Everybody knows that overnight long distance trains can help one get away from the everyday rat race. There's nothing quite like going to bed in one state and ending up in another, such as on the Empire Builder or the CZ. But how long are these sensations to survive? The economy is causing travel to be tough these days. And while the new administration is seeing the viability of passenger trains (those of the short-haul type), the federal government and Amtrak know that cutting long distance trains could save millions of taxpayer dollars. Give me reasons to believe that these overnight long distance trains will live to see another day.
lattasnip9 Everybody knows that overnight long distance trains can help one get away from the everyday rat race. There's nothing quite like going to bed in one state and ending up in another, such as on the Empire Builder or the CZ. But how long are these sensations to survive? The economy is causing travel to be tough these days. And while the new administration is seeing the viability of passenger trains (those of the short-haul type), the federal government and Amtrak know that cutting long distance trains could save millions of taxpayer dollars. Give me reasons to believe that these overnight long distance trains will live to see another day.
Falcon48
Falcon: To add to your comment: CA, OR, WA, Wisconsin?, IL, MO ?, MI, ME, NH?, VT?, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, & VA. Thats only fourty Senators in Congress.If the ? states feel they are not being left out!!! or another 8 Senators lost. We need the others or AMTRAK will ___DIE!!!!. Lets quit trying to get rid of the long disance trains and make them as low of a money loosing proposition as possible. ---and--- hope not too many more are added that loose a lot of money!!!!!
Best assessment of LD trains I've heard is Jim McClellan's here: http://transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf
(slides 39-41)
He says the LD trains "will remain irreleveant", "no real change up or down", and the "new equipment will be funded".
Jim is a "true believer" who started with NYC and has worked for Amtrak, USRA and NS. He knows of what he speaks.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 Falcon48 Well, let me suggest at least one reason why long distance trains will probably survive -- politics. [/quotY] Falcon: To add to your comment: CA, OR, WA, Wisconsin?, IL, MO ?, MI, ME, NH?, VT?, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, & VA. Thats only fourty Senators in Congress.If the ? states feel they are not being left out!!! or another 8 Senators lost. We need the others or AMTRAK will ___DIE!!!!. Lets quit trying to get rid of the long disance trains and make them as low of a money loosing proposition as possible. ---and--- hope not too many more are added that loose a lot of money!!!!!
Whether politicians from the states served by long distance trains would withdraw their support for Amtrak if the trains were discontinued is problematic. Politicians are horse traders. If they get something in exchange for supporting Amtrak where it makes sense, i.e. high density corridors, even though their state is not served by Amtrak, they might support it exchange for the trade-offs.
The real test will come when Amtrak has to replace the long distance train equipment. Based on a recent trip on the CZ, they may be getting close to that point. Between Denver and California all the toilets in the rear coach failed, along with half the toilets in the sleepers. Moreover, the dinning car meal preparation capability failed. Amtrak had to put sandwiches on the train at Reno. Not exactly what the first class passengers had bargained for! However, the sandwichs were better than the standard fare.
After the next go around of the federal government's economic stimulus package, the national debt will be approximately 100 per cent of the GDP. Add in the unfunded liabilities, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, etc., and we are talking serious debt. Finding the money to buy new equipment for the long distance trains, which are used by less than 1 per cent of the traveling public, will be a challenge.
The real test will come when Amtrak has to replace the long distance train equipment. Based on a recent trip on the CZ, they may be getting close to that point. Between Denver and California all the toilets in the rear coach failed, along with half the toilets in the sleepers.
Failing toilets means Amtrak needs replacements for the Superliner cars?
There comes a time when repairs are no longer warranted and one has to just plain buy new. The point where you have to replace transportation equipment is generally when corrosion has gotten the best of it and the structural members along with everything else is starting to rot out.
But if a toilet fails you have to replace the whole thing? If a toilet fails in my house I don't call a realtor or a new house builder. I call a plumber. Or actually, my wife sends me to Home Depot where I come back with a replacement toilet and a sheet of instructions.
I used to think you were wrong, that if there was enough public demand for something, a way would be found to "charge it" and go ahead. But a trillion dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. A trillion dollars of "stimulus and investment in infrastructure" leaves a paltry billion dollars for Amtrak to spend on track upgrades and other infrastructure-y things.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The Superliner 1's are 30+ years old. Amfleet 1's are also 30+ years old. Most of the rolling stock is 25 years old. Only the Talgo equipment in the Northwest & CAlifornia cars are newer. I'm not counting any NEC Acela equipment. Some of the baggage cars date back to the 40's.
Amtrak is in dire need to buy new equipment. Parts for the old cars are scarce. Where do you think replacement parts for the Superliner toilets come from? Horizon cars freeze up & are useless in the winter weather.
Getting all the Amfleet rebuilt & running would be a big help. The stainless steell carbody should be in good shape (if no wreck damage). This would be the quickest route to add capacity. It's time for Amtrak to order some Viewliners (diners, sleepers on low LD trains). It's time to get more Superliners. I'd like to see Amtrak order some California type cars for high density markets like the Lincoln Service trains. Those Horizon cars can be sent somewhere they can keep warm for the winter.
Paul Milenkovic The real test will come when Amtrak has to replace the long distance train equipment. Based on a recent trip on the CZ, they may be getting close to that point. Between Denver and California all the toilets in the rear coach failed, along with half the toilets in the sleepers. Failing toilets means Amtrak needs replacements for the Superliner cars? There comes a time when repairs are no longer warranted and one has to just plain buy new. The point where you have to replace transportation equipment is generally when corrosion has gotten the best of it and the structural members along with everything else is starting to rot out. But if a toilet fails you have to replace the whole thing? If a toilet fails in my house I don't call a realtor or a new house builder. I call a plumber. Or actually, my wife sends me to Home Depot where I come back with a replacement toilet and a sheet of instructions. After the next go around of the federal government's economic stimulus package, the national debt will be approximately 100 per cent of the GDP. Add in the unfunded liabilities, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, etc., and we are talking serious debt. Finding the money to buy new equipment for the long distance trains, which are used by less than 1 per cent of the traveling public, will be a challenge. I used to think you were wrong, that if there was enough public demand for something, a way would be found to "charge it" and go ahead. But a trillion dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. A trillion dollars of "stimulus and investment in infrastructure" leaves a paltry billion dollars for Amtrak to spend on track upgrades and other infrastructure-y things.
Failing toilets, as well as dinning cars, are not indicative of a need to replace the equipment. However, they could be a telltale symptom. As equipment gets older, it costs more to maintain it. A real business replaces the equipment when the cost of maintaining it, together with the cost of misaligned mission design (opportunity cost), exceeds the amortizable cost of replacing it.
The CZ lost 21.6 cents a passenger mile in FY 2008 before interest and depreciation. It had an average load factor of 51 per cent. My train was packed from Denver to Winter Park. After that it was nearly empty until Reno, where the weekend gamblers climbed aboard. For most of the trip the equipment was under utilized. It is ill suited for the current mission.
There is little sustainable market demand for long distance passenger trains. This would become crystal clear if Amtrak charged the fully allocated cost of the service. Many of the relatively few passengers that patronize the long distance trains would desert them. As it is, less than one per cent of intercity travelers use them.
Yep, I am one of them. I love traveling by train. But I do not do so with blinders. My accounting and business backgrounds tell me that they would be gone in a minute if the large subsidies were withdrawn. The train buff in me would lament their passing. But the accountant and business person would revel in the fiscal responsibility of stemming the red ink. And hopefully directing it to operations that have a chance of at least covering their operating expenses.
Wdlgln005 The Superliner 1's are 30+ years old. Amfleet 1's are also 30+ years old. Most of the rolling stock is 25 years old. Only the Talgo equipment in the Northwest & CAlifornia cars are newer. I'm not counting any NEC Acela equipment. Some of the baggage cars date back to the 40's. Amtrak is in dire need to buy new equipment. Parts for the old cars are scarce. Where do you think replacement parts for the Superliner toilets come from? Horizon cars freeze up & are useless in the winter weather. Getting all the Amfleet rebuilt & running would be a big help. The stainless steell carbody should be in good shape (if no wreck damage). This would be the quickest route to add capacity. It's time for Amtrak to order some Viewliners (diners, sleepers on low LD trains). It's time to get more Superliners. I'd like to see Amtrak order some California type cars for high density markets like the Lincoln Service trains. Those Horizon cars can be sent somewhere they can keep warm for the winter.
Al - in - Stockton
I wonder about the Talgo equipment. Two years ago, we had buisness class reservations from Vancouver, B. C., to Seattle. By the time we took our trip, the Talgo train had been withdrawn for heavy maintenance, with Superliner cars (no diner) substituted, and we did get our business class fare back. Several months ago, we made reservations for another trip which includes a Seattle-Vancouver leg, complete with business class reservations. About two weeks ago, I received a call from Amtrak and was told that the Talgo equipment would not be available--and, again, there would be only snack bar service on board. Of course, we will be given credit for our unavailable business class seats. (I was also informed about the change of the CZ's schedule west of Salt lake City.)
Twelve years ago, we enjoyed riding the Talgo train up to Vancouver, and six years ago, we again enjoyed it, riding down to Seattle.
Of course, Talgo does not count as long distance, but it does not seem to be reliable.
As to Viewliner, our first experience was taking a bedroom from New Orleans to Washington six years ago. The latch on the annex door did not work, so shower water came into the room. I wonder if such malfunctions are actually reported when the attendant has been informed of them. Our other experience with Viewliners was a roomette from Washington to Jacksonville and two roomettes from Jacksonville to New York two years ago. I can't say anything really bad about that part of our trip.
Johnny
Thanks for your input. The only reason to do more Viewliners would be to have an off the shelf design ready to go. I don't know if the US has the capability to do some new Amfleet or Superliners with improved mechanicals, lighting, etc. It may be time to replace the old Talgos with something new & different. It may also take too long to get some European or Japaneese design equipment & make it FRA compliant for NA standards.
Wdlgln005 Thanks for your input. The only reason to do more Viewliners would be to have an off the shelf design ready to go. I don't know if the US has the capability to do some new Amfleet or Superliners with improved mechanicals, lighting, etc. It may be time to replace the old Talgos with something new & different. It may also take too long to get some European or Japaneese design equipment & make it FRA compliant for NA standards.
To build Viewliners just because thay are an off the shelf design is a poor excuse indeed. Bombardier still has the designs for the Superliners, and all other Amtrak equipment. Anything is better than Viewliner. Why not dig out the old Budd plans from fifty years ago and update them with Handicap access and holding tanks. That would be a far better way of spending hard earned taxpayer money than building additional Viewliners. I would much rather see a single design for all single level cars (Coaches, sleepers, Lounge and Dining ) than have another Viewliner built. Why do you think so few dining cars to this design were built and why so few sleeping cars when initially there was supposed to be a hundred. It is because they were so poorly designed and construction costs zoomed out of all reason. So you want us to burden the taxpayers with more of this far to expensive c***. If I remember correctly the original Viewliner test cars were built by Beech Grove another good reason for having them built somewhere else.
What is the matter with looking at some of the transit agency cars with a view to using them for the eastern long distance trains. I see nothing wrong with the new NJT cars that run into NYC so the clearances would certainly not be a problem. Great idea to have a lounge on one level and the dining area on the lower level. It would increase capacity on all eastern long distance trains with less equipment. I see no reason they can't be adapted to long distance coach configuration, Sleepers, and the previously mentioned coach lounge configuration and it would have to save the taxpayers alot of money. Why not have the lower level of one of these cars set up like a casino with slot machines, who knows it might help the goverment pay for them. But whatever the government does no more Viewliners. They really are Bu** UGLY.
There is one thing that should be included in the next single-level sleepers: a place to store bagage that will not fit in the rooms. In all that I had seen about the Viewliners before we rode one, I do not remember any mention of the impossibility of carrying more than one small suitcase with you, even in a bedroom. When we were boarding in New Orleans, I expected that we would be able to carry a large suitcase on the car; it had to be checked. The 10-6 cars that the Southern used had space. Apparently, it was not expected that anyone traveling in the East would need to carry more than one small suitcase. At least the Superliners have storage room.
Bombardier had an AWFUL time putting the Viewliner carbodies together. It turns out the part of the shot-welding process Budd used on the original 3 Viewliners was magic! Bombardier couldn't get the panels welded without warping. A major mess for all concerned.
They did have some good features. The interiors are modular, so cars can have their entire interiors rebuild or reconfigured without a total rebuild of the car. There is a big panel on the side of each car for removing and inserting the modules.
They hold more people than a 10-6, so revenue per car mile is higher.
They have those nice second tiers of window for the upper berth. They have those windows on the aisle side, too. Nice and airy and bright.
Unless somebody can show me otherwise, I'm sticking by my assertion that the 10-6s were never retrofitted with holding tanks - at least ones big enough to last a whole trip.
Amtrak has enough sleepers. There is no ROI for new ones. There's not even an ROI for a capital overhaul of the existing ones. If there is a postive ROI for new coaches for new and expanded coach service, then why would you spend scarce subsidy dollars on new sleepers instead?
It really is an either/or, not a both/and.
All Via Rail cars are fully equipped with retention tanks and they would more than comply with US standards, the Canadians did it right. The cars can not operate with US equipment as they have a different HEP than in the US. This includes the fifty year old Budd cars operated in the Canadian and other corridor trains. Amtrak only equipped the Pacific series 10-6 sleepers initially with retention tanks than added some of the Pine series and former SP 10-6 cars. A large number of Heritage coaches were equipped with retention tanks. These cars operated in the eastern trains for the most part. A large number of Heritage diners continue to operate and also are equipped with retention tanks. When the Heritage 10-6 sleepers were put out to pasture many were purchased privately as they were equipped with retention tanks saving the new owners the costs involved in installation. Many operate today in private car service. Amtrak had no other choice but install retention tanks in a large number of heritage cars after a court ruling brought on by a suit by two Florida fishermen. That was the main reason all of the popular Slumbercoaches were forced to be retired because it was found to be all but impossible to install retention tanks. By the way those trains that operated with the converted 10-6 sleepers before they were retired did not have the freeze up problems that plagued Chicago recently and the Via Heritage Cars went through the recent cold weather with virtually no problems at all.
My argument is on many Amtrak trains today the sleeping car space is sold out and additional sleeping car capacity is needed. At one time there was some sleeping car space installed in several Amfleet cars. I'm not saying we need additional Amfleet cars but they have lasted better than anything else in service owned by Amtrak. Lets see what is available in the commuter market such as the new NJT cars and see if they can be adapted to Amtrak service, I don't see why not.
Because the Viewliners are modular is exactly the reason they are noisy.
Define Long Distance train. Define Long Distance Train Service. Identify market or markets. Design program and product to reach and serve defined market or markets. One train a day is not service and maybe three times a week isn't either while three per day may be overkill. But markets need be researched and addressed in a positive way, not nonchalantly or casually nor for political appeasement. I wince when I see arguments of train versus plane when the two are two entirely different services which may or may not serve the same market. And confusing and comparing trains and travel of say 1940 or 1950 or 1970 with today does not define anything more than nostalgia!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
passengerfan Amtrak only equipped the Pacific series 10-6 sleepers initially with retention tanks than added some of the Pine series and former SP 10-6 cars. A large number of Heritage coaches were equipped with retention tanks. These cars operated in the eastern trains for the most part. A large number of Heritage diners continue to operate and also are equipped with retention tanks. When the Heritage 10-6 sleepers were put out to pasture many were purchased privately as they were equipped with retention tanks saving the new owners the costs involved in installation. Many operate today in private car service. Amtrak had no other choice but install retention tanks in a large number of heritage cars after a court ruling brought on by a suit by two Florida fishermen. That was the main reason all of the popular Slumbercoaches were forced to be retired because it was found to be all but impossible to install retention tanks. By the way those trains that operated with the converted 10-6 sleepers before they were retired did not have the freeze up problems that plagued Chicago recently and the Via Heritage Cars went through the recent cold weather with virtually no problems at all.
Amtrak only equipped the Pacific series 10-6 sleepers initially with retention tanks than added some of the Pine series and former SP 10-6 cars. A large number of Heritage coaches were equipped with retention tanks. These cars operated in the eastern trains for the most part. A large number of Heritage diners continue to operate and also are equipped with retention tanks. When the Heritage 10-6 sleepers were put out to pasture many were purchased privately as they were equipped with retention tanks saving the new owners the costs involved in installation. Many operate today in private car service. Amtrak had no other choice but install retention tanks in a large number of heritage cars after a court ruling brought on by a suit by two Florida fishermen. That was the main reason all of the popular Slumbercoaches were forced to be retired because it was found to be all but impossible to install retention tanks. By the way those trains that operated with the converted 10-6 sleepers before they were retired did not have the freeze up problems that plagued Chicago recently and the Via Heritage Cars went through the recent cold weather with virtually no problems at all.
I can't find a single blessed thing about retention tanks on 106 sleepers - only news that they were pulled from service after the direct dump waiver expired in 2001.
You got a link to anthing?
Don, I owe you an apoligy you are absolutely correct about the heritage sleepers not being retention tank equipped. I don't know what i was ranting about I suspect I confused this with when they received HEP I thought both were done at the same time. Only Via Rail has completely converted there Heritage cars with retention tanks which begs the question would it not have been easier and cheaper to convert our own cars than to buy the useless Viewliners. I have had about seven trips on them now and cannot say I have enjoyed one trip yet as they are noisy and have more rattles that fifty year old cars did.They also ride nowhere as comfortable as the old Budds did. Again let me say I am sorry for the confusion I caused.
All the talk about long distance trains and sleeping cars appears to miss two key points.
Only 14.5 per cent of Amtrak's passengers used the long distance trains in FY 2008. Only 13.5 per cent of the long distance passengers rode from end point to end point, whilst 10.3 per cent rode between points covered by other corridor services. Just 14.9 per cent of the long distance passengers or 2.2 per cent of Amtrak's passengers booked a sleeper. Thus, rebuilding or buying new sleeping cars, given the tiny market served, would be imprudent. It would be throwing good money after bad.
In FY 2008 the long distance trains required an average operating subsidy of 18.5 cents per passenger mile compared 6.6 cents for the state supported and other short distance corridor trains. The NEC trains contributed 20.7 cents per passenger mile. These figures are before interest and depreciation, which are included in the fully allocated costs referred to below.
According to a 2005 Department of Transportation (DOT) study, sleeping car passengers require a significantly greater average subsidy than coach passengers on the same train. In FY 2004, which is the latest data available, sleeping car passengers received an average fully allocated subsidy of $395.62, whilst coach passengers got an average subsidy of $189.76. Translating these figures into passenger per mile figures narrows the gap somewhat because sleeping car passengers, on average, travel further than coach passengers. Base on the DOT study, the numbers are 39.6 cents per mile for sleeping car passengers vs. 29.2 cents per mile for coach passengers. Thus, no matter how the data is sliced and diced, sleeping car passengers, contrary to the beliefs of many, get a larger subsidy than coach passengers, who are the bread and butter of Amtrak's trains.
The typical long distance train passenger travels between 500 and 800 miles. Relatively few are on the train for more than one night.
The best solution for the long distance trains would be to kill them. The future for passenger rail lies in high density, relatively short corridor trains. However, given the political environment, this is unlikely to happen. So maybe a better way is to re-think the overnight long distance train model.
Eliminate the sleeping car. No matter how it is configured, it is expensive to buy or refurbish, maintain, and operate.
Eliminate the dinning car. It too is expensive to buy, maintain, and operate. Elimination of the sleepers would knock out half of Amtrak's dinning car revenues, which would make them untenable, since they are generated from the all in one fares paid by sleeping car passengers. Sleeping car passengers are captives of the dinning car for meals that are not very good and served frequently by surly waiters, whilst coach passengers tend to favor the lounge car for their eats.
Include a lounge car on each long distance train to provide Enroute food service. It is unrealistic to expect people to spend 10 to 12 hours on a train without access to food and beverages. Price the food service to cover all the costs.
Experiment with a long distance business class service. Business class cars could be fitted with seats similar to those found in the business class section of overseas flights and would be adequate for one night on the train. They would be much cheaper to acquire or rebuild, maintain, and operate.
This scheme would reduce the costs of operating long distance trains. Whilst they would still lose money, the amount of red ink could be reduced significantly. Equally important, elimination of the sleepers and dinners would reduce significantly the capital outlays required to buy new cars or refurbish existing ones.
Sam1 Eliminate the dinning car. It too is expensive to buy, maintain, and operate. Elimination of the sleepers would knock out half of Amtrak's dinning car revenues, which would make them untenable, since they are generated from the all in one fares paid by sleeping car passengers. Sleeping car passengers are captives of the dinning car for meals that are not very good and served frequently by surly waiters, whilst coach passengers tend to favor the lounge car for their eats. Include a lounge car on each long distance train to provide Enroute food service. It is unrealistic to expect people to spend 10 to 12 hours on a train without access to food and beverages. Price the food service to cover all the costs. Experiment with a long distance business class service. Business class cars could be fitted with seats similar to those found in the business class section of overseas flights and would be adequate for one night on the train. They would be much cheaper to acquire or rebuild, maintain, and operate.
Interesting. The new "Cross Country Cafes" are a combination diner-lounge. They frequently put in apearances on the Texas Eagle. From what I see, both sides are patronized well. The idea that a lounge needs to be included because people should not be expected to go 10 or 12 hours without access to food or beverages harkens back to the automat cars of the SP, wherein the "service" was provided out of a vending machine. Patronage on the affected trains REALLY slipped after that fiasco, the idea being that there is a point where a degradation of services provided produces no positive income, and in fact, can drive down patronage. Yes, yes, I know all about the numbers, the percentages and everything else.
As to sleeping cars, I would think that an all sleeper Denver Zephyr-type operation would work well, selll well and provide decent income, especially for business types that would use that kind of service, if scheduled properly. Cross Country Cafe service on such a train would be acceptable, since the only time it would be open would be on the train's departures (late afternoon) and arrivals (early to mid morning). Of course, removing most of the considerable schedule pad would be required to meet business people's expectations. No. 6 is alloted some 20 hours for the run, while westbound counterpart No. 5 is allowed 17. Reducing both times to something less than 16 hours overnight would be the minimum requirement for such a train.
Long distance business class service would be an excellent idea, especially given many route segments that are ripe for such a trial period. Fares would need to reflect a concern and understanding of the business traveler's needs and constraints.
Eveyone seems to be wasting a lot of wind on this subject (including me), given the realistic idea that the LD train, for better or worse, and profit or not, seems to be here to stay, at least for the forseeable future, thanks to a sentimental and somewhat interested public and a Congress that does not wish to cross them. Are LD trains relevant? I only hope that the LD trains can last until such a point in time where economic, environmental and public pressures give them a lion's share of the travel dollar. If it gets to that point, I am sure we all will have bigger fish to fry.
A lot of this depends on whether you are counting passengers or counting passenger miles. Counting passengers is what they do with respect to transit systems -- a person has to get to work, and if that person takes the bus there needs to be a bus, and if that person goes 3 miles or 15 miles to get to work, it is the same service rendered -- getting to work. Also, transit system tend to charge flat rates (with exceptions such as "BART cards"), so passenger boardings are the metric.
If passenger miles are the metric, the LD-corridor balance swings back towards the LD trains.
The part I don't understand about the LD trains being money pits is that contrary to what many may think, Amtrak gets the tracks for the LD trains for cheap. In that case, the LD trains should like running a steel-wheeled bus company. But their costs are multiples of what it costs Lamars to run buses. Why?
It might be that Amtrak LD trains are providing a whole lot more service than a bus, or perhaps even an airliner. You have the option of paying extra fare for a private room (sleeping room), you are not restricted to your seat the whole time and can get up and walk around and stretch, you can have those social-bonding sessions with strangers in the lounge car, you can have a sit-down meal in a dining car. Perhaps all of those things cost money, especially if you want to pay people a living wage to provide those services.
So maybe a train provides more legroom and walking-around space than an airliner or a bus, but providing all of that extra space per passenger costs money -- in amortization and maintenance of train cars, in paying the wages of on-train employees who work long distances and long times away from home. Same thing for the dining car -- you have to pay for the use of an entire railroad car for that function, and you have to pay (expensive owing to working a long way from home) labor to operate the car and serve the meals.
So by the measures that are important to many in the advocacy and train-riding community, trains provide a much more pleasant, less stressful travel experience than any of the other modes, but trains cost more than anything else because providing that experience costs money in labor and equipment (capital).
So then, what social purpose is served by providing a high service-content high-value transportation mode to people who apparently value this sort of thing enough that they are agast at having to take a car, bus, or plane, but not charging fares that cover the entire above-the-rails cost?
Australia does that with their overnight tilt train -- they looked into sleeping cars but went instead with 3-across-the-cabin deep recline seats. Argentina and others in South America have double-decker 3-across deep recline seats on overnight express buses -- they call this "camas" for the deep recline and "super-camas" for a seat the reclines fully flat -- perhaps some hybrid between the old open-section sleeper and the "chambre-en-couchette" accomodations on European overnight trains.
Revenues and costs per passenger mile are important indicators of the efficacy of an operation. At the end of the day, however, people use trains, planes, cars, etc. And very few of them use the long distance trains in the United States.
Long distance trains, irrespective of their social value, which is subjective, require a disproportionate taxpayer subsidy. Sleeping car passengers, who are amongst the better heeled users, get a considerably higher subsidy than coach passengers.
The long distance train is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. My goal is to get Amtrak, as well as those who support it, to think outside of the box about how it should be restructured. I frequently share my views with Amtrak and my elected representatives. I urge others to do likewise.
I have ridden the Tilt Train on two occasions. It is a good service. I will be in Australia at the end of this month. Whilst I am there I will ride the train from Adelaide to Melbourne and from Melbourne to Sydney.
I agree with the severe shortage of sleeping car compartments. But even more important is the sheer lack of enough equipment to actually provide long and medium distance services. The Coast Starlight has only two operating trainsets. They each come through our area, one of the most scenic in Northern California at 2 am. All that can be seen is darkness. One cannot get a ticket at any time during the travel season. No one wants to board a train (if even on time) at 2 pm to ride to the Bay Area and arrive midmorning. Until Amtrak is given capital funds to purchase new trainsets, the long distance and medium distance trains will not survive.
Mike in Redding
dmikee I agree with the severe shortage of sleeping car compartments. But even more important is the sheer lack of enough equipment to actually provide long and medium distance services. The Coast Starlight has only two operating trainsets. They each come through our area, one of the most scenic in Northern California at 2 am. All that can be seen is darkness. One cannot get a ticket at any time during the travel season. No one wants to board a train (if even on time) at 2 pm to ride to the Bay Area and arrive midmorning. Until Amtrak is given capital funds to purchase new trainsets, the long distance and medium distance trains will not survive. Mike in Redding
1. The fact that there is an equipment shortage indicates there is a need for the equipment, and although the percentages may be low, there are enough people who use long distance sleeping car service and who want to but cannot because of the shortage and who think they may want to if only when a particular vacation plan makes it appropriate or when airplanes have a problem, althogether to make the USA public want to continue the serivce. The Superliner sleepers obviously were a step ahead of the heritage sleepers, at least in terms of number of people handled comfortably in a singe car. Can some kind of double-deck sleeper be designed to fit restrictive clearnaces in the east, the way the LIRR and NJT have found to design commuter cars that are double-deck and fit those clearances? Obviously, the Viewliner sleepers were not an optimum soluton, and I wonder if a better one can be found? Perhaps the answer is the shell of the LIRR-NJT commuter cars, with the three-across deep reclining seats mentioned, with a blanket and pillow provided for each passenger, and the old Pullman green durtains drawn around each seat to provide some degree of privacy when sleeping. Two people traveling together would logically use the two across on one side of the aisle and those alone the single seats, but one could buy space on two adjacent seats at a premium price if the car was not sold out. But there may be better answers.
2. Most Amtrak dining car meal experiences, today, are positive, and to label them mediocre, on average, isn't accurate in my opinion, from sampling the trip reports on these forums. I do think the Diner-Lounge concept has merit on most long distance trains. It isn't new with Amtrak, and there is no reason why excellent service and excellend food cannot be provided in such a car. Its basic advantage over a full diner is that it is use all the time, not just during meal hours. Most of my railfan friends agree that eating a good meal while traveling on a train is a great experience, and is one of the great advantages over airline travel.
I tip my hat to many of those who make the case for the long distance train. No matter how dismal the financial data associated with these trains, someone finds a silver lining in the proverbial dark cloud and a reason to keep arguing for them.
Add more trains or cars! Change the fares! Improve the schedule! Increase the load factor! Do these things, they say, and she'll be right. Well, Amtrak has tried most of those things. And they have not worked. Here is just one more example.
In FY 2008 the load factor on the long distance trains increased 4.8 per cent over FY 2007. So the loss per passenger mile should have gone down! Nope, they lost more money per passenger mile before interest and depreciation in FY 2008 than FY 2007, whilst the NEC trains increased their contribution and the state and other short distance corridor trains reduced their loss.
Over the past three years I have eaten at least one meal on the Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Acela, and San Joaquin. None of the meals were as good as what I get at Denny's, which is not exactly a four star restaurant. And the prices were nearly double what I pay at Denny's.
The real challenge to long distance passenger trains is posed by the geography of the Continental United States. East of the Mississippi we're relatively compact with lots of large population centers. This area could be laced together with viable modern high speed short and medium distance rail corridors. The West Coast is characterized by North-South development all within one hundred miles of the coastline and modern high speed corridors would work there too. The trouble is that between these metropolitan conurbations there is next to nothing for almost 2,000 miles ( sorry Denver! ). In a perfectly rational world, it would probably make sense to choose just one corridor to link the the West Coast with the East and let the others go. That would at least accomodate the transcontinental "fear of flying" types. AMTRAK assets could be concentrated on this link which would be extensively modernized with state-of-the-art equipment and perhaps even a dedicated right-of-way. Once they had crossed this "empty quarter" passengers could be handed off to the networks at either end to reach a variety of destinations.
I still maintain that Amtraks major problem has always been a shortage of cars and power. If one looks at the number of trains prior to Amtraks startup and the number of trains on Amtrak day there is a major difference in those numbers of trains. Also remember Amtrak only started with certain cars (ie Budd) then went back and purchased additional cars from the RRs when it was found they had major shortages. Many good cars had already been scrapped or turned into maintenance of way equipment or sold to Mexico etc. Amtrak has never been able to overcome its car shortages since its inception and that is a major problem even today.
Its first venture into diesel power was with the idea that if Amtrak failed the power would be purchased by the freight RRs for powering freight trains. After a series of derailments on certain RRs the big units were replaced with F40s that soldiered on for many years at the head of all Amtrak trains outside the electrified NE corridor. They did not have much better luck with big electrics in the NE corridor either.
Amtrak has probably purchased about a third as many Superliners as were actually needed. They replaced the Heritage sleepers with fifty Viewliners, again about a third of what was actually needed. Twenty Acela train sets are probably half the number that should have been built.
Gasoline is only going to go up again, enjoy the lull while you can I see gas at 5.00 to 7.00 a gallon in the not to distant future.
If President Obama and Congress want to get the country on the right track in a stimulus package I suggest we build a series of Nuclear Generating plants across this country to bring cheap electricity to all Americans. It is my understanding that each Nuclear generating plant employees 70,000 people during the construction phase. Then I would encourage the RRs to electrify most main lines by issuing tax credits to them for that purpose.
But if we are going to be serious about Amtrak in this country than it is time to give them the equipment necessary to put America back in the forefront of passenger train technology and between major city pairs we seriously need to address HSR.
But let us use some intelligence in designing the cars and not just repeat past errors.
Like most government services, Amtrak's problem is that it is spread too thin. To many routes for the equipment and manpower available. One train a day will never draw a major customer load, even if it runs on time. To be usefull transportation it needs to run frequently, and on time. In short, it needs to be clean, well maintained, convenient, and dependable.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.