oltmannd schlimmwhich trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give. Ick. You could do all of that, but what a mess. Particularly once you let the politicians in. How about this, instead? You bid out each route to an operator - not the typical "low bidder provides the least he can get away with" but one where the operator keeps the revenue, so he has a profit motive. Like this: "How much do I have to pay you to operate the Empire Builder for 3 years? I'll set the schedule, provide the locomotives, passenger cars, and engineers, conductors, trainmen at "$X" rate. You provide everything else. You set the fares and keep all the revenue." This gives the operator incentive to reduce costs AND improve service and revenue to improve their bottom line. Let each train be it's own line item in Amtrak's budget and then let congress decide. It's really a political process at the end of the day, anyway. This just gets us more for our money.
schlimmwhich trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
Ick. You could do all of that, but what a mess. Particularly once you let the politicians in.
How about this, instead? You bid out each route to an operator - not the typical "low bidder provides the least he can get away with" but one where the operator keeps the revenue, so he has a profit motive. Like this: "How much do I have to pay you to operate the Empire Builder for 3 years? I'll set the schedule, provide the locomotives, passenger cars, and engineers, conductors, trainmen at "$X" rate. You provide everything else. You set the fares and keep all the revenue."
This gives the operator incentive to reduce costs AND improve service and revenue to improve their bottom line.
Let each train be it's own line item in Amtrak's budget and then let congress decide. It's really a political process at the end of the day, anyway. This just gets us more for our money.
But... the strength of a system is the network, no?
The business model Sam1 presents might be workable, especially on trains like the Empire Builder. I am sure that the government's (and general population's) attitude towards Amtrak is reflected in the crew's attitudes towards their jobs. I see a nationwide network of passenger trains as an important part of our heritage and infrastructure, and trains are similar to National Parks in terms of both sentimental and practical value.
There US certainly has a demand for discretionary travel, but we have let encouraged a huge portion to slip away on cruise ships. And while I'm sure RV's are a great way to tour America, crossing the plains probably wastes a lot of fuel... There are many ways that trains could be made attracrtive for travelers; for example, when my family rode CN from Montreal to Vancouver in 1975, our car was transported on a freight train. Yes, we were forced to spend an extra night on each end... it was great!
Passenger trains are fine hotels!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
This is the model used by the Great Southern Railway in Australia. It operates Australia's two cross country trains (Indian Pacific and The Ghan) as well as the Overland, which runs from Adelaide to Melbourne.
I have ridden all three trains. This March I rode the Overland from Adelaide to Melbourne. Also, I took the County Link, which is operated by the New South Wales Government, from Melbourne to Sydney. Whilst the service on both trains was much better than the service on any of Amtrak's trains, the service on the Overland, which is operated by a for-profit corporation, was noticeably better than the service on the Country Link. In large part this was due to the attitude of the crew.
The national government awarded the contract through competitive bidding. It contains strict performance standards that must be met or the contractor must pay a failure to perform penalty. Thus, the operator has an incentive to get it right. Based on my experience, they do a good job of getting it right.
In addition to privatizing the aforementioned national trains, Victoria privatized its regional or country trains as well as the commuter trains and trams in Melbourne. Private operators have their problems, to be sure, but they do a better job than the government.
schlimm Sam1: Great!! $ 0.5 Bil (out of a total operating budget for Amtrak FY08?) isn't chump change for sure. But to extend that on for 40 years seems a bit misleading. It's like saying I'm saving X $ for 40 years by no longer owning and operating my old Chrysler mini-van, or any other discontinued service. Still, that $ 0.5 Bil could handle operating costs on lines that serve a greater portion of the public for several years. I suppose we also need to more clearly define LD (have to say as a psychologist, I have a little trouble with that term since it means Learning Disabled) service and which trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
Sam1:
Great!! $ 0.5 Bil (out of a total operating budget for Amtrak FY08?) isn't chump change for sure. But to extend that on for 40 years seems a bit misleading. It's like saying I'm saving X $ for 40 years by no longer owning and operating my old Chrysler mini-van, or any other discontinued service. Still, that $ 0.5 Bil could handle operating costs on lines that serve a greater portion of the public for several years. I suppose we also need to more clearly define LD (have to say as a psychologist, I have a little trouble with that term since it means Learning Disabled) service and which trains, if any, should be saved based on what criteria? Size of loss per passenger served? Distance? Are alternative means of transport besides the auto available? Any ideas here? It certainly seems that with limited resources, somthing's got to give.
Anyone familiar with basic financial models would understand the scenario that I presented. The concept is based on opportunity alternatives. They would also understand the time value of money and how to calculate it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
aricat I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
I don't know what the overall percentages are, but Kimberly-Clark now requires its Fox Valley, WI employees who do business in Chicago-proper to shuttle in company limo-vans down HWY 41 to Milwaukee Amtrak airport station (~90 miles), and take the Hiawathas into and out of Chicago.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Maglev Here's some thoughts on the Broadway Limited... I traveled at least a couple times a year betwen Pittsburgh and Chicago between 1984 and 2002. I mostly flew because I could write my own free tickets, I took the Broadway once, and the Capitol several times. And one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." They ran to the bathroom upon arrival to tidy up, then scrambled to their commodity exchanges or whatever. Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival. I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation. A national rail network can improve commerce, bring families together, and allow students more options for research. Our commerce, social unity, and higher education all suffer due to poor transportation infrastructure. (I rode the Broadway several times, but only once in a sleeper between Chicago and Greensburg. We had taken the California Zephyr from San Francisco. Our "heritage" bedroom on the Broadway was downright scary: even the severe brown and tan decor could not hide the all the stains of misfortune. The Dinette car was clean and comfortable, but the food was not very good.)
Here's some thoughts on the Broadway Limited...
I traveled at least a couple times a year betwen Pittsburgh and Chicago between 1984 and 2002. I mostly flew because I could write my own free tickets, I took the Broadway once, and the Capitol several times. And one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." They ran to the bathroom upon arrival to tidy up, then scrambled to their commodity exchanges or whatever. Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation. A national rail network can improve commerce, bring families together, and allow students more options for research. Our commerce, social unity, and higher education all suffer due to poor transportation infrastructure.
(I rode the Broadway several times, but only once in a sleeper between Chicago and Greensburg. We had taken the California Zephyr from San Francisco. Our "heritage" bedroom on the Broadway was downright scary: even the severe brown and tan decor could not hide the all the stains of misfortune. The Dinette car was clean and comfortable, but the food was not very good.)
American rights are spelled out in the Constitution and implied in the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers. They have been further enumerated by the Supreme Court. I am not familiar with the section in the Constitution or other sources stating that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation.
schlimm Let's see if I get it straight. 1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
Let's see if I get it straight.
1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
If the long distance trains had been eliminated in FY08, the direct savings would have been approximately $515 million per year, assuming that they wear 10 per cent of the interest, depreciation, and unallocated charges. The first year savings would be decreased by discontinuance expenses, e.g. severance pay, lease severance penalties, etc., offset by savings in select support activities, i.e. IT, reservation center staff, management and supervision, etc., as well as the salvage value of the long distance equipment or at least that portion of it that could not be used for corridor trains.
The annual savings for any one year is not terribly impressive. But by 2050, which is the year that the Vision for the Future, U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050, authors set as the target date for the implementation of their proposed passenger rail vision, the savings would be approximately $20.6 billion on a straight-line basis. On a compounded basis, using the U.S. Treasury's weighted averaging borrowing rate, the savings would be $49.7 billion. And that is serious money.
The compounded savings from the discontinuance of the long distance trains would cover the cost of the California High Speed Rail Project, before interest and financing charges, assuming the project sponsors have developed realistic estimates for it. Unfortunately, the Government Accounting Office, which is noted for the thoroughness of its work and its objectivity, has commented that the ridership and revenue projections appear to be optimistic.
MaglevOn a Boston to Washington express train trip in 2005, the other first-class passengers were all government or business executives. These people would otherwise fly first class or in private jets, but enjoy the train ride and service.
They're probably the same gang that rode the Metroliners. They were run-of the-mill businessmen. They wouldn't get to fy first class - only coach. Most companies would spring for Metroliner as a normal business expense as an alternative to flying coach.
schlimmWould it not be much cheaper to have the govt. acquire those secondary routes and then upgrade them to higher speed standards as dedicted passenger-only lines so we could run the new service with out-of-the-box European/Asian equipment?
Maybe. But, you still have the "last mile", probably on mixed track....so....
You can even plop down your "unmixed" HSR line along suitable primary frt routes - where it makes sense. As long as you don't have the capability to mix, you'd be OK. There are various transit lines that share with frt and passenger RR routes in the US this way.
On demographics of Amtrak first-class passengers: On the Empire Builder, it was mostly retiree / rail fans. You have to really want to take the train when you take the train on this route; and have to really REALLY want to take the train to pay for first class. Amtrak is slow, inconvenient, and first class is very expensive. These people otherwise would travel by RV or cruise ship.
On a Boston to Washington express train trip in 2005, the other first-class passengers were all government or business executives. These people would otherwise fly first class or in private jets, but enjoy the train ride and service. Leisure travelers seem less inclined to pay for first class on day trips (in Britain also).
Don: Some really helpful responses, though Iowans might have some problems with the pig line.
In regard to the troubled NEC and several other routes. One set of problems that pops up over and over again is the heavy American RR wheels and freight cars, restrictions on superelevation b/c of freight, and interference with HSR and HSR-lite by freight. In a number of cases (NY-CHI, CHI-STL, BOS-WASH, etc.), there exist redundant, fairly lightly used or even abandoned parallel routes to the currently used ones on which passenger trains attempt to run. Would it not be much cheaper to have the govt. acquire those secondary routes and then upgrade them to higher speed standards as dedicted passenger-only lines so we could run the new service with out-of-the-box European/Asian equipment?
Last four years I have been at a table at the Madison Model Railroad Show and Sale handing out literature on the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. I only this year took the trouble to read the pamphlet.
In rough round number, the MWRRI is supposed to cost 6 billion, it is supposed to cover its above-the-rails operating costs, and it is supposed to serve 2 billion passenger miles per year. Think about it, for 6 billion dollars initial investment (mind you, people like to talk about passenger rail as an investment) you get half an Amtrak (in yearly passenger miles).
If you believe what is in the pamphlet, for 24 billion dollars we could get two Amtrak's. If a person doesn't believe what is in the pamphlet, well, I think I should stop handing it out to people at the Model Railroad Show. There are various ways of inflation adjusting and slicing the pie. But the way I see it, with more effective investment of the money Amtrak has received since inception, it could be twice the size and either self sustaining in terms of covering its costs or could continue to receive government money and grow.
I guess it has become canon in the advocacy community that passenger rail runs at a loss everywhere in the industrial world. The MWRRI would probably take forever to recoup the initial capital investment, but the claim is made that fares would cover its operating costs. Again, if this is not the case, I had better stop handing out those pamphlets written by the 8-state group.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm1. Sam1, Paul, Don want to eliminate all LD trains, which seem to be anything over ~500 miles not in a corridor? How much does this actually save?
Sam says it will save about $0.5B a year. Enough to do something meaningful elsewhere.
I'm not for "all". But, I do think they need to get back to the original notion - that not all the routes on Amtrak's Day One map survive. I'd whack most of the eastern routes in half and make day train, multiple frequency routes. I'd package overnight in hotels where I whacked the route. Shuttle to and from the hotel. Seamless. All included in the price. I might get a vanful of takers.
I'd leave the Empire Builder, Zephyr, Starlight, Autotrain and SW Chief alone and run the wheels off the Superliners.
schlimm2. We should increase speed on the NEC?
Nope. It works OK now. Money for things other than very small time improvement on the NEC.
schlimm3. We should develop new semi-HSR service on various new corridors: PDX-SEA, CHI-DET, CHI-STL, CHI-MILW/MStP, CAL all over, FLA and TX? Not, however, CHI-Iowa?
Yup. Lots of population there. Not to Iowa. Pigs don't ride trains. Those that want a train can ride the Zephyr. I left that in.
schlimm4. How many states are served? ~20? As this does need to get marketed to Congress, that is a valid question.
That's the $64,000 dollar question. The way I'd try it, almost no states would be left out.
Having ridden on the Empire Builder in 2005, I noticed that my fellow sleeping car passengers were virtually all leisure passengers on vacation. I think that first class travel is a thing of the past except on Amtrak.How many companies allow their executives to travel first class. It is cheaper to charter private jets for travel than pay first class to the airlines.
Check out in an Official Guide from the 1950's what it cost to ride in a parlor car over what it cost to ride coach. The business bean counters didn't like paying the the difference and business travelers flocked to the airlines which still operated mostly first class only flights until the jets arrived in 1959. The Broadway and the 20TH Century faced competition from United Airlines which included a men only (except for the flight attendents) DC-7 non stop with an additional $3.00 surcharge besides the first class fare.
I would like to see Amtrak continue to improve its Northeast corridor service with improved business class service and comfortable coach service. I would like to know even on the Chicago- Milwaukee Hiawatha service what per cent is business travel. It looked as if it was mostly leisure travelers when I last rode it in 2007. It looked like a lot of people use Mitchell as an alternate to O'Hare to reach the Northern Chicago burbs.
2. We should increase speed on the NEC?
3. We should develop new semi-HSR service on various new corridors: PDX-SEA, CHI-DET, CHI-STL, CHI-MILW/MStP, CAL all over, FLA and TX? Not, however, CHI-Iowa?
4. How many states are served? ~20? As this does need to get marketed to Congress, that is a valid question.
Maglev ...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival. I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
Sounds like they found it...
Paul MilenkovicUm, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
The latter.
If the Broadway and 20th Century failed against high fare, slow, propeller driven aircraft and relatively crude and expensive to own and operate, hard to drive cars operating on an incomplete toll highway system, how could we expect it to succeed today?
Both trains were dead on their feet by the mid 50's. There was an article in Trains a few years back about how the Broadway would often have only a couple dozen passengers in the mid 50s.
These trains died despite both RRs equipping them with the very best equipment and service. Despite attempts at faster trips. The schedules for both were shaved back to 15-1/2 hours at one point.
I doubt there are any business travellers other than railfans who would even think of considering an overnight train when they can fly and be in their own bed at night. The notion of overnight trains for business travel is DOA.
The only thing that kept the Broadway, 20th Century and the Empire Builder going from the 1950s into the 1960s was corporate pride.
Other routes with some pretty fast speeds suffered the same fate. The IC has some pretty fast track. ACL was trying to get their NY-Miami times down to 24 hours by upgrading their mainline to 100 mph.
None of it worked.
As a railfan, I wish there was more and better and faster overnight train service so I could use it. But, that just ain't the world we live in.....
Paul, et al:
Sorry about criticizing your comment on "philosopher kings." It just seemed a bit off key compared with the rest of your illuminating writing. I'm sorry if I don't find that Sam1's usual litany (nicely presented statistical reasons of why passenger trains do not and cannot make any sense from his not-so-free market perspective) adds anything to a discussion of how and when and where to bring the US up-to-date in an important area of transportation infrastructure.
I rather doubt that an EB or even BL are in the cards, although I do recall riding a 15 1/2 hr. all Pullman Broadway in 1967 (as well as a one hour 55 min Panama from Central Station, Chicago to Champaign in 1965). Those were pretty good times 40+ years ago on corridor and LD routes. So in a number of cases, it would be considerable "progress" to regress to some of the routes of 40-50 years ago, not just for speed, but also the all-important frequency of service.
oltmannd MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters
How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
Having been chastised for engaging in facetious sarcasm, I should not be the person to ask, but . .
Um, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
I agree with Schlimm, that the question is not "why or why not" but "how and when?" In all other parts of the world, and through most of our history, passenger trains have been an accepted, money-losing part of life. We just got a little behind in the past fifty years, and need to do some catch-up.
I have been re-reading my history of the L& N with an eye to information on sustainability of passenger transportation. Obviously, there was pride in the passenger trains (at least over 50 years ago)., They were always outfitted with the best available equipment and afforded expedited dispatching.
A comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters. The social benefits and improved freedom of mobility are priceless. We need more Empire Builders!
schlimm All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world.
That is an erroneous interpretation of Sam1's postion on passenger rail and rail transit. I will admit that Sam1 has a rather rigid view of how to measure the efficacy of the service provided against the cost, informed by Sam1's professional background,
But, you are misstating Sam1's position badly, I think.
Paul:
BTW, I don't think your concluding bit of facitious sarcasm advances any position.
I'm only saying that reiterating the arguments against any passenger rail system on the basis of marketplace economics, profit and loss and CURRENT ridership statistics over and over does not advance the outlook for passenger rail. And by passenger rail, I am not wedded to a solely Amtrak-based system. However, I thought this was a forum for advancing ideas of HOW to have a decent passenger rail net, not whether or NOT to have one. All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world. It is obvious that we do not and also obvious that other nations seem to have the money and will to pay for one.
schlimm I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
If the purpose of this forum is to rant about how passenger rail gets the short end of things, I guess Sam1 doesn't belong on this forum. If the purpose of this forum is as a kind of virtual train advocacy group, in my opinion Sam1's comments are among the most useful remarks around.
I guess there is universal agreement that Amtrak or intercity passenger trains have failed in the marketplace economy. There was a line of thought at the inception of Amtrak that a small level of subsidy was what was needed to kick start passenger trains into paying their way, and that line of thought is pretty widely subject to ridicule around here. So taking trains out of the marketplace economy, they are now in the political realm of justifying levels of appropriation, and they have been failing at that. Sure Amtrak looks to get the 8 billion in ARRA money, but these things run in cycles, and the 8 billion dollar question is how that money will be spent and whether the return on that money will boost Amtrak's long term outlook.
Amtrak I suppose cannot compete in the marketplace economy, but it has to compete someplace, and if it is to compete among the many demands on public money, compete it has to do, and we can't sit around complaining about levels of military or Medicare or even highway spending. Or are you suggesting that the political system does not weigh the social needs and costs any better than the marketplace? And with what are you going to replace the political system, Plato's Foamer-Philosopher Kings?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.