Amtrak's fastest Acela schedule between Washington and New York is 2 hours, 49 minutes. The quickest regional schedule is 3 hours, 12 minutes. The average Acela non-discount fare for an August 12th afternoon departure is $170 or 75.2 cents per mile; the average afternoon regional train coach fare for the same date is $49 or 21.7 cents per mile. A business class seat on the same regional train goes for $85 or 37.6 cents per mile.
In 1957, the year that I graduated from high school, the PRR's Afternoon Congressional clipped off the nearly 226 miles between Washington and New York in 3 hours, 35 minutes. The fare in a parlor car was $12.66 for the first class ticket, plus $2.59 for the seat, bringing the total to $15.25 or 6.7 cents per mile. The coach fare was $8.36 or 3.7 cents per mile.
Business class on the Acela costs 11.1 times the price of a similar experience on The Afternoon Congressional, which probably offered the best comparative accommodations to business class on the Acela. Business class on a regional train is nearly 5.6 times the cost of a parlor car seat on the Congressional. The cost of a coach seat on a regional train is 5.9 times the cost of a similar accommodation in 1957.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which probably is the best general indicator of inflation, increased 7.6 times since 1957. The business class experience on the Acela costs considerably more than the 1957 inflation adjusted price, but the cost of a coach seat and business class seat on a regional train costs less than the inflation adjusted prices. I suspect that an analysis of other corridors and fare structures would show similar results. Of course, the other corridors don't have an Acela class of service.
If Amtrak was able to charge prices that had kept pace with inflation, whilst maintaining the Acela spreads, it might be able to cover its operating costs, excluding the long distance trains? Unfortunately, inflation is not a determinate of current prices. It is pricing power, which is the ability to set prices to cover costs, generate a return for the shareholders, and remain competitive in the market place. The operative term is competitive in the market place. And this is where Amtrak runs into a problem, especially outside of the NEC and perhaps the California and Illinois corridors.
Also keep in mind that the passenger fares in 1957 were kept lower by regulators who implied an internal cross-subsidy of passenger service by higher freight rates.
The first time I rode Amtrak Boston to New York in 1975, the coach fare was $12.00. A Levi's denim jacket cost the same amount; I have made a comparison over the years, and they always seem about the same price (today: jacket $50 to $70 online, Amtrak $52 to $89).
The first time I rode an Amfleet car (1977?) I was REALLY impressed. They were modern and clean, and yes the windows were small but in those days you didn't want to see the view of South Station anyway. The ride quality was orders of magnitude better than older equipment.
Thirty years later, there has been little improvement. I payed a huge amount (don't even WANT to remember) for two first-class Acela seats a few years ago; but I did not feel a sense of "WOW!!!" regarding the food, service, speed, or comfort. Regional and express train times have improved minimally over 30 years. South Station has finally been cleaned up, but I think it lost some tracks and utility space.
No doubt about it, building up corridor services and maintaining a national network will be expensive. So is the fare people pay for Acela! Did those folks expect a return on their investment for two inches seat width and twenty minutes' time saving? Maybe the operative term "competitive in the market place" is not applicable when it comes to transportation.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
It seems Amtrak NEC performance is not half bad. Those CPI price deflators are always rough ballpark guess estimators because with time, the economy changes in what people spend their money on.
Also, a 45-minute time saving for the fastest train is at least respectable.
The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference?
But back to the NEC, apparently the Amtrak NEC is covering its operating expenses although way off in terms of retiring the capital debt. Perhaps this is progress?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic....The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference?
....The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference?
I'm of the opinion that a 1:45, 79-mph Hiawatha schedule with added stops at Kenosha, Gurnee, Lake Forest, and Lake-Cook would be an improvement. The running time is comparable to the rush hour schedules for #330 and #339 and can be coordinated with Metra operations for improved track capacity utilization and avoiding the cost of a third track. A 1:45 schedule still beats the time and cost of driving on a regular basis. At least two additional trains would fill out the peak periods and capture substantial additional ridership to and from Chicago. A third and fourth train to and from Milwaukee could be an alternative for the KRB.
HarveyK400 Paul Milenkovic ....The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference? I'm of the opinion that a 1:45, 79-mph Hiawatha schedule with added stops at Kenosha, Gurnee, Lake Forest, and Lake-Cook would be an improvement.
Paul Milenkovic ....The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference?
I'm of the opinion that a 1:45, 79-mph Hiawatha schedule with added stops at Kenosha, Gurnee, Lake Forest, and Lake-Cook would be an improvement.
It seems to me that adding stops would make the Hiawatha's less appealing.
I have wondered, though, if it wouldn't affect turn-around time, about extending the service from downtown Milwaukee to a west suburban stop (Brookfield?)?
Paul Milenkovic It seems Amtrak NEC performance is not half bad. Those CPI price deflators are always rough ballpark guess estimators because with time, the economy changes in what people spend their money on. Also, a 45-minute time saving for the fastest train is at least respectable. The question remains, what does the 45-minute time saving do for you? Does it make that big an impact or ridership? Or, would saving 20 minutes off the 1:35 Hiawatha time with 110 MPH service make a difference? But back to the NEC, apparently the Amtrak NEC is covering its operating expenses although way off in terms of retiring the capital debt. Perhaps this is progress?
Your right! The basket of goods and services that makes up the CPI today is different from what it was in 1957. Nevertheless, many of the major components, e.g. food, housing, transportation, medical care, etc. are the same, although the weights may be different.
The analysis contains two key points, it seems to me. One is a demonstration of the corrosive impact of inflation over time. And the other is the difficulty Amtrak or other passenger rail providers have in pricing their services to keep up with inflation and cover at least their operating costs.
In FY08 the NEC covered its operating costs before interest and depreciation and contributed $369 million to these items. Most of the depreciation is associated with the capital improvements in the NEC. The Acela trains contributed roughly $220 million, whilst the regional operations contributed approximately $146 million. The difference is attributable to special operations.
FY09 does not look as good. For the first half of the fiscal year, the Acela contribution was $63.1 million, but the regional trains lost $4.6 million before interest and depreciation. The FY09 results reflect an accounting change that was implemented at the beginning of the fiscal year. If the second six months looks like the first six months of FY09, the Acela trains will earn approximately $126 million before interest and depreciation whilst the regional trains will lose approximately $9 million.
It's a bad year to be in the passenger transport business. U.S. airlines are projected to lose $9.5 billion this year before income taxes and extraordinary items.
If the airlines lose $9.5 Bil. this year, how soon will it be before they need a "bailout?"
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
jclassIt seems to me that adding stops would make the Hiawatha's less appealing. I have wondered, though, if it wouldn't affect turn-around time, about extending the service from downtown Milwaukee to a west suburban stop (Brookfield?)?
I don't have access to Amtrak and Metra; but my guess is that the Hiawatha 1:42 and 1:37 schedules in the peaks reflect the impacts of commuter operations. Since it makes no sense to sidetrack or limit 1,000 passenger commuter trains for a 350 passenger Hiawatha, expecting Metra ridership and reverse-peak operations to grow, and the high cost of capacity improvements; the best solution would seem to be to run combined Metra express-Hiawatha rush hour trains at 30 minute intervals. Incidentally, passenger-miles per gallon and per pound of emissions will improve starkly and add a virtual lane to I-94 between Wisconsin and Chicago.
I don't deny that the service may be slightly less appealing by the differences of :08 and :03 minutes, But this would be more than offset buy increased ridership from Kenosha, and for service to destinations around Gurnee, Lake Forest, and Lake-Cook. Service to Lake-Cook would be in the peak direction and alternate with Glenview at other times. Improved frequency would capture more ridership with expanded peak coverage, reducing wait time and capturing demand left behind.
Furthermore, the biggest selling point for the rush hour trains may not be speed, but the cheaper cost for a substantially discounted monthly pass compared to driving costs to downtown Chicago. By comparison, ridership is light on many Hiawathas, most likely due to higher, even non-competitive 10-ride and 1-way fares for occassional riders despite faster, :92 minute, schedules.
Higher fares may cover costs in theory; but only if people buy tickets. I have contended that if the round trip fare was reduced at least below driving costs to Downtown, ridership would increase significantly, raising revenue and improving efficiency. Whether fares could be reduced to the point that City and suburban transit connections become competitively affordable with driving and no parking cost goes to another level. Current monthly tickets come close. Conversely, raising monthly ticket fares, "congestion pricing," may be possible without a significant reduction in cost advantage to Downtown.
It doesn't make any sense to me to spend maybe $200M for just capacity improvements for two, or even six, 110-mph trains in the rush hour. As opposed to saving a few minutes, only ~$100M adds two more routes and four trains to expand service in Illinois.
Furthermore, the presumption that :35 minutes can be saved implies that stops at Glenview and Sturtevant are eliminated. While consistent with a high-speed Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago corridor concept, this is at odds with desires for more stops at Kenosha, Gurnee, and Lake-Cook; and running two trains is economically questionable and adds to the conflict with CPA and capacity woes at Union Station. Milwaukee-Chicago also does not have a NEC population between Washington, DC and New York City where a Northeast Regional operates ahead or behind the Acela.
The Brookfield idea is worth looking into. Extending the train to a park-n-ride station in the Elm Grove area close to I-894 & I-94 would be an alternative short of extending farther west to Watertown, or eventually Madison. Any western extension will build ridership to the Milwaukee Airport Station.
Several airlines have been bailed out one way or another in the past.
...45 minutes mean anything to anybody? Its all in the preception and the marketing. If a computer responds to while you key down instead of when the key is released is a big deal for many, but why? A writtten letter use to take weeks to go from one end of the world to the other, now, it has to be sent and recieved on the key downstroke for speed!
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.
henry6 Several airlines have been bailed out one way or another in the past.
Numerous airlines have gone belly up over the last fifty years and were merged into other carriers or liquidated. Northeastern, Pan American, Eastern Airlines, Braniff Airlines, People's Express, Air Florida, as well as several others, did not get a bailout. They declared bankruptcy and were liquidated. It was the right thing to do.
Had the U.S. approached passenger rail with the same cold knife that has been applied to the bankrupt airlines, most of it would have died in 1971. The logic that says it is OK for airlines, bus companies, and trucking companies to go belly up and die, but not little used passenger trains is hard to understand. Some corridor rail might have survived, if it was only required to cover its operating costs, and it received subsidies commensurate with those pay to the airlines and motorists.
To promote commercial passenger aviation in its early days, the Roosevelt Administration granted lucrative air mail contracts to the fledgling airlines. The value of the contracts was more than the cost of flying the air mail, which was clearly a direct subsidy. To the best of my knowledge they had expired by the end of the 1950s.
As a result of 9/11, the government gave the airlines millions in direct loans to compensate for the problems generated by the terrorist attacks. The loans have been repaid with interest.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has assumed responsibility for the pension obligations of the legacy carriers that have declared bankruptcy, e.g. Delta, Northwest, etc. NARP points to this as an airline bailout. Actually, the PBGC is an insurance policy. The legacy carriers paid premiums for the PBGC coverage. When they went bankrupt, they simply cashed in the policy, so to speak, which is exactly what happens in the case of a life insurance policy where the policy holder dies.
Perhaps you can give us some concrete examples of the airlines that have been bailed out.
HarveyK400 jclassIt seems to me that adding stops would make the Hiawatha's less appealing. I don't deny that the service may be slightly less appealing by the differences of :08 and :03 minutes, I wasn't thinking about the small increase in travel time in this instance. Rather the psychological effect of taking a "fast" train versus a "local". I think that when there are too many stops, time becomes a negative rather than a positive, irrespective of the actual travel time. Also, the double-decker commuter cars I've ridden haven't had comfortable seating. It's more suited to "mass transit". I think seating that approaches automobile seats in comfort is an important factor for the Hiawatha's. People can take Metra from Kenosha, Libertyville, Antioch and south into the Loop cheaper. Most of them start their trip in a car to get to the train. As the rail miles increase, the seats get harder. I'm not knocking Metra. It just serves a different target market. IIRC, Amtrak is not "supposed to be" in the commuter business. If you're thinking that the travel market shouldn't be segmented, and what is most efficient from an operating view is the goal, then my thinking won't fit. It's just that many times, customizing service to individual target markets yields greater total sales than trying to serve the whole market with one offering that doesn't fit any one segment very well. It doesn't make any sense to me to spend maybe $200M for just capacity improvements for two, or even six, 110-mph trains in the rush hour. As opposed to saving a few minutes, only ~$100M adds two more routes and four trains to expand service in Illinois. I feel the same way. Personally, I like the idea of providing customers with something they value. 110mph doesn't say anything to me except it's an FRA regulation.
jclassIt seems to me that adding stops would make the Hiawatha's less appealing.
I don't deny that the service may be slightly less appealing by the differences of :08 and :03 minutes,
I wasn't thinking about the small increase in travel time in this instance. Rather the psychological effect of taking a "fast" train versus a "local". I think that when there are too many stops, time becomes a negative rather than a positive, irrespective of the actual travel time.
Also, the double-decker commuter cars I've ridden haven't had comfortable seating. It's more suited to "mass transit". I think seating that approaches automobile seats in comfort is an important factor for the Hiawatha's. People can take Metra from Kenosha, Libertyville, Antioch and south into the Loop cheaper. Most of them start their trip in a car to get to the train. As the rail miles increase, the seats get harder. I'm not knocking Metra. It just serves a different target market. IIRC, Amtrak is not "supposed to be" in the commuter business. If you're thinking that the travel market shouldn't be segmented, and what is most efficient from an operating view is the goal, then my thinking won't fit. It's just that many times, customizing service to individual target markets yields greater total sales than trying to serve the whole market with one offering that doesn't fit any one segment very well.
I feel the same way. Personally, I like the idea of providing customers with something they value. 110mph doesn't say anything to me except it's an FRA regulation.
The real excuse about "little used" passenger trains is the question about rail passenger service. It had become the bane of freight rail operators; they saw the opportunity to run long distance freight trains and dispose of local freight and any passenger services. Because of their charters, et al, the only way out was to get the Federal government to take the passenger train. The hope was that by ignoring it (the passenger train), it would go away. The Nixon Administration had plans to scuttle passenger rail within its term, railroads paid lip service to the plan by agreeing to take the trains over thier tracks with that in mind rather than providing a good route and service for the trains. It all backfired on both big business and big government in that the passenger train didn't go away. And now some freight roads see that if they agree to rail passenger service on their routes, they may get enough physical improvements at public expense to operate a 21st Century freight railroad. And as energy and enviornmental concerns and needs become more realistic in society's and the government's mind, the passenger train becomes, once again, a useful tool. In the long run it wasn't the "little used" passenger train but rather the lack of willingness of the owner/operators--and government--to provide and market a viable service against not just the competition but also their own self imposed needs. It has now come full circle and the passenger train is back in the minds of society, government, and private railroad companies.
It seems that Amtrak was really a "bailout" for the freight railroads to help their profits, not for preserving passenger service. This was much the same as Nixon's endorsement of HMO's was to increase the profits of the heath insurance industry. So far there haven't been any "bailouts" for the airlines, but just wait and see. They can't continue with such enormous losses for much longer..
It should also be noted that in the late 60s and early 70s railroads were losing gobs of money in the passenger train business. New Haven and then Penn Central, both with large passenger train operations, were bankrupt in this period. My recollection is that Amtrak was created to preserve some skeleton of passenger train service in the USA. I have never heard that railroads needed passenger trains to maintain their charters. By the time Amtrak was created in 1971 some railroads, like Lehigh Valley, Soo Line, Chicago Great Western, Katy, Frisco and Kansas City Southern were completely out of the passenger train business.
Amtrak is still with us for political reasons. Enough people want passenger train service and they apply enough political pressure to keep Amtrak operating. I just don't think that Amtrak is going to go away.
In my opinion, what we should do is work on ways to keep Amtrak as a profitable, or at least on a break even basis. Somewhere there has to be a combination of train service and ticket price where Amtrak can come closer to making it on its own. We also need to look at the cost side. What costs can be cut? Labor? Access payments to freight railroads? Are the cars and locomotives too costly?
I, for one, am offended by the expensive fares on Amtrak. I took my family a few times to New York City from Washington and I am shocked at the amount of money I wasted.
Furthermore every time I go to NYC, the Amtrak conductors at Newark Airport and Metropark scream over the PA warning people boarding the train that the fare from there to New York Penn Station will cost them $56 and to get off and use the commuter trains instead. All of those stations are within 8 minutes of NY Penn Station and cost $56 per person on Amtrak.
Clearly the fare from Newark to Penn Station is absurdly high, but looking online it appears the fare can be as "cheap" as $24.00.
Even the $24 fare is virtual extortion and a reason to take PATH or NJT. Does parking in Manhattan cost $50 a day? Is the Amtrak fare set at a premium level above the NJT fare; or is it more of a penalty to discourage use?
I suppose I could look it up; but are 10-ride and monthly tickets available at much lower fares?
Amtrak doesn't want a lot of seats taken for short trips on longer runs either.
Amtrak fares are higher than commuter fares. But so is the service: reserved seat, better riding quality cars, limited stops, better speed (except Airport to NYP), etc. Port Authority of NY & NJ is also partly responsible for this station and price includes monorail to and from the Airport terminals. Amtrak riders' and airplane riders' fares usually include this when ticketed so. What else should be expected?
HarveyK400Amtrak doesn't want a lot of seats taken for short trips on longer runs either.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You know it could also be that Amtrak is not in the short haul, commuter zone business. And in fact NJT may actually have exclusive rights within the state of NJ or the realm of NJT (NYP). This is so Amtrak doesn't take a way from NJT. It always was with all railroads that there was a certain number of stops or amount of miles out of NYC (and other terminals) terminals which were outbound to pick up passengers only, inbound to detrain passengers only. This was to protect the local business and not bring down the per capita on long distance trains. I even think this was part of the passenger tarriffs and therefore had to be obeyed.
In 1993 (AIRC) I rode the German ICE trainsaet in Metroliner service from NYP to WAS. It cost $90.00.The train stopped at Newark,then it was nonstop to Washington.The train had a full service diner and dinner was delicious.
henry6NJT may actually have exclusive rights within the state of NJ or the realm of NJT (NYP).
henry6there was a certain number of stops or amount of miles out of NYC (and other terminals) terminals which were outbound to pick up passengers only, inbound to detrain passengers only.
timzTry Amtrak's website and see if they'll sell you a ticket Newark to NY. I bet they will
I know Lackawanna main line trains would only pick up westbound and let off eastbound at Newark, Brick Church, Summit, and Dover. Likewise the Erie on its mainline had restrictins east of Suffern and the NYC Harmon to GCT. PRR I do believe had such restrictons at Newark and New Brunswick on long distance trains (except NY Philadelphia trains).
But as I said, too, Amtrak is not in the short passenger haul business, especially in NJ. It is an overhead for them so let NJT have the business, afterall it is their job.
henry6PRR I do believe had such restrictons at Newark and New Brunswick on long distance trains (except NY Philadelphia trains).
And knowing railroads and timetables like I do, I am sure that each day, each train were different from one day, week, month, and timetable to the next. It is one of those aspects of real railroading that makes anything a modler does or has to do or wants to do as prototypical! If you look hard enough or wait long enough, it just might happen!
henry6each day, each train were different from one day, week, month, and timetable to the next.
Timetable were usually quite precise...you just had to have the most current, the one in effect to be sure. You might be able to board #1 at A but only if you have a ticket for J or beyond, but you could board #3 for trips to C and beyond or only L and beyond. But your timetable had to be current.
One of the problems that did come up, like you suggest, would come about because of the Official Guide. Railroads and travel agencies would subscribe to the Guide but only the top offices, agents, or agencies would have the most current. Say the railroad had 50 subscriptions but 200 open ticket offices. Therefor the top 50 offices would get a guide each month and then pass the older guide to stations 51-100 which in turn would send thier older guide to stations 101-150 who in turn sent thier copies on to stations 151 to 200. So the smaller, less used stations would have guides that could be up to 6 months old! Travel agencies passed their Guides on in similar fashion. So you could buy a ticket at station 198 and get to a point on your trip where the schedule or the accommodation expected would not be available. Then you had to negotiate with the conductor, Remember, too, that all timetables and Guide listings also carried the disclaimer of the railroad or carrier was not responsible for changes or misinformation because of typographical or other errors. So, yeah, you could arrive at the platform with the train and not be allowed to board because you had a ticket that was only good to D when the train only boarded people with tickets for E and beyond because you had outdated information because of an old Guide or timetable.
henry6Timetable were usually quite precise...you just had to have the most current, the one in effect to be sure.
Hard for us to imagine today, but a monthly commute ticket was good on any train that carried coaches, assuming it was scheduled to discharge pax at your destination. (The only caveat: you might have to pay a bit extra for leaving from NY Penn instead of downtown.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.