June figures are some what interesting. Revenue down 11% from 2008. I'll leave the financials to others. Comparsions are from June 2008 unless otherwise specified.
Number of riders down 8%,. Revenue Passenger miles down 6.5% More about that later. Available seat miles up 4%. So load factor down 6%.
Equipment: 23.1% of locomotives out of service (OOS) vs 20.7%. Passenger equippment 12.8% vs 12.5%. This is better than May 09.
Expenses per seat mile $.215 vs $2.30; per train mile $69.78 vs 73.52 ( this is really an ambigious item since train length would affect this metric); Revenue per seat mile and train mile down. First two items an improvement and hope it continue but more later.
Ridership and load factor down from 2008 and find that they did not increase this year as much from the FEB 2008 low ( normal each year) from the February figures . Trips in June were over the revised forecast (don't know revision date) which may be good.
NEC ridership: ACELA and conventional trips north of NYP were even from 2008 but the Thames River Bridge closing in 2008 make that number not meaninful. Down 9% SOUTH of NYP.
Short Distance ridership: Whole down 12%. The only positive was Lincoln service up 14.5%. The real drag down was Surfliner service down a wopping 25% (Revenue dn 30%). Northern CA routes down 9%. The only small losses were on NYP - Albany dn 2% and Harrisburg Dn 1%. These short haul drops have caused most of the decreases but not all.
Long Distance ridership: Whole down 3.5%. This was almost all lost on the 4 Florida trains which were down 9 - 10%. The Cal Zephyr was up 33.5% (revenue up 52% probably not having to pay for 2008 cancellations) but not meaninful because of 2008 flood damage.
Sleeper ridership: Down systemwide 2%. Cal Z up of course and Florida down 10%. Other sleeper routes essentially same as last year probably because of full sleepers both 08 and 09 on non florida routes..
A completely useless metric is the 2.4 Gallons per train mile (would vary depending on how many locos and cars each year) but same as last year. Suggestion would be gallons per ton mile and then even more precise metric would be seat miles per gallon for each type of equipment. AMTRAK may be able to provide these figures that way when they finish their upgrade of fuel reporting for each locomotive.
The June on time performance fell somewhat just as it did in 2008 which may be a result of ROW work. Amtrak is even concerned with the drop in OTP south of NYP but does not break it out. ACELA 88%, NEC 81% with most delays south of NYP; Keystone 93%. Low performers were Auto train 80%, Palmetto 35%; Meteor 31%; Star 41% for a florida average of 47%. No wonder the Fl ridership is down. Other poor performers were Cardinal 28% but they maintained their ridership ???. Carolinian 30% ridership way down. Best on time Coast Starlight 90%; Texas Eagle 88%; Sunset way up. Short hauls that were over 90% Capitols, Mules, Pennsylvanian, San Joaquins, and beleive it or not the Vermonter at 95%.
Car repair not stimulus: Upgraded 14 Amfleets vs 17 planned but year to date are at 115 down 12. Superliners 9 completed vs 7 and YTD 144 down 15. AEMs --YTD 2 down 2; does anyone know if any of these are upgrades the AC traction? All rolling stock 283 with YTD plan 319. (89% of 2009 YTD plan). The rolling stock capital expenses are down as a result approximately $19M.
Capital expenses that are all under costs and behind schedule more than 20% are Stations, ACSES, CETA, CAT, Frequency converters, substations, transmission lines, Wilmington Station, Amfleet, Locomotives, Superliners, Surfliners, ACELA. Total YTD spent $162M YTD plan $264m. It will be interesting to see if they can catch up by Sept 30? Other capital projects different metrics.
When you look at the actual # (not % increases/decreases) of passengers served by trains like the Sunset and Cardinal, it is clear that some LD service should be dropped.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm When you look at the actual # (not % increases/decreases) of passengers served by trains like the Sunset and Cardinal, it is clear that some LD service should be dropped.
Both those trains cited are three day a week operations. You may be right however if they operated 7 days a week then a muddy picture could emerge.
The Cardinal operates in West Va Su, We, Fr. Assuming ( a rather iffy long shot ) daily operation with another weekend day and multiplying June's numbers by 7/3 + adding the Hoosier you get figures that compare and are more than the ridership of many other LD trains Other factors are 1. NEC to Charlottesville has a large ridership (actual #s site was down will edit when possible) 2. Cincinnati has a large O&Ds. 3. IND has twice almost exactly 7/3s of Cincinnati (remember Hoosiers) boardings (2008 latest figures).
The Sunset is lower than Cardinal and operates both weekend days (at different locations) but the same type of math still gives more than other long distance trains.
Conclusion: Not enough data to predict ridership but food for thought. Lack of equipment is still a constraint and cannot be mitigated in the short run. Cardinal certainly goes through some of the most scenic east coast geography. Charlottesville Cardinal in middle of day both ways so will not be covered by the new Va service or the Crescent
Cardinal: "scenic east coast geography" not enough justification to continue a train that only carried 78867 passengers in 9 months. That's only 8763 / month or about 625 / train run.
Sunset: even worse - 57011 in 9 months.
Again, it is allocation of resources. Whether by central planning or market, it is clear that these trains are a waste and the equipment could be better used somewhere else. There are probably other trains (Palmetto, Capital Limited, City of NO: sadly - I was a roommate of Steve Goodman in college) that should be eliminated while other routes could get more service.
Number of passengers per train impressive if all travel full route...what is the milage per passenger. 625 passengers on the Cardinal would be great full length, but if there were only 100 on the train at any given time, there might be a problem...What would be capacity of virtually any train if sold out? Say, five cars. That would mean probably no more than 500 aboard at any given time. So 625 passengers might be good.
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.
I'm not sure how to get that information, but even without it, the Cardinal compares poorly with other trains. I should have said the Cardinal was 625 per day, If you add in the Hoosier State, that's only another 23129 passengers over 9 months. Even worse is the Sunset Limited. Compare the figures in the June Amtrak report for those two with the Empire Builder: 359,814 passengers for the same 9 month period, 1318 per day, 659 per run. Obviously many of those passengers must be short-hauls. Nevertheless, the point is only those trains that are well-patronized by the public, long distance or short distance, should be retained and/or expanded.
"Quote "There are probably other trains (Palmetto, Capital Limited, City of NO"":
Cardinal answers
Note: These three trains you named all have fewer riders if you compare them to the Cardinal on a seven day basis. As said before that may be reaching.
In the Cardinal's favor it now only takes two train sets to cover the schedule with a day lay over at NYP except on Mo and Tu L/O 2 days. Does this L/O take up space at Ivy City? To operate a 7 day a week schedule would only take one more train set + spare cars. That set could probably be partially filled by not needing a dedicated set for the Hoosier. The Cardinal / Hoosier is used to ferry cars to and from Beech Grove mainly to/from Chicago. Some cars and Locos go Wash - Indy and the loss of this route would slow arrivals at Beech by a day.(using Capitol Ltd to ferry). The Cardinal on time performance of June was an ugly 28%. It appears that although CSX is a big culprid that the Buckingham Branch RR is also causing a lot of delays. Their 144 mile operation has delays of over 30 minutes for the last three trips both ways (AVG 36 MPH). Their 3:30 - 3;40 schedules is an average speed of 40 MPH not a rocket. Maybe AMTRAK needs to get a connection in Charlottesville to the NS (SOU) line 44 miles (SOU) vs 47 (C&O) miles and 52/57 (SOU) minutes vs 73/ 80 minutes (C&O) Scheduled. Actual times C&O (BB) worse -- lost another 15 minutes average Charlottesville - Culpeper each direction last three trips.
The Sunset is a different animal. If the proposed extension of the Eagle is implemented the Sunset's three train sets can cover a daily extension of the Eagle. I have often wondered if AMTRAK counts the Eagle passengers west of San Antonio as on the Sunset or as Eagle passengers?. Also if a passenger boards the Sunset west of SAS on an Eagle car which train gets the credit?? SAM1 any ideas?? The connecting train SAS - NOL will only take two train sets + spare cars. Will this mean a passenger count for the passengers going through SAS? This may be a better allocation of equipment??
henry6 Number of passengers per train impressive if all travel full route...what is the milage per passenger. 625 passengers on the Cardinal would be great full length, but if there were only 100 on the train at any given time, there might be a problem...What would be capacity of virtually any train if sold out? Say, five cars. That would mean probably no more than 500 aboard at any given time. So 625 passengers might be good.
According to a NARP Fact Sheet for the Cardinal, it carried 106,710 passengers in 2008, i.e. 93.6 per cent in coach and the remainder in the sleeper. The average trip was 404 miles, i.e. 390 miles for coach passengers and 613 miles for sleeping car passengers. Only 2.2 per cent of the passengers rode the train from end point to end point, whilst 60.7 per cent of them rode less than 400 miles. The average load factor was 54.9 per cent.
One should weigh NARP's figures with a degree of suspicion. According to Amtrak's figures, the Cardinal carried 109,195 passengers in FY08, of which 6,856 rode in a sleeper. NARP's sleeper figures agree with Amtrak's numbers, but the total is off by 2,485 passengers.
The Cardinal lost $15.1 million or an average of 34.2 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation in FY08. Through the first nine months of FY09 it has lost $13.2 million. If this trend holds through September, which is the end of the fiscal year, the Cardinal will lose approximately $17.6 million in FY09. The average load factor through the first nine months of FY09 was down to 52.1 per cent.
I see nothing in the numbers published by Amtrak or quoted by NARP to suggest that this train would do any better if it ran daily. It along with the Sunset Limited should be discontinued. It will be interesting to see what happens to these trains as Senator Byrd's influence in the Senate wanes and Senator Hutchison, who has been a strong supporter of Amtrak's Texas trains, returns to Texas to make a run for the governor's office.
Yes, it would appear that several trains should be excised at once. The Cardinal is on track to do worse even this year. Making it a daily train would only increase the loss. Perhaps the political changes Sam1 mentioned might lead to a sensible analysis of where to place resources. I hope so, but then there are stories of reviving the Noth Coast Hiawatha. Even though the EB is the best of LD trains, adding a parallel service seems like just another waste.
I may sound contradictory here but: isn't the Cardinal really a "political" train in that it runs at the request of one or more important congressmen? As to daily vs. tri weekly, I would like to see a real survey done enroute based on daily or better service. Where there is "service" rather than where there is just a train, there is a difference in public participation.
henry6 I may sound contradictory here but: isn't the Cardinal really a "political" train in that it runs at the request of one or more important congressmen? As to daily vs. tri weekly, I would like to see a real survey done enroute based on daily or better service. Where there is "service" rather than where there is just a train, there is a difference in public participation.
You're probably confusing the "Cardinal" with a short-haul train that was operated at the behest of the Honorable Harley Staggers. The route of the "Cardinal" is actually two legs (Chicago-Cincinnati and Cincinnati-Washington) of the original Amtrak network. It may have been a daily run at one point, but my memory is fuzzy on this matter.
Sam1The Cardinal lost $15.1 million or an average of 34.2 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation in FY08. Through the first nine months of FY09 it has lost $13.2 million. If this trend holds through September, which is the end of the fiscal year, the Cardinal will lose approximately $17.6 million in FY09. The average load factor through the first nine months of FY09 was down to 52.1 per cent.
Load factor would seem to be a key statistic in deciding which current Amtrak routes should continue or be dropped. The public is speaking loudly in favor of discontinuing a train that is only being used at barely 50% of its capacity.
schlimmLoad factor would seem to be a key statistic in deciding which current Amtrak routes should continue or be dropped. The public is speaking loudly in favor of discontinuing a train that is only being used at barely 50% of its capacity
Load factor will lead you down a primrose path. Several trains not mentioned have a lower load factor. If a certain train has a heavy load on one segment ie Chicago - St. Paul and many empty seats otherwise the load factor is down. CHI- MSP may be 90% but rest 40%. If cars were dropped in St. Paul then load factors would climb with the same number of passengers. The Cardinal has high loads to Charlottesville from the NEC and higher from Cincinnati - CHI. Mid point is lower.
This is the problem of one trip (or less) a day. The load factors cannot be adjusted by capacity (seat miles) from lower demand points.SAM1 can point to many of these examples on the Sunset.
blue streak 1 schlimmLoad factor would seem to be a key statistic in deciding which current Amtrak routes should continue or be dropped. The public is speaking loudly in favor of discontinuing a train that is only being used at barely 50% of its capacity Load factor will lead you down a primrose path. Several trains not mentioned have a lower load factor. If a certain train has a heavy load on one segment ie Chicago - St. Paul and many empty seats otherwise the load factor is down. CHI- MSP may be 90% but rest 40%. If cars were dropped in St. Paul then load factors would climb with the same number of passengers. The Cardinal has high loads to Charlottesville from the NEC and higher from Cincinnati - CHI. Mid point is lower. This is the problem of one trip (or less) a day. The load factors cannot be adjusted by capacity (seat miles) from lower demand points.SAM1 can point to many of these examples on the Sunset.
Load factor is just one of several metrics that should be reviewed by management to determine the utility of a train. But a low load factor should be a trigger for further investigation.
If the Cardinal has relatively high low factors on its end point segments, but a low load factor in between, this argues for dropping the train in favor of day trains between Charlottesville and the NEC cities, as well as Cincinnati to Chicago. This is the position that I have taken since joining the Trains forums. Long distance trains make no sense, but relatively short distance trains in high density corridors make a lot of sense.
Amtrak's Monthly Operating Report shows load factors, or at least provides the information to calculate them, for the route, but I don't see the information for segments. Maybe I have missed them.
NARP has Amtrak figures showing the top city pairs by ridership and revenue for 2008. Indianapolis to Chicago is the top segment. Washington to Charlottesville is #4, whilst Charlottesville to Chicago is #5, and New York to Charlottesville is # 7. These are the figures for ridership; the order of the segments changes somewhat for top city pairs by revenues.
Sam1 If the Cardinal has relatively high low factors on its end point segments, but a low load factor in between, this argues for dropping the train in favor of day trains between Charlottesville and the NEC cities, as well as Cincinnati to Chicago. This is the position that I have taken since joining the Trains forums. Long distance trains make no sense, but relatively short distance trains in high density corridors make a lot of sense.
That at one time was my thought but after looking at the length of schedules it might take more equipment to cover the trips except no sleeper (s) . Nine hours Cincinnati - Chicago is hard to cover with one set and get civilized hours. The sleepers could of course be used elsewhere.
Sam1 ; The 8.4% from 2008 drop in riders (?) in July is much more troubling. No breakdown on the areas of loss have been disclosed but do you suspect the NEC as a primary loss area?
blue streak 1That at one time was my thought but after looking at the length of schedules it might take more equipment to cover the trips except no sleeper (s) . Nine hours Cincinnati - Chicago is hard to cover with one set and get civilized hours. The sleepers could of course be used elsewhere. Sam1 ; The 8.4% from 2008 drop in riders (?) in July is much more troubling. No breakdown on the areas of loss have been disclosed but do you suspect the NEC as a primary loss area?
I checked the June monthly . All NEC is down only 4.9%, and Acela is actually a tad up, 0.1%. LD is down 3.6%. It is "other short distance" that is getting killed, down a whopping 12.3%. Remember, last June had gasoline prices above $4.00, so that may be a factor.
All travel is down: rail, commuter, long distance, highway, and air. As is shipping/freight traffic. I would not react to the numbers the same as if only rail was down. Nor should the downturn in travel, no matter what mode, indicate that we are finished traveling and shipping and don't need roads, railroads or airways any more. There is a future. And one in that all those modes will be used. So, not is the time to plan and to build and not knit pick over a handful of numbers which may or may not mean anything but for the moment.
I guess the point is that we must use our resources wisely toward having a HSR network supplemented by some 110 mph corridors. LD is a relic that drags the whole system down. Cruise trains should be in the province of private operators, if they are to contunue.
schlimm I guess the point is that we must use our resources wisely toward having a HSR network supplemented by some 110 mph corridors. LD is a relic that drags the whole system down. Cruise trains should be in the province of private operators, if they are to contunue.
Yes, we mus use our resources wisely. But as for the rest of your statement: maybe, maybe not.
henry6schlimm I guess the point is that we must use our resources wisely toward having a HSR network supplemented by some 110 mph corridors. LD is a relic that drags the whole system down. Cruise trains should be in the province of private operators, if they are to contunue. Yes, we mus use our resources wisely. But as for the rest of your statement: maybe, maybe not.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
One of the things I point out in commuter and local rail discussions is that they must be apporached not on a "lets run a train" but rather "how do we provide a service". In effect, the same has to be applied to LD services. Is this to provide a service to long distance travelers or is this to run a long distance train. I believe that if running a long distance train is the goal, it runs at a loss. But if a service concept is applied, you count the train as part of the service and thus look at the loss factors in a different light. If taking it away from the service causes a deterioration of the service, then the loss may be tolerated. But if taking it away does not deteriorate the service, then the loss should be eliminated by eliminating the train. Also there are questions of equpment and crew moves which such a train may run to help defray the costs...wouldn't getting even 25% of your costs back on a deadhead move be better than taking 100% of the costs out of your pocket? If it only were so simple as to "run trains" rather than "provide a service"!
henry6Also there are questions of equpment and crew moves which such a train may run to help defray the costs...wouldn't getting even 25% of your costs back on a deadhead move be better than taking 100% of the costs out of your pocket? If it only were so simple as to "run trains" rather than "provide a service"!
henry6: You may be on the right track ( no pun intended ). My understanding is the proposed daily Eagle CHI - LAX will use no more crews or equipment of the Eagle / Sunset present combination (will be better utilized ) with the crews turning at Dallas each way and restoring the connection to the Coast Starlight at LAX. Do you think that this will increase the number of RPMs San Antonio - LAX by the 7/3 rds fraction posted above? Also the proposed daily SAT - NOL with connections at SAT will it increase RPMs by 7/3 ?
To that end, and addressing the Cardinal at the same time, the Cardinal is used for deadhead car moves in and out of Beech Grove Shops from both the east and the west giving it a non passenger value but a service value.
blue streak 1Do you think that this will increase the number of RPMs San Antonio - LAX by the 7/3 rds fraction posted above? Also the proposed daily SAT - NOL with connections at SAT will it increase RPMs by 7/3 ?
It doesn't necessarity follow that daily service on LD runs will increase riders by 7/3. The market of people wanting to use that service may well be saturated already or if one more RT were added. Without a market survey (expensive) it is hard to predict. The question that needs to be asked is where would LD coaches and sleepers be best used? It is possible that equipment from trains like the Sunset, Eagle, City of NO, Cardinal, Palmetto, etc. would be better utilized on expamded service on other routes.
Deadhead service? Hardly a justification for a passenger route, IMO.
schlimmIt doesn't necessarity follow that daily service on LD runs will increase riders by 7/3. The market of people wanting to use that service may well be saturated already or if one more RT were added. Without a market
Oh I agree. That was the reason for the question. Did the Eagle only no Sunset; at one time run a fourth trip SAT - LAX? If so are those ridership figures lost in electronic oblivion or can they be recovered to see what one additional trip did to ridership and did the other three trips loose riders??
schlimm Deadhead service? Hardly a justification for a passenger route, IMO.
To answer this: why not...if you are moving a trainset and crew between two points and it either fits into the pattern of service or is an addition outside that pattern, why not offer to collect fares and recoup some money? Not saying it should be done all the time, but there are times when it might be prudent.
As for a comment I made earlier to the effect that all transportation is down. Reports in the New York State media today are that the New York State Thruway Authority says 3 million fewere vehicles used the road in the first six months of this year compared to last year with trucks down 12% and overall traffic donw 3%. They further state that the economy is the main reason for the drop especially for truck traffic but also that higher tolls was a reason more for automobile drivers.
My comment: such a drop in rail service/traffic would be a call for reviewing the system with an eye toward elimination or scaling back of funding and operations Here, because it is the highway lobby's balywick, there is no such talk.
henry6schlimm Deadhead service? Hardly a justification for a passenger route, IMO. To answer this: why not...if you are moving a trainset and crew between two points and it either fits into the pattern of service or is an addition outside that pattern, why not offer to collect fares and recoup some money? Not saying it should be done all the time, but there are times when it might be prudent.
I suppose the question is: does the need to deadhead occur 3X / week? Can the cars be routed on other, more heavily patronized routes?
henry6overall traffic donw 3%.
I don't think we should base decisions on retaining/expanding service on percentage changes in ridership, unless it is a huge trend over time. Rather, look at the actual ridership numbers and potential ridership based on population nodes on the specific route.
If you are pointing at the Cardinal you have to understand that it is the only Amtrak route through Indianapolis and Beech Grove, so what other routing would be available that isn't circuituous and time efficient? You'd still have to run a train over the route to deliver and pick up the cars. An advantage of a scheduled revenue train I would think is that it orders a discipline and schedule to the work.
henry6If you are pointing at the Cardinal you have to understand that it is the only Amtrak route through Indianapolis and Beech Grove, so what other routing would be available that isn't circuituous and time efficient? You'd still have to run a train over the route to deliver and pick up the cars.
Not to belabor this, but perhaps it would be cheaper to send the repair work to wherever it goes by way of a freight rather than an entire, crewed train? Perhaps a state-subsidized short-haul corridor from Indy to Chicago train? If not, why continue to have the major repair shop off-line?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.