Don, I was sort of hoping that with the all-new cars that Amtrak could do better than 85% availability. But I defer to your experience. Still, your count still leaves [2] sleepers that can be put to use beyond the five routes nominated.
I'd like an overnight train to Montreal, and that would use at least two sleepers. It would allow either overnights both ways, or daylight for scenery one direction and overnight the other for those who had seen the scenery. But like the daily Cardinal, we'd need more locomotives and coaches to make up such a train.
WoodyinNYC The 130 single-level car order includes 25 sleepers, leaving [6] -- too many to be spares.
85% availability seems to be what Amtrak can manage. That would mean 21 of 25 should be available for assignment.
This will be an interesting test. Let's see if the incremental revenue exceeds the incremental cost. Should be easy to see on Amtrak's monthly reports once the cars get into service.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sorry. This is a reply to Shimm, far above. I have to learn how to include the topic I'm replying to.
The current order is for 130 bilevel cars to be built in Illinois by Sumitomo and Nippon-Sharyo. California will get 42, while 88 go to the corridor routes out of Chicago, starting with St Louis-CHI and Detroit-CHI.
This order is to replace the equipment being used on the Wolverine and Lincoln trains. The cars currently on the existing trains could potentially be used to add frequencies, but the bilevel cars will provide about a 30% increase in seating capacity. And Chicago's Union Station is already pretty crowded, especially at commuter rush hours. So the older equipment will likely cascade to other trains and other routes.
The order reportedly breaks down as 80 coach cars, 5 café/lounge cars, 21 café/business class cars, and 24 cab/baggage cars. No information on where the cafe and baggage cars would be used, in Cali or out of Chicago.
And there's an option for another 200 double-decker cars, if Congress ever stops being so crazy.
Counting on my fingers and toes, your figures [in brackets] add up to [14 total] or 15 [counting one BOS-CHI], plus an unknown number for your proposal #4, BOS-WASH [lemme guess 4 more]. That gets me up to 19 sleepers you will put into use. The 130 single-level car order includes 25 sleepers, leaving [6] -- too many to be spares.
iirc, The Silvers to Florida, and the Crescent north of ATL, often sell out their sleepers. So [4] more could be used on one of those routes.
Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but the 130 single-level car order includes an option for another 70 cars. No idea what the decision date really is on this 70-car option, since the delivery dates for the first 130 cars has slipped a year or two. But late last year Tom Carper mentioned the option, so it is on Amtrak's mind.
I'm highly optimistic that these 130 or 200 cars will be filled and produce good revenue. There's plenty of pent-up demand for trains all across the country, and to borrow a phrase, supply calls forth demand. Not to forget, the new cars should be new and improved, with better lighting, less noisy heating and a/c, better room layouts, more accessible, etc. In addition, the arrival of the new cars will generate free media and help to market the product.
Of course, we'll need to see more locomotives in the fleet, and more coaches. But then surely the 70-car option/order will allow taking the Cardinal daily. On a per-passenger basis, it's the second biggest loser among the LD trains, after the Sunset Limited, the other 3-days-a-week train. Daily operations would slash the Cardinal's operating loss and bring its figures close to the results for the other LD trains. That would solve one of Amtrak's greatest PR problems and deprive the haters of their second biggest target for criticism.
But there's no way to go daily with the Cardinal without more sleepers, diners, crew dorms, baggage cars -- and maybe coaches -- coming from the CAF assembly plant.
I really hate to be nationalistic but until all the needed sleeper routes are covered in the USA with enough equipment lets stay out of Canada. Now if the surplus sleepers VIA has can be allocated to cross border trains then another think is possible.
What I'd like to see is for the Blue water to be extended overnight to Toronto. Yes, I wouldn't mind if an overnight train could be started between Chicago and Toronto via Detroit and Windsor but there are issues with station locations in Detroit and Windsor. a through daytime train on that route, along with an overnight train there would definitely be nice though.
I'd love to see that happen but I'll just have to believe it when i see it.
CMStPnP [I might be misunderstanding you here but I thought that you needed a transition car to operate a single level sleeper and Superliner on the same train?
[I might be misunderstanding you here but I thought that you needed a transition car to operate a single level sleeper and Superliner on the same train?
You are quite correct.
If you check most superliner trains all have a transistion dorm going to the baggage car. I have no idea of the count as the fleet strategy plan does not break them out. If someone who has ridden several superliner trains could give us the number series then maybe we could know. The cal z accident last year destroyed one.
The PRIIA plan for the Capitol even noted the possibility of adding a single level coach and sleeper to the Capitol in Pittsburgh.
Good idea. The HSR Michigan section is using/will use what equipment?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 There has not been a single proposal for use of single level sleepers partially on single level rooutes and partially on superliner routes. My proposal of Atlanta & Florida to Chicago is the only one to even go to a connecting train (s). Surely there are others ?? Maybe albany - NYP - WASH ( OR where ever ) ??
I might be misunderstanding you here but I thought that you needed a transition car to operate a single level sleeper and Superliner on the same train?
What I would like to see again is a overnight Chicago-Toronto train via Detroit. I think that corridor has a significant untapped business cllientel that would use that route once the high speed rail upgrades were in place. As you know the tunnels under the Detroit River are a height restriction for double stacks, wonder if they also restrict Superliners.......not sure if they do. I don't see the need for the Chicago-Lansing-Toronto routing once the Detroit route is higher speed. Lansing to Detroit can be covered by MiDOTs new Commuter Trains and connect in Detroit with Amtrak.
CMStPnP blue streak 1what are potential routes that can be used with the new viewliner sleepers " My guess would be the routes that need single level sleepers because of height clearance issues. Otherwise the question would be, why aren't higher capacity Superliners being used.
blue streak 1what are potential routes that can be used with the new viewliner sleepers "
My guess would be the routes that need single level sleepers because of height clearance issues. Otherwise the question would be, why aren't higher capacity Superliners being used.
Hopefully, Amtrak is going to put together a proposal to replace the Superliners before 2016.
V.Payne I took DB's Citynightline a few years ago in a private room getting around Europe. Interestingly they switch the train at midpoints, creating "X" shaped routes with more origin destination pairs without a transfer. They contend that 10-12 revenue cars are needed per train to produce an operating profit. Will have to find link again and translate.
I took DB's Citynightline a few years ago in a private room getting around Europe. Interestingly they switch the train at midpoints, creating "X" shaped routes with more origin destination pairs without a transfer. They contend that 10-12 revenue cars are needed per train to produce an operating profit. Will have to find link again and translate.
But no real-estate taxes on the Interstate Highway network.
Also, Sam1 and most people on the right who consider auto truck and bus transportation and even air self supporting, forget one important matter.
If the USA had adopted an energy independent policy and reversed the tremendous tilt to highway through both regulation and construction, the oil supported threat of Islamic Fundamentalism would not be near the problem it is today, and the costs of security checks, wars, etc. would not exist.
The fact is that El Quada and all its allies got their brand of education from schools supported by oil revenues. True, trains also burn petroleum, but more efficiently generally, and an energy independent policy would have included electrification and erection of modern low-pollution coal and gas power plants, possibly including nuclear.
This is not the reason to subsidize long-distance passenger trains and their amenities today. The reasons are to tie the corridors together into a national system, to allow elderly and handicapped access to the country, to promote international and local tourism, and to provide for some emergency backup as was used on 11 Sept. 01. And I think these are worthwhile reason, and elimination of the subsidy and the long distance trains it supports may indeed have a negative total economic result in lost businesses.
The average federal subsidies per passenger mile and vehicle miles traveled were reversed. It should have read .012 for highways and .009 for commercial air.
According to "Highway Statistics 2010, Table HM-20", as presented by the American Road and Transportation Builders, federally funded (directly and indirectly) highways consist of the Interstate Highway System (1.2%), the National Highway System (2.9%), and other federal-aid highways (20.4%). These percentages add to 24.5% of the total.
According to National Transportation Statistics for 2010, total vehicle miles traveled were 2,966 billion or nearly 3 trillion miles. Of these 963.8 billion (32.4%) of the vehicle miles traveled were on federally funded highways.
During FY11 the federal government transferred $14.7 billion to the Highway Trust Fund. After adjustment for HTF internal transfers for mass transit and other activities, it appears that approximately $11.4 billion benefited federal highway users. In addition, I calculated an annual proforma benefit to federal highway users because of the TIFIA loans and added it to the transfer amounts. I did not attempt to assign a value to any externals. They are difficult to estimate under the best of circumstances. Thus, the net transfer appears to be approximately $11.4 billion. Dividing this number by the estimated federal highway vehicle miles traveled generates .012 cents per vehicle mile traveled.
The federal government also directed some of the ARRA funds for highway projects, as well as railways projects, in FY11. These are one-offs, and I don't have access to the exact amount. Therefore, I did not factor them into the so-call federal subsidy for highways.
These are relatively high level estimates; one could refine them if he had access to all the relevant data bases as well as sufficient time and computer horse power to work with the numbers.
If one wants assumes that the vehicle miles traveled on federally funded highways is equal to the percentage of the federal highways to total highways, the average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled would be 1.6 cents.
Better yet, if one takes the total vehicle miles for all roads, since the total road system is intertwined with the federal highway system, the federal transfer should be divided by the total vehicle miles traveled, which would produce a very small number. One can spin the numbers seven ways come Sunday, but no matter how a reasonable person does it, the average federal subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak is many times greater than the average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled.
I did not use travel on all roads to calculate the estimated average federal subsidy per vehicle mile traveled on federally funded roads. By the same token I did not restrict it to just the Interstate Highway System, since the federal government provides funding for all federal highways.
It is important to keep in mind that most of the numbers for air travel and highway travel are a function of statistical sampling, whereas the numbers for Amtrak are taken off its audited financial and operating reports. For most transportation statistics the feds use a 90 per cent confidence level for their sampling construct. However, for traffic safety statistics they use a 95 per cent confidence level. This means is that there is a 10 per cent probability that the results of the sample will not be reflected in the population, i.e. the range of results will be greater than or less than the results of the sample when projected to the population. Accordingly, what they should publish with respect to most outcomes, i.e. vehicle miles traveled, is a population range instead of a number. It is incorrect to project the results of a sample - a whole number - to the population. However, given the fear that many Americans have a mathematics, that would be a heck of a risk.
In addition, whereas federal subsidies for Amtrak go directly to the operator, most of the federal subsidies for air and highway, as well as waterways, go for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the facilities, thereby making them indirect subsidies. And making it difficult to determine who are the biggest beneficiaries.
Again, what has been consistently ignored by many, whenever it is convenient to do so, is the fact that the 210 million motorists in the U.S. pay all the costs for the highway system. The monies transferred from the general fund to the HTF came from the taxpayers, albeit more from upper income tax payers than low income motorists, as well as corporate taxpayers, that pump money into the general fund, which is then transfered to various agency funds, including the HTF. Even in the case of borrowed money, which the feds have been particularly adept at over the last 35 years, the debt service is ultimately paid by the people, either directly or through monetization of the debt.
The Federal government only funds a small percentage of the road route miles out there and owns nearly none. I believe a poster used the wrong denominator above, travel on all roads, instead of travel on Federally funded roads. Probably should discuss this aspect in in the marketplace thread.
schlimmAs to the last question, in my experience the City Night Line sleeper trains in Germany and other European countries seem to rely primarily on rebuilt, older equipment. Sir Madoq should be able to amplify on that.
They actually have classes of service. The lowest level works like a hostel. You get a bed in a room with other people - bath is down the hall. The highest level is like an Amtrak bedroom. The City Nightline train I saw had older equipment except for the high end sleeper which seemed fairly new. Couldn't tell if it was a highly rebuilt older car or not.
According to Amtrak's Monthly Operating Reports, in FY11 the NEC accounted for 36.1 per cent of Amtrak's passengers. In FY12 the NEC recorded 11.4 million passengers whilst the system had 31.2 million passengers. The NEC accounted for 36.6 per cent of the riders in FY12. This percentage has been relatively consistent for as long as I have been analyzing the numbers.
Total federal spending on Amtrak has been approximately $39.6 billion since its inception. This number is essentially correct, although it overlooks the capital expenditures that are working their way through the accounting systems. Also, it does not take into consideration the fact that Amtrak has paid no federal, state, or local taxes since its inception. Determining the value of these hidden subsidies would require a Herculean task. One would have to go through the appraisal and tax records of every tax authority where Amtrak has a footprint.
In FY11 the average federal subsidy for Amtrak was 20.54 cents per passenger mile compared to .012 cents per airline passenger mile and .009 cents per vehicle mile traveled. These numbers are just the federal subsidies that can be found in a reasonable audit trail. They are not hypothetical.
The amount of money transferred from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is Amtrak smoke to hide the real issue, which is how much should the U.S. spend on passenger rail? It is irrelevant to answering the question.
The cumulative amounts transferred to the trust fund since FY07 is in the neighborhood of $39 billion, since approximately 22 per cent of the monies in the HTF is transfered to the Mass Transit Fund or other HTF sponsored activities. Amtrak conveniently overlooks this fact.
Do we want to keep the national passenger rail system signed into law by Richard Nixon. No! Approximately 15 per cent of Amtrak's system passengers use the long distance trains. Killing them would leave the NEC as well as the other state supported short corridors, i.e. California, Illinois, etc., as well as others as they develop. And 85 per cent of the current customers would still have passenger rail service.
Amtrak has had more than 40 years to get the long distance service right. It has failed! Acquiring new long distance equipment will not change the outcomes. The company's numbers would place it amongst the Fortune 500 if it were a viable investor owned entity. If the CEO of such an enterprise continued a product line that impinges the value of the organization to the extent that the long distance trains impinge Amtrak's outcomes, he or she would be fired.
Citynightline uses mostly new Comfortline sleepers as their private room cars, the couchettes are rebuilt.
John WR Actually, about 85 per cent of all Amtrack passengers travel on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. If we abolish all these trains we abolish Amtrak save for the Northeast Corridor. However, if we tell the rest of the country you can't have any trains the rest of the country will not accept the Northeast Corridor. Thus, there would be no Amtrak at all. Consider this information: $39.3B -Total Federal spending on Amtrak since 1971 $53.3B- Payments from the General Fund to “bail out” the U.S. Highway Trust Fund since September 2008. These payments “top off” the fund, as gas tax revenue is not keeping pace with expenditures. This is from Amtrak's Fact Sheet. The real issue here is do we or do we not want to keep the national rail passenger system Richard Nixon signed into law in 1970.
Actually, about 85 per cent of all Amtrack passengers travel on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. If we abolish all these trains we abolish Amtrak save for the Northeast Corridor. However, if we tell the rest of the country you can't have any trains the rest of the country will not accept the Northeast Corridor. Thus, there would be no Amtrak at all.
Consider this information:
$39.3B -Total Federal spending on Amtrak since 1971
$53.3B- Payments from the General Fund to “bail out”
the U.S. Highway Trust Fund since September
2008. These payments “top off” the fund, as gas
tax revenue is not keeping pace with expenditures.
This is from Amtrak's Fact Sheet.
The real issue here is do we or do we not want to keep the national rail passenger system Richard Nixon signed into law in 1970.
That Nixon was one heck of a Democrat
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sam1 In FY12 the long distance trains carried 15.2 per cent of Amtrak's passengers and generated 25.6 per cent of ticket revenues. They racked-up 41 per cent of the costs before depreciation, interest and other charges, and they accounted for 76.5 per cent of the operating losses. Sleeping car passengers made up 14.6 per cent of long distance riders and brought in 35.2 per cent of long distance revenues, but they only accounted for 2.2 per cent of system riders and nine per cent of system revenues. I have not worked up the numbers that include depreciation, interest and other charges for FY12, but assuming they are not dramatically different from the FY11 numbers (Amtrak's numbers don't change dramatically from one year to another), it appears that the long distance trains accounted for approximately 45 per cent of Amtrak's total losses. Which raises an question in my mind. Why would a business spend millions for 130 cars (approximately) for its weakest product line? Most business people I know would take one look at the numbers, go to the board (Congress), and tell them to get out of the long haul business and concentrate on those product lines that have a reasonable probability of at least covering the operating costs. Here is another question. What other rail systems are buying new sleeping cars for regular service?
In FY12 the long distance trains carried 15.2 per cent of Amtrak's passengers and generated 25.6 per cent of ticket revenues. They racked-up 41 per cent of the costs before depreciation, interest and other charges, and they accounted for 76.5 per cent of the operating losses.
Sleeping car passengers made up 14.6 per cent of long distance riders and brought in 35.2 per cent of long distance revenues, but they only accounted for 2.2 per cent of system riders and nine per cent of system revenues.
I have not worked up the numbers that include depreciation, interest and other charges for FY12, but assuming they are not dramatically different from the FY11 numbers (Amtrak's numbers don't change dramatically from one year to another), it appears that the long distance trains accounted for approximately 45 per cent of Amtrak's total losses. Which raises an question in my mind.
Why would a business spend millions for 130 cars (approximately) for its weakest product line? Most business people I know would take one look at the numbers, go to the board (Congress), and tell them to get out of the long haul business and concentrate on those product lines that have a reasonable probability of at least covering the operating costs.
Here is another question. What other rail systems are buying new sleeping cars for regular service?
I think sam1 makes some good points. Several folks on these threads contend we need LD service to serve areas underserved by Interstates and air travel. Very well, why not have a separate appropriation for Amtrak LD routes similar to the EAS for the airlines? That way Amtrak could develop real service in various corridors while still politically appeasing the Congressmen and Senators whose votes are needed.As to the last question, in my experience the City Night Line sleeper trains in Germany and other European countries seem to rely primarily on rebuilt, older equipment. Sir Madoq should be able to amplify on that.
I have not worked up the numbers that include depreciation, interest and other charges for FY12, but assuming they are not dramatically different from the FY11 numbers (Amtrak's numbers don't change dramatically from one year to another.), it appears that the long distance trains accounted for approximately 45 per cent of Amtrak's total losses. Which raises a question in my mind.
Sam1 What is the basis for the assumption that the revenues will increase 1.5 times the current revenue streams for the cars? To recover all of its costs, Amtrak would have to increase fares an average of $33.23 per passenger, which would be a non-starter for coach passengers, although it might be doable for first class passengers. If implemented different segments would see varying price adjustments.
What is the basis for the assumption that the revenues will increase 1.5 times the current revenue streams for the cars?
To recover all of its costs, Amtrak would have to increase fares an average of $33.23 per passenger, which would be a non-starter for coach passengers, although it might be doable for first class passengers. If implemented different segments would see varying price adjustments.
The 1.5 assumption is based on the fact that on the whole only 2 sleepers are used on any route. It takes ~~ 20 cars to operate all the single level trains if they are on time. There are presently 50 viewliner sleepers. car availability is between 80 - 90% depending on various times of the year but AMTRAK at times can push the availability to 95% at rush periods but cannot maintain that %. The Capitol route has become a route that almost all sleeper passengers travel the whole route and is almost always sold out even in low seasons. A third sleeper was added to Capitol for this christmas but still sleeper space was sold out.
This thread was not initiated to discuss all costs just how to decrease the operating loses.
AMTRAK's decision to only buy 25 additional sleepers + the baggage dorms IMHO probably was wise as this will increase available space more than 50%. I was conservative in allowing only an increase of sleeper revenue of 50% abut the available space will actually be closer to 60% + . If the sleepers continue to be in demand then maybe more will be built.
I haven't figured the revenue of a viewliner sleeper vs. a coach bu I believe some of our posters have.
Whether the additional capacity will be utilized, thereby generating the anticipated revenues, will be a function of how many passengers are currently turned away because the sleepers are sold out, as well as the generation of new business.
Approximately 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers use the long distance trains, which carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers. Of those riding on the long distance trains, only roughly 15 per cent can afford to spring for a sleeper.
Based on FY11 numbers, if Amtrak dropped the long distance trains, it could break-even on system operations with an average fare increase of $7.41 per passenger. The state supported short distance trains (less than 750 miles) would still incur an operating loss, but the excess operating profits on the NEC, thanks largely to the Acelas, would offset the underperformance on the state supported trains.
To recover all of its costs, sans the long distance trains, Amtrak would have to increase fares an average of $33.23 per passenger, which would be a non-starter for coach passengers, although it might be doable for first class passengers. Different segments would see varying price adjustments.
purpose of this thread is to speculate what route assignments might be best for net revenue. No provision will be made except for revenues and direct operating costs.
Assumptions;
1. revenues were taken from the unaudited september 2012 ( Pg A 3.6 ) end of year performance report. since revenue per passenger has increased every year that will make the revenue anticipation understated.
2. since equipment will not all be put in service at same time projections are for all equipment in service.
3. the effects of new baggage dorms releasing regular space not consideered and will understate anticipated revenue.
4. all single level routes + capitol ( superliners will overstate revenue) are anticipated to add cars as noted.
5. combination sleeper routes will use each route's revenue which will overstate anticipated revenue.
6. atlanta and pittsburgh are assumed to have NS switching problems solved by time cars in service.
7. Capitol assumed to have transistion car to use both superliners and single level cars.
8. Pennsylvanian late sun departure problem solved
9. Car availability may be present 80% ( 20 cars at present availability ) or 90% ( 22-1/2 cars AMTRAK's goal).
10. Capitol / Lakeshore swapping Chi departure times..
11. AMTRAK stated one additional coach on the meteor ( 5 cars on longest route ) added $ 0.2M to operating costs for ~~ 90 day period so will use $ 0.8M for full year.
Here are the my proposed routes.
1. Crescent - Capitol 1 car [ 4 total ] -- Atlanta - Wash - Pittsburgh - Chicago (drop / pickup car in Wash to Capitol ). would provide more sleeper s
2. Meteor-Pennsylvanian-Capitol 1 car [ 5 total ] -- Mia - Phl - Pitt - Chicago ( drop / pickup car in Phl and Pitt )
3. Cardinal 1 car [ 2 total ] -- same 3 day / week service.
4. restore overnight trs # 66-67 BOS - WASH.
5. Lakeshore 1 car [ 3 total ] -- NYP - CHI and maybe 1 additional BOS - CHI see # 4.
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Total
Present rev $ 16.6M 20.5 1.4 0 9.4 $47.9
1.5 x rev 24.9 30.7 2.8 1.0? 14.1 $73.9
Total additional = 26.6M
additional operating costs 5 routes $ 4.0M
This will be some help to reduce AMTRAK's operating deficits.
BOS & WASH terminations of 66 - 67 provide backup for broken sleepers
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.