for the same price, I can get there in a fraction of the time, on a plane........which should I take ?"
If they want to compete against an airline, charging the same price for a ticket isn't going to do it.
Because the scenry's better, and a lot of the time we don't figure in the extra 8 hours tarmac time (4 eah way) flying across the country would take less time than the train. but at least before, the train wa sstill moving. It's also more comfortable, and a lot of the trains can drop you in town. A lot of if not all Airports require an extra shuttle hop into town. That's an extra taxi fare if the car rentals aren't there. And a number of Amtrak stations do hve car rentals there. Admittedly, the above argument woulldn't work on anybody, but hey.
I have an aunt who WILL NOT fly for various reasons, nerves, comfort, etc. And the driver won't put up with her on a roadtrip. That leaves Amtrak. No real worries about idiot drivers, falling out of the sky, pressure. Everybody's happy. Oh, and I get ot hear their stories when they come to town.
Business travelers aren't much interested in scenery. Time is money, and the railroad ain't go it (time).
Also, eight hours tarmac time !?!? A bit inflated on those numbers.......
Okay, maybe it was more like 6. We spent 2 hours waiting to leave Indianpolis to get to Chicago. That meant we spent another good half hour waiting to get to the terminal to get out. Then we spent another 2 or 3 hours waiting on a late plane making up a good portion of this flight. The same happeneded again in California, we were literally on the ground long enough, we could have gotten our luggage out of the bottom of the plane and walked to the terminal before we could even see the building. it was almost 8 hours.
Time they may not have. But with rising fuel costs, I suspect the airlines will take a hit harder than Amtrak. The planes are limited to their size, for the same increase, Amtrak could take an extra pair of sleeper cars.
I seriously doubt that (trains take a harder hit). Not with the time differences, which won't change.
Also, Amtrak is hardly exempt from long, frustrating delays for its customers, per your flight example.
Texas Chief wrote: I can't believe what I'm reading. Supposedly serious railfans talking about flying rather than taking the train, and then have the nerve to wonder whether or not Amtrack will survive.DickTexas Chief
I can't believe what I'm reading. Supposedly serious railfans talking about flying rather than taking the train, and then have the nerve to wonder whether or not Amtrack will survive.
Dick
Texas Chief
One can be a serious railfan while still not being blind to reality.
Don has the right line of thought in the previous post.
I think you're taking it wrong. It's serious railfans who want Amtrak to provide some seriously useful trains in an efficient and productive manner.
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: Had no idea it was that close. As Sgt schultz would say "very interesting" . Now if you ever have the time figure two heavy corridors Wash - Atl and Detroit - Florida for An auto train operation. I75 through Atlanta is full of people from the Ohio - tronto area.
I think you mean Arte Johnson of Laugh In..
Ohio to Florida along I-75 would be a teriffic market for an Auto Train. Covington KY to Lorton would work. There's no place to run it though...
The best route, NS's CNO&TP is already beyond full. Now, if the Amtrak would pay for double track....
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: How would an Auto train if available cost compare?
It is 855 miles from Lorton, Virginia to Sanford, Florida, which are the end point stations for the Auto Train.
The fully allocated cost to drive a Toyota Corolla, based on my profile, from Lorton to Sanford would be $237.95, plus approximately $75 for one night accommodation and $40 for meals, which brings the total to $352.95. This assumes a late morning or early afternoon departure from Lorton and a late morning or early afternoon arrival in Sanford. It also assumes that the meals are taken at fast food restaurants. MapQuest shows the driving distance at 816 miles and estimates the time required to drive at 12.05 hours.
The cost to take the Auto Train would be $302. Meals are included in the ticket price, which covers a coach seat and a vehicle like the Toyota. Large SUVs and pick-ups attract a higher fare for the vehicle. The train is a better deal provided our single traveler does not get carried away in the lounge car.
The fully allocated cost with four people (two adults and two children) in the same type of vehicle would be a little more than $237.95, because of the incremental weight, plus $75 for one night accommodation and $160 for meals. The total tab to drive for four people would be $472. 95. This scenario assumes the kids sleep in the same room as the adults, and meals are eaten in fast food joints.
The cost for the adults and kids to take the Auto Train would be $524, assuming no discounts. In this scenario driving would be a better deal.
If two people drove the cost would be approximately $392.95. If they took the Auto Train the cost would be $413. Given the difference is only $20.05; the choice to drive or take the Auto Train would not be driven by the cost differential.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.