Henry: I apologize for a lack of documentation. These figures were from the Amtrak passenger website, under "News and Media" then "State Fact Sheets" (Indiana and Illinois). My background is academia and healthcare (clinical psychologist) but I worked in management in retailing before going for my doctorate. But I've been a rail buff since the 1950's growing up in west suburban Chicago. You have much more knowledge than I in this area but all of us (oltmannd, sam1, blue streak, Paul M., etc.) have perspectives that are valuable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm In FY 2008, Cincinnati had only 15,067 people "boarding and alighting" (75 per run each way of the Cardinal). That's a pretty low number. .
In FY 2008, Cincinnati had only 15,067 people "boarding and alighting" (75 per run each way of the Cardinal). That's a pretty low number.
.
These are your numbers...15,067 in Cincinatti in FY1008 and 75 each way or 150 total per day. That, in service terms is good enough to continue and even expand service in my estimation. Again, I don't know your expertise in this subject, whether you work in transportation and markting or not, so I don't know how to answer you or how to accept your statements. If you are in the business, run trains or taxi cabs, or buses, I can, and will, accept what you say without arguement.
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.
Henry: Your comparison with a commuter run is apples and oranges. The numbers speak for themselves. Anyway you look at it, very few people (75) ride a train like the Cardinal. If we had unlimited funding, maybe we could preserve a train like that. But we do not and there are other cities that we could serve with new or more service. For example: in Illinois, there are 9 cities (NOT including Chicago) with more boardings and alightings than Indianapolis, such as Champaign with 151,732 or Bloomington with 180,589 or even Quincy with 50,298. This is the way things work in business and in the public sector at universities (both in my background). If I offered a class and less than 20 enrolled (out of a capacity of 35) it got cancelled. rationing resources based on demand is part of many systems, capitalistic and other.
Sch
schlimm henry6By whose standard? 75 per run per day from one station is pretty good for any single train...where do the people go, how far do they travel, repeat customers all, new customers everyday? Nope, I don't think thats a bad number at all for a three times a week train. It could double or triple if the pundits who call for such service (like me) had their way! I don't think there is a justification for service such as the Cardinal. During FY08 Amtrak' Cardinal (from Indianapolis onward to Cinci) served the following Indiana locations: City Boardings + AlightingsConnersville 647Indianapolis 34,089 I don't think even rail-supporting taxpayers wish to subsidize the 4 souls using the Cardinal to and from Connersville each day it runs.
henry6By whose standard? 75 per run per day from one station is pretty good for any single train...where do the people go, how far do they travel, repeat customers all, new customers everyday? Nope, I don't think thats a bad number at all for a three times a week train. It could double or triple if the pundits who call for such service (like me) had their way!
I don't think there is a justification for service such as the Cardinal.
During FY08 Amtrak' Cardinal (from Indianapolis onward to Cinci) served the following Indiana locations:
City Boardings + AlightingsConnersville 647Indianapolis 34,089
I don't think even rail-supporting taxpayers wish to subsidize the 4 souls using the Cardinal to and from Connersville each day it runs.
Schlimm, I don't know what your ;background is. A lot of people unfamiliar with transportation services often come to the conclusions you do. But those operating know why they do what they do and what results they expect to be able to live with. I have heard some rail against 8, 10, and 12 car commuter trains leaving or arriving at far terminals empty but don't realize the insidiousness of picking up or dropping cars at every station; they rarely see the train arrving at city terminal fully loaded. I know when I ran daisey picker specials I set and knew my break even point, so I do understand some about this, but not enough to say that what I say is gospel. I do, however, feel that the Cardinal numbers as presented, while not great, are not ones to chop off the train for. Ever been out on the interstate in the country ata 3AM? Nobody there, so why maintain it? That's not the answer there either.
schlimm In FY 2008, Cincinnati had only 15,067 people "boarding and alighting" (75 per run each way of the Cardinal). That's a pretty low number.
By whose standard? 75 per run per day from one station is pretty good for any single train...where do the people go, how far do they travel, repeat customers all, new customers everyday? Nope, I don't think thats a bad number at all for a three times a week train. It could double or triple if the pundits who call for such service (like me) had their way!
You probably have a good question...but argueing your point with me ain't gonna get an answer...put the queston to Amtrak if you want a real, difinitive answer.
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?
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.
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.
schlimm Deadhead service? Hardly a justification for a passenger route, IMO.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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 ?
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"!
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.
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.
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/)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.