I have rode in Amtrak's sleepers-deluxe bedroom style with its' own bathroom. More roomy than the old Pullman bedroom was.
I also rode on CP "Canadian" in the sleepers and they were the very old style with curtains and just a berth. I never saw any like that in the US, they had stopped using them by that time. All their accommodations were the bedroom, closed door style. This was in the early-mid 60's.
I hope Amtrak will be able to continue their long distance service, but contracting out the sleepers might be an option. I know I would prefer to pay extra to ride in a sleeper coach on a long trip, even the Roomette. I rode enough coaches with my parents "back in the day" and remember never sleeping very well. Their seats were not as comfy as the ones Amtrak uses, except for UP City of St. Louis, it had a leg rest that pulled out from under the seat so you could stretch out and rest your legs. And people were constantly roaming around all night, especially men heading to the smoking lounge. And traveling by myself, I prefer to be in a private room. Dad always put Mom & I together in the coach and he'd sit with the stranger.
But I would not pay for a very pricey trip which is what the private car owners might charge. I'm definitely middle class and watch how I spend my money.
I think you are describing a win-win situation. Amtrak provides a core nationwide rail alternative for coach service, insurance protection, and nationwide marketing. Maybe even like some commuter operations contracts out operating crews, service workers and maintaince services. Opens the door for the private market to provide food service, sleepers, auto carriers, express or perishable services.
What I understood is the Gov. Christie intended to use tax money beyond maintenance and repair requiprements to add lanes, improve intersections, etc.
One more historical note, Dixie.
Here in New Jersey in the 90's New Jersey Transit at one point suddenly raised fares significantly. As I recall, the increase was in excess of 10 per cent. After that increase so many people stopped riding trains that NJT actually lost money.
In 2010 our present Governor, Chrisri Christie, cut NJT funds so much that NJT increased over all rail fares by 25 per cent and abolished excursion fares. However instead of loosing customers NJT's train ridership held stead and then started to increase and today it is at the highest point ever. Why is this? One reason is that Governor Christie has also increased tolls on our toll roads which many people use to commute. The increase is far more than it required to maintain the roads and represents a tax on drivers who use those roads. (The toll increase had been planned by the previous administration with the revenue to be used to build 2 new rail tunnels under the Hudson River. Governor Christie cancelled the tunnels but kept the tax increase).
Certainly toll free public roads have a lot to do with people's transportation choices.
Dixie Flyer The issue is how do we get the middleclass to ride trains? I am sure they represent a large portion of the airline tickets sold (830 million?). If it is a corridor train time needs to be within an hour of car time and under four hours to compete wiith air travel. On a long distance trip (anything over 4 hours) involving night travel the middleclass will fly vs traveling in a coach. Offering sleeping car service is a new experience for most Americans whether you offer sections, slumbercoaches or other high occupancy sleeping quarters. Furthermore these new passengers would probally accept riding coach before and after the sleeper porton of a route to keep the price down. You treat sleeping car service like Norfork Southern's Triple Crown roadrailer service. You gather your load as efficently as possible, run a sold out train between two points and distribute as efficiently as possible. Whatever is done Amtrak needs to grow to like 100 million passengers to improve its stability and political cloute..How do we get there?
The issue is how do we get the middleclass to ride trains? I am sure they represent a large portion of the airline tickets sold (830 million?).
If it is a corridor train time needs to be within an hour of car time and under four hours to compete wiith air travel.
On a long distance trip (anything over 4 hours) involving night travel the middleclass will fly vs traveling in a coach. Offering sleeping car service is a new experience for most Americans whether you offer sections, slumbercoaches or other high occupancy sleeping quarters. Furthermore these new passengers would probally accept riding coach before and after the sleeper porton of a route to keep the price down.
You treat sleeping car service like Norfork Southern's Triple Crown roadrailer service. You gather your load as efficently as possible, run a sold out train between two points and distribute as efficiently as possible.
Whatever is done Amtrak needs to grow to like 100 million passengers to improve its stability and political cloute..How do we get there?
Exactly!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There are three other things that I think do help Amtrak, Don.
The first is gas that is approaching $4.00 a gallon.
The second in the east is our many toll roads and bridges.
The third is all of the security checks associated with flying. I've heard some real horror stories by people who use certain medical devices (for example, an insulin pump) and were suspected of being terrorists.
1. Leverage what works. The NEC works. Look at market extensions from the NEC like the Lynchburg train, the additional Richmond train and the soon-to-be Norfolk train.
2. Push and reward productivity. Cut costs like mad. Stop rewarding "fiefdom building".
3. Run trains where there are people. Run them during the day. Avoid running trains overnight. The "businessman's streamliner" schedule that is the staple of the Eastern LD routes (and some western ones) set sail long ago. Let it go.
4. Refocus the advocacy groups away from defending the status quo and on holding Amtrak accountable. Focus on new projects and trains where there are clear benefits that exceed the costs to build and operate.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
It's all right here: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/271/180/Private_Car_Tariff.pdf
$2.10 a car mile, for starters.
Anyone know how much the private operator of the Chicago to New Orleans luxury service will have to pay Amtrak to tow its cars?
Approximately five years ago I rode the EB from Milwaukee to Portland. The train had a private business car attached to the rear from Chicago to Minneapolis, where it was uncoupled. Whilst I was watching the process, a seemingly informed supervisory looking type told me that the operator had to pay $600 to have the car taken off the back of the train and moved approximately a mile to a private siding. Sounded pretty pricy to me.
Who would spend money for luxury? A good question, and you may be right. If the Chicago - New Orleans experiment is successful, then it will demonstrate that there are travelers who will spend money for luxury. Then my Boston - Newport News experiment would make sense. But you may be right, and we will just have to see how Chicago - NO works out.
The same people who fly first class and who would like to sample what the luxury trains of the past had to offer. That is the only market and it may be far too limited to be profitable. I know when I was using the last of the private railroads "great streamliners" I always did consider costs. Sometimes I would splerge and use "creative accounting" to make my expense account acceptable, even with receipts required, a roomette on the Panama Limited with "The Kings Dinner" and a good tip to a helpful porter. Usually, when sluimbercoach or sleepercoach space was available, I would choose it instead of a roomette. Traveling from St. Louis or Cincinnati or Columbus or Dayton to Boston meant coach to Cleveland and a roomette or slubmercoach to Boston.
When I couild afford it, I would have vacation money and time on private car trips, including many on Dick Horstmann's LV 353, on Pullman Classic Lmtd.'s PRR Mountain View, and on George Pins, now Levine's PRR 120. This was real real luxury in every sense, and my share of the expenses was always more than what 1st class fares and roomette charges and meals would have been (usually a lot more). I think there MAY be people who are willing to pay to convert a routine business trip into a bit of a cruise and expect to be pampered and are willing to pay for it.
John WR Thank you for the link to this interesting report, Carnej. I can understand NARP's consternation, especially with this kind of conclusion: " The elimination of sleeper service alone, without the elimination of any associated food service or other amenity, produces a net loss on an operating cost basis under assumptions B and C on most routes." (Emphasis added.) Actually, this report is not about eliminating sleeping car service. Almost all of the loss is attributed to the dining car. It seems to me there is a simpler solution. Charge sleeping car passengers for meals just as coach passengers are charged for meals. According to the report, that would cover almost all of the loss. In 2005 President George W. Bush did oppose Amtrak and wanted to eliminate all subsidy for it. That would have driven Amtrak into bankruptcy. However, by October, 2008 President Bush had revised his position. The Wall Street Journal reported he signed legislation that doubled the Amtrak subsidy. Here is the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298615110699903.html
Thank you for the link to this interesting report, Carnej. I can understand NARP's consternation, especially with this kind of conclusion: " The elimination of sleeper service alone, without the elimination of any associated food service or other amenity, produces a net loss on an operating cost basis under assumptions B and C on most routes." (Emphasis added.)
Actually, this report is not about eliminating sleeping car service. Almost all of the loss is attributed to the dining car. It seems to me there is a simpler solution. Charge sleeping car passengers for meals just as coach passengers are charged for meals. According to the report, that would cover almost all of the loss.
In 2005 President George W. Bush did oppose Amtrak and wanted to eliminate all subsidy for it. That would have driven Amtrak into bankruptcy. However, by October, 2008 President Bush had revised his position. The Wall Street Journal reported he signed legislation that doubled the Amtrak subsidy. Here is the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298615110699903.html
The following quote from the report suggests that elimination of the sleeping cars and dinning cars was a critical element in the IG's repport:
“Our analysis eliminates the revenues and expenses associated with sleeping cars and food service. Overall, our analysis shows that eliminating sleeping cars, dinning cars (sleeping class fares include meals in the dinning car) and other amenities (on board entertainment, lounge seating, checked baggage service, and food and beverage service on Amtrak’s long distance routes could save between $75 million and $158 million per year in operating costs and avoid an additional $79 million in planned capital expenditures.”
I find it hard to conclude that the IG was not recommending the elimination of sleeping car service. However, the report does allow for the possibility of modified sleeping car service, i.e. trimmed down, but it would still not be able to cover its capital costs.
The report recommends that Amtrak study the recommendations, direct and otherwise; and review its operations of the long distance trains for potential cost savings. The Amtrak Board of Directors, which was a recipient of the report, apparently agreed to take the IG's findings on board.
Irrespective of the IG's recommendations, few if any changes have been implemented. Amtrak is running its long distance trains as if it is the 1950s, ala sleeping cars, dinning cars, lounge cars, checked baggage, etc. And it is losing more money on them than ever before, i.e. $515.1 million in FY09; $569.6 million in FY10, and $615.4 million in FY11. And these numbers are before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges.
This post was an inadvertent duplication. I deleted it.
Technically Amtrak has been insolvent since near the get go. It is a ward of the state; it cannot be driven into bankruptcy. It can, however, have its funding withdrawn or decreased,in which case most of its operations would have to be discontinued.
daveklepper This would work for the overnight business market for expense account and middle-class travelers. It would not work for long distance vacation travel because the high occupancy sleeping quarters would feel claustrophobic to people who demand luxury.
This would work for the overnight business market for expense account and middle-class travelers. It would not work for long distance vacation travel because the high occupancy sleeping quarters would feel claustrophobic to people who demand luxury.
"People who demand luxury?" Why should Amtrak be spending so much money to serve so few at a loss? Forget about fares in the 60's corrected for inflation. The rails lost money on pullman services then. Instead, you would have to determine the true cost (not just direct costs but also the difference between a luxury sleeper car with 55% occupancy, if that, replacing a coach with much higher occupancy) to provide "luxury" now and charge accordingly. I doubt if enough people would pay. Pretty clearly no operator is making a go of that type of service in the recent past or currently.
Sam1 blue streak 1 sam -- link to report ? This IG's report has been around for a long time. It can be found at: www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf. Other sources include the BLS calculators. The calculations are my own.
blue streak 1 sam -- link to report ?
sam -- link to report ?
This IG's report has been around for a long time. It can be found at:
www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf.
Other sources include the BLS calculators. The calculations are my own.
fixed the link so it works (all you have to do to get a link to work live is hit "enter" after you paste it into your post...)
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
This would work for the overnight business market for expense account and middle-class travelers. It would not work for long distance vacation travel because the high occupancy sleeping quarters would feel claustraphobic to people who demand luxury. I think Bostn - Washington would work well, Chciago - Twin Cities, LA - SF, Chicago - Kansas City, New York Montral, New YOrk - Cleveland. But not Chicago - West Coat or even Chicago - New YOrk. See the PUllman Chi - NO thread ofr my postings ona potnetial Boston - Wiliiamsburg market, probably requiring double the fares you would charge but including gourmet meals.
Throughout this thread it seems pretty obvious sleeper cost or subsidy is more than twice a coach cost. If you have 25 in the sleeper and your goal is 50 on the coach your sleeper cost per passenger is a minimun of double coach. If you were a private operator ways to keep costs down would include:
1) Operate your sleepers (Like the Auto Train) between city pairs where two cars cover the route with ample time for maintianance.
2) Operate at 100% occupancy. Anything less with the smaller number per car sends the price through the roof. Depend on coach travel to accumulate and disperse passengers beyond your sleeper service.
3) Use higher capacity accomidations to reduce costs. Three tier berths, open sections, duplex rooms and slumbercoaches. A single person cannot occupy a viewliner room unless they pay two rail fares and the accomidation charge.
4) Seperate the meals from sleeping car fares. I have just felt this was a ploy to blame dining car costs on sleeping car service. The origjinal Amtrak legislation was to provide full meal service on trips over (6?) hours and the availabity and quality of that service is crucial to long distance trains whether sleepers are present or not.
5) Pay Amtrak 20 coach fares per mile to haul the sleepers.
Something I noticed about current Amtrak Sleeper pricing. Amtrak uses price buckets. I noticed this in following pricing for the Texas Eagle. For some time northbound, a roomette was $168 for a particular city pair, then as the date of departure approached and/or available units diminished, the price increased to $274, then dropped to $221 a few days before departure when units were still available. Pricing southbound was $368 with 5 units and fewer remaining. Southbound sold out; northbound did not.
I note that trains 66 and 67, Boston - Newport News, overnight, do not carry any sleeping cars at the prsent time. I would think this would be a logical market for a private sleeping car operator. Possible markets include overnight Boston/Providence - Baltimore/Washington/Richmond overnight business travel, and American heritage vacation travel to Boston and Colonial Willliamsberg. On the Chicago - New Orleans route the new operators are comperting with a reasonable standard of sleeping car service that Amtrak itself provides, but Boston - Newport News might be a better test case for my idea.
John WR I do not believe NARP is the same as DOT or any of its parts. DOT is a Federal Government agency; NARP is a private organization. But I do believe that information about the 2005 IG report should be on the table so anyone who wants to may read it and draw conclusions. To hide the NARP report would be a mistake.
I do not believe NARP is the same as DOT or any of its parts. DOT is a Federal Government agency; NARP is a private organization.
But I do believe that information about the 2005 IG report should be on the table so anyone who wants to may read it and draw conclusions. To hide the NARP report would be a mistake.
NARP is definitely not a federal government agency. It is an advocacy group pushing the perceived agenda of its members. Generally speaking it lacks the resources to mount a sophisticated counter argument to the IG or anyone else for that matter.
The IG report and NARP's response are there for anyone who knows how to use a search engine, i.e. Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. to find. No one is trying to hide or surpress NARP's attack on the report. Having said that, I find NARP's attack to lack the same robust substance contained in the IG's report.
On occasion an expense account will have a credit balance due to a prior period adjustment, i.e. an overpayment in the prior period is being adjusted in the current period and shows as a credit. Without access Amtrak's accounting records, as well as the project work papers, it is impossible to know for sure.
In another audit report prepared by Amtrak's IG on billings from and payments to hoist railroads, including incentive payments, the auditors found several errors. I don't remember all the details nor do I intend to dig out the report, but over and under payments are common.
The accounting for the Zephyr appears to be correct, suggesting that the notion of prior period adjustment is the reason for the credit balance in the Sunset account.
When people don't like the results of an audit or investigation, they look for any little mistake to discredit the report. When they find an error of fact or method, they generalize it to the whole report. They rarely offer any solid support for their views.
If one believes the report is flawed, as NARP did, they should show why with the same analytical rigor that appears to have been deployed by the IG. Claiming that the report was halfhearted without any solid support is not persuasive. What makes it doubly so is that no one posting to these forums, as far as I know, has or has had access to Amtrak's accounting records. Without that access it is difficult to build a counter case against any reports issued by Amtrak or issued by independent agencies auditing or investigating Amtrak.
The problem is the DOT IG used the RPS system to account for the costs, for which it was never meant.
On Page 26, for the Sunset Limited costs, in the Direct Cost table, Payments to Host RRs is shown to be negative, aka the host railroad is paying Amtrak.
They also assumed that:
"No coach passengers would abandon Amtrak if they no longer had access to amenities such as full-service dining cars, lounge cars, and checked baggage service." I don't see that being the case.
It was a pretty halfhearted report overall. Almost all the saving came from eliminating any amenities, not necessarily the sleeping cars.
John WR I searched the internet for the 2005 report on Amtrak sleeping car service that another poster refers to but I could not find it. However, I did find a report from the National Association of Railroad Passengers which rebuts the above report. A link is below in order that all may be able to read the NARP report and draw their own conclusions: http://www.narprail.org/resources/capitolhill/statements/339-narp-rebuttal-of-dot-inspector-general-report-on-dining-and-sleeping-cars
I searched the internet for the 2005 report on Amtrak sleeping car service that another poster refers to but I could not find it. However, I did find a report from the National Association of Railroad Passengers which rebuts the above report. A link is below in order that all may be able to read the NARP report and draw their own conclusions:
http://www.narprail.org/resources/capitolhill/statements/339-narp-rebuttal-of-dot-inspector-general-report-on-dining-and-sleeping-cars
The IG's report is relatively easy to find. I just Googled DOT IG's report on long distance train ..... It popped up immediately with NARP's response in the number two position.
To gain an understanding of the methodologies deployed by the IG, one must read the entire report, including the footnotes. Doing so is important for an understanding of how the findings were derived.
NARP is a special interest advocacy group. It does not have the staff to compete with the IG's horsepower. Nor is it independent. Its attack on the report's findings are heavy on opinion, light on analytics, and filled with anecdotal observations.
Here is one example: "There is no scientific way to allocate costs between coach and sleeper. Once the decision is made to run the train, any such allocation is arbitrary. Clearly, the OIG’s assignment of 100% of dining, lounge and checked baggage service costs to sleeping-car passengers is wrong."
If NARP's staff understood activity based cost accounting, they would know that their statement is incorrect. Activity based cost accounting is not a science in the sense that physics or math is a science. But it follows a rigorous methodology that is reviewed by independent reviewers at each key step along the way.
I did not interpret the report to say that 100 per cent of checked baggage costs are attributable to sleeping car passengers. Also, the checked baggage cost is not the major driver behind the loses incurred by the long distance trains.
Here is another example: "The OIG’s tables which attempt to neatly assign precise subsidy levels to coach and sleeping-car passengers are meaningless. Such phrases as the following, based on the OIG’s incorrect conclusions, are wrong and should not become the basis for public policy: “disparity between the level of subsidies for coach class service and the level of subsidies for sleeper class” and “the cost of the sleeper class and other amenities is so expensive that the revenues pale in comparison.” These phrases are polemic and misleading because they obscure the high degree of subjectivity (and, in our opinion, inaccuracy) inherent in the OIG’s attempt to segment subsidy levels by class of service." NARP does not offer any counterpoint data nor does it provide any substance in its argument that the methodologies are flawed.
The report recognized that some sort of food service would be required on long distance trains, but pointed out rightly that the current business model, i.e. dinning cars and full length lounge cars are not cost effective. NARP did not offer any supported counterpoints.
If I were the Executive Director of NARP, and I wanted to attack the report, I would have hired an independent national consulting firm like Booze, Allen & Hamilton to dig into the data with the same degree of thoroughness as the IG deployed and come up with sustainable counterpoint data. Clearly, NARP did not do that.
Amtrak's management, staff and Board of Directors had an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of the report. We don't have access to any edits that they proposed or whether they were accepted. However, it should be noted that Amtrak's management and the board accepted the IG's findings and recommendations. Had they believed that the report was seriously flawed, they probably would not have accepted it.
Subsequently, as has been discussed in these forums, the food service on Amtrak's long distance trains (dinning car and lounge car) has proven to be a major cost issue. If anything it has gotten worse since the IG's report.
I belonged to NARP for two years. I did not renew my membership because of the organization's blind adherence to a passenger train mentality that is long past its usefulness. NARP is against any change in the current model no matter how broken it is. It wants to keep running long distance passenger trains as if it is 1950.
The IG's report did not go far enough. It should have recognized that the long distance trains serve little if any public need. They should be discontinued, and the resources should be used to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones.
I used data from the IG's report to make two key points. Outsourcing the sleeping and dinning car services would still leave Amtrak's long distance trains with a substantial operating loss. Equally important, given the then subsidies required for sleeping car passengers vs. coach passengers, it is difficult to see how a private operator could cover the costs and earn a return on its invested capital, which would be the only motivate for someone to take over the sleeping and dinning cars on Amtrak's long distance trains. Admittedly, the subsidy ratios may have changed between 2004 and today, but I suspect that the subsidies for sleeping car passengers are still greater than the subsidy for coach passengers.
I did not see any mention in the report of trackage rights. I ran a search on freight, foreign, rents, tariffs, trackage, trackage rights, and rights. The only hit I got was on rights, which was a reference to labor's bargaining rights.
Without access to the IG's work papers, it would be difficult to determine whether the analysis team made any serious method and application errors. As is the case with any cost study, some assumptions have to be made, and they are subject to challenge.
I noted that one of the recommendations was to eliminate checked baggage.
Whether any of the hoist railroads would object to only one engine pulling three or four coaches has not been borne out by results at least on some routes. The Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, and Pennsylvanian, which have more than three cars, as examples, only have one engine. They are hoisted by three different railroads.
The DOT IG's investigation was an external review of Amtrak's long distance train operations. Most of the team members appear to have come from outside of Amtrak's IG office and, therefore, helped ensure the independence of the analysis. They didn't have a dog in the hunt.
NARP is an advocacy group. It slants most data to support the views of its members. As far I could determine when I belonged to it, NARP did not have a creditable accountant or financial analyst on its staff. In fact, the staff people with whom I spoke appeared to be rookies out of college for just a few years. NARP's webpage had several errors regarding airline subsidies, which I brought to the attention of management. I did not get a response. Here are two examples.
NARP claimed that the commercial airlines were the sole beneficiaries of the monies transferred from the general fund to the Aviation Trust Fund. Not true! First, air traffic control operations is covered by an earmark fund, which means that most of its costs are covered by revenues. Second, the commercial airlines make up approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the FAA's control activities. Not 100 per cent as implied by NARP. Most of the transfer goes to airport improvements, aviation safety, etc. The commercial carriers benefit from these investments, but they are not the sole beneficiaries. This information can be found in a variety of FAA documents.
NARP claimed that the legacy airlines that had filed for bankruptcy had their pension plans bailed out by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). This is true. What they didn't acknowledge is the PBGC is an insurance company owned by the United States. The carriers had paid premiums for the coverage; they were simply cashing in on the policy. In this sense they were no different than any other company that had declared bankruptcy whilst being covered by PBGC.
Based on my more than 22 years of audit and investigation experience, If people don't like the overall message of an audit and investigation report, they look for any reason under the sun to discredit it. If they find an error, they generalize it to the whole report. See, they say, the auditors or investigators did not know what they were doing. It is akin to finding an error on Page 225 of your automobile owners manual and assuming that everything in the manual is incorrect.
The DOT IG report also showed the investor railroads paying Amtrak to use their trackage rights. In other words an obvious error in accounting. There were a few more errors I can't recall right off hand.
It also assumed no more checked baggage for any passenger or more than one engine per train which is often not allowed per agreement with the host RR. NARP has a pretty good rebuke to the report.
Check your private messages.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.