If I correctly recall the article I recently read, it stated that 17% of the average Amtrak LD passenger loads are sleeper customers. However, these riders comprise 44% of the train's revenue. I continually see sleeper space "SOLD OUT" on most LD trains throughout the year, not considering the holiday periods which sell out well in advance.
I realize Amtrak needs to replace old, tired single-level cars. However, from strictly a business point of view, would one not attempt to provide more capacity for the highest revenue-producing space first, be they single-level or Superliners?
I must be missing something. I thought Amtrak was trying desperately to increase the bottom line. Or does this make too much sense?
Sleeping cars provide rather limited capacity compared to coaches. Sleepers may generate 44% of the revenue, but what percentage of the costs do they generate?
Also, sleeping cars as a whole are a wasted asset for Amtrak, which should re-orient itself to the short to medium haul market where passenger trains still fill a real transportation need.
RailSpike I continually see sleeper space "SOLD OUT" on most LD trains throughout the year, not considering the holiday periods which sell out well in advance.
Then, Amtrak is not charging enough.
RailSpikeI realize Amtrak needs to replace old, tired single-level cars.
No. When railcars get "old and tired" you rebuild them. It's always cheaper since you are not starting from scratch. What would drive replacement would be new technology or higher capacity. Viewliners are not technologically obsolete, so just rebuild.
RailSpikeI must be missing something. I thought Amtrak was trying desperately to increase the bottom line. Or does this make too much sense?
Trying to improve the bottom line of the LD trains makes sense, but the place to attack it is on the cost side. Trying to buy new equipment to fill peak demand is a losing proposition. You can't keep the equipment busy enough to generate enough net revenue to pay the cost to buy the equipment - the utilization would be too low.
The real question is "where can the existing equipment be deployed to the best effect?" Where do people live? Where do they want to go? How does that match available routes? Can I provide service that stacks up against the highway? Provide frequent service on those corridors and win the game.
No more having to listen to Congressman whine about the subsidy equal to airfare or a limo - or $15 hamburgers. It's much easier to get your capital funded if you don't come hat in hand every year for a operating subsidy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Some interesting points.1. Replacing Viewliners. Seems to me they aren't so ancient as to need anything more than refurbishing. The overnight CNL sleeper trains from Germany to other countries use a mixture of some new cars and rebuilt cars from the 60's and 70's.
2. The poster points out that the sleeper passengers make a larger revenue contribution on LD trains, but fails to mention the higher operating costs (labor). Is it necessary to have attendants for each car? Why?
http://www.seat61.com/citynightline.htm#.URpF6h1FnAM
3. I think Don makes an excellent point in his last sentence. If Amtrak can focus on services and routes that can break even on operating costs, it reduces its dependence on Congress to infrastructure and equipment.
4. A comparison of labor costs for Amtrak compared to those of the freight railroads and commuter lines would be valuable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Running passenger trains is a service. If it is a long train ride you provide meal service. If it is overnight you provide for sleeping in some form of comfort. And you charge what you can for the services. BUT unlike today's bottom line CPA's you get as much as you can from each service so that you get as much as you can toward your bottom line and not demand that one service pays only for itself but can pass some it its income off to services which don't come up to full pay back. So, maybe you can charge more for a seat with the concept of adding to the cost of pulling a sleeper or diner. If you don't provide service, you don't get customers, and you might just as well go make pizzas downtown. We have lost so much in this country since the philosophy of each segment has to pay for itself or it goes without paying attention to how much it adds to the quality and attractiveness of a product or service. NO, I don't suggest going back to what the telephone companies were doing of making up prices for service not knowing the real cost of providing, thus long distance calls were priced well beyond their costs while other services were practically given away because no one was paying attention. But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers well.
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.
Some straight, pragmatic talk. Nothing wrong with everybody on one train contributing to the cost of a food car, if needed, because all can use it. But why should coach passengers be forced to subsidize those folks who choose to ride in a sleeper? Or why should folks who ride on corridor trains that come close to breaking even on operating expenses (and they may pay a premium, as on the Acela service) subsidize long distance train passengers?
Pragmatism is that all are paying for the survival of the service. It sounds like socialism but is how much of American enterprises operated, expanded, and survived until bottom feeders, er, bottom liners, got hold of the books. Railroads are not alone, as I indicated. Count the number of products no longer available, not ones which have substitutes, but ones that are gone...Postum is a good example but I am sure there are others which are gone and even their substitutes don't stand up. And even if you run a train with only coaches because sleeping cars and diners don't pay, how long will you have coach passengers who need to sleep or eat? Entertainment providers..i.e. cable companies and satellite dishes...give you hundreds of channels to choose from, some extra pay, some forced on you, but you still only watch as many as four different channels a week on average...who's paying for the rest? So, the Corridor passenger has to help pay for the upkeep of the whole system the way things are now...but was the way it always was in railroading...freight supported passenger service on the books of Class ones...CPA's and investment bankers said get rid of passenger services and take all the money, forget about service and what your charters say you are to provide. Thus we have today's business plans: money to the bottom line no matter what it costs in quality, quantity, or integrity.
schlimmSome straight, pragmatic talk. Nothing wrong with everybody on one train contributing to the cost of a food car, if needed, because all can use it. But why should coach passengers be forced to subsidize those folks who choose to ride in a sleeper? Or why should folks who ride on corridor trains that come close to breaking even on operating expenses (and they may pay a premium, as on the Acela service) subsidize long distance train passengers?
The argument for cross-subsidy would be valid to the extent there is a "network effect" - one class of service feeds the other. This would have been very true in the 1940s. I suspect it's pretty tiny now, except in Chicago, but there the argument gets flipped on it's head. We "need" the very expensive LD trains to feed the short haul trains? I think the "network effect" is between modes rail/road/air. Each is in a niche these days. None is a one-size-fits-all network like RRs used to be.
Right. When freight railroads provided passenger service it was because their charters said so, the traffic was there, the PR value was important, the loses were covered by freight, and many other positive reasons. But when bean counters came in and wanted to take everything to the bottom line or else throw it away, branch lines were abandoned, passenger services eliminated, and intermediate terminals closed or subjected to lesser services. Amtrak was devised to eliminate the passenger train by taking the service away from freight railroads so they didn't have to shoulder the blame nor provide the services at a loss. It was figured that the public would go away within a few years and the passenger train would die a natural death with no one noticing, no mourners. This was the wisdom of the highway lobby as well as the freight railroads bottom line mentality. And it came back to bite them in the assets. People...the public...wanted passenger service, not just trains. And as highways became congested and beat up, as air service was cut back to cigar ships instead of full planes to many smaller airports, as fuel prices went up (not because of quality or better product but because investment gamblers, speculaters they called themselves, commodities brokers, too), and air quality and land use became important, people wanted more passenger rail service. Instead of going for the passenger market head on, we remained using Amtrak as a crutch...freight rails can say no because the government has Amtrak to protect them. Unless the government, the public, and the owners and operators of the tracks can start addressing the needs and importance of passenger rail services, we will not have it....but only lots of silly political arguments instead.
Some folks' idea of service seems rooted in yesteryear. But most folks today want a passenger rail service that is competitive on a time and frequency basis with flying or driving. A focus on running a series of trains as once existed 60 years ago on the same old routes with sleepers and diners and baggage cars and parlors and lounge cars is what I mean by running the "NOSTALGIA EXPRESS." Again, my question is why I should help subsidize the sleeper passenger and his food while i ride in the coach? It isn't a silly argument, political or otherwise. It is basic fairness.
Because in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase. But whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely.
daveklepperBecause in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase.
Not so sure this is true. In fact, there is an IG (?) report out there somewhere that states the opposite. If you pull the sleepers and the diner, you can drop one locomotive, as well. (You can also optimize the schedule to cater to coach passengers at the same time)
daveklepperBut whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely.
For example, you could make a pretty good case for some new corridor coaches along the lines of NJT's bi-levels, but new single level coaches to replace Amfleet is a bit absurd.
schlimm Some folks' idea of service seems rooted in yesteryear. But most folks today want a passenger rail service that is competitive on a time and frequency basis with flying or driving. A focus on running a series of trains as once existed 60 years ago on the same old routes with sleepers and diners and baggage cars and parlors and lounge cars is what I mean by running the "NOSTALGIA EXPRESS." Again, my question is why I should help subsidize the sleeper passenger and his food while i ride in the coach? It isn't a silly argument, political or otherwise. It is basic fairness.
I don't follow you here. Do you mean that as old fart my caring about service and quality is antiquated? Now I know why today's business and society is in such bad shape! B.S.!! All you are dismissing and against here are what defines service and leads to success. I'd understand you if you are a bean counter CPA or investment gambler wanting all for yourself, but if you don't understand what brings customers in and keeps them in, you don't know business. If you order a sandwich in a restaurant and they bring you two pieces of bread with a slice of mean between them you'd be outraged. The sandwich needs butter or mayonaise or mustard or lettuce or tomato with maybe a slice of pickle or a handful of potato chips to make it appealing, appetizing, and pleasing so that you'll eat it and come back for more. But what you're saying is why should I subsidize your chips and mayonaise. This is not how business is done to survive.
oltmannd daveklepperBecause in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase. Not so sure this is true. In fact, there is an IG (?) report out there somewhere that states the opposite. If you pull the sleepers and the diner, you can drop one locomotive, as well. (You can also optimize the schedule to cater to coach passengers at the same time)
But if you drop the sleepers and the diner and the locomotive, how many passengers will still ride? The next drop is the train itself...this kind of thinking is self defeating.
oltmannd daveklepperBut whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely. Generally, rebuilding in kind will be cheaper than buy the same thing new. What pushes the balance toward new is when there in new technology that results in operating cost savings or performance enhancement that can't easily be accommodated in a rebuild. Something like lighter weight construction, tilt, bolsterless truck design, articulation, etc. The other thing that pushes the balance toward new would be increased capacity. Superliners and Viewliners have more beds than 10-6 sleepers for example. For example, you could make a pretty good case for some new corridor coaches along the lines of NJT's bi-levels, but new single level coaches to replace Amfleet is a bit absurd.
Rebuilding vs. new is determined by what you have as the end product. When you have something brand new you have new technology, etc. and a given lifespan, and a depreciation span. When rebuilding or refurbishing, you still have an old shell which may not have the same life expectancy despite updated technology and depreciation. The question that has to be asked and answered when deciding is where will you be at a given time in the future? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How much will you have spent in maintenance and how much will a new piece cost then? Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years. All is not done in today's money.
henry6 Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years.
Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years.
The interesting thing is how the planned Amtrak equipment purchases are not in the least bit a technological advance -- do you refurbish 1960's vintage DC-9 airliners or do you build the exact same aircraft new? So, according to at least one person close to the railroad business, the answer to your question is indeed yes, rebuilding is a cost saving. Next question?
It is fine to rant against "bean counters" and "accountants", but ultimately, every human activity, whether private or government-supported, runs up against money constraints.
It is fine to believe that "decontenting" the long-distance trains is going to gut ridership. But answer me this. WisARP has long lobbied for a "second Chicago-St Paul" train to the Empire Builder. You know, so that train travel over that route is more of a "service" in having a choice of daily trains.
So tell me, is that second Chicago-St Paul train, if it happens, going to have multiple locomotives, baggage car, crew dorm, diner, lounge, sleeping cars? Or is it going to have one locomotive and a string of high-capacity coaches?
If America gets serious about using trains for all the usual reasons -- fuel economy, congestion and pollution mitigation, allowing people an alternative to nerve-wracking and accident-ridden automobile rides -- are we ever going to put in a second Empire Builder train? Or is the additional service going to be in the form of day-train "corridors" pieced together from segments of that route?
So again, if the goal is increasing the level of Amtrak service, why is consideration given to purchasing sleeping cars?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Your answer is in your last question. Increasing the level of service is the goal, not running more trains. More trains have to have at least the same level of amenities and offerings. Frequency of service is a major factor in ridership...even shorter trains but more often would help. So a second train Minniapolis to Chicago may mean that there need be fewer cars but full cars...I keep saying running passenger rail is not just running trains but also providing a frequency and equipment that will attract usage.
For the large bulk of the public, modern passenger rail service means exactly what Paul said: offering fast, frequent, convenient trains utilizing high-capacity coaches between major population centers up to 400 miles apart in corridors with a minimum of useless frills. Insisting that "service" means running "Nostalgia Expresses" is a non-starter.
I will agree with you Schlimm..."service" is nostalgia in this country, whether rail passenger service, restaurant dining, retail buying, and many other activities, programs, products, and services in the US. But that doesn't make it good or right.
Running trains on 70 year old routes utilizing a panoply of outmoded types of equipment (baggage cars, diners, parlor cars, sleepers, lounge cars, etc.) at slow speeds (50-70 mph) may have been good service back then, but it is not today and is not what the public wants.
henry6Rebuilding vs. new is determined by what you have as the end product. When you have something brand new you have new technology, etc. and a given lifespan, and a depreciation span. When rebuilding or refurbishing, you still have an old shell which may not have the same life expectancy despite updated technology and depreciation. The question that has to be asked and answered when deciding is where will you be at a given time in the future? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How much will you have spent in maintenance and how much will a new piece cost then? Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years. All is not done in today's money.
This is strictly engineering economics. If you rebuild a passenger car to "like new", it is "like new". You save buying all that stainless steel, all that welding, all that casting, and a bunch of machining. The final product will have the same expected economic life as new. There are generally no fatigue life issues in the carbody and all the steel castings can be "reset" in an oven.
Updated technology can tip the balance to new, but, tell me, what new technology is there for a 125 mph coach? A Viewliner sleeper? A Superliner? Perhaps door actuators. Toilets. Brake valves. Electronic trainline. Fine. Those can be retrofitted. Trucks? Nope. New Viewliners are coming with the same as the old. Could you make them lighter? That could be a winner.
Capacity can drive it, too. You can make a case for 120 seat coaches replacing old 80 seat coaches the same way RRs replaced 5 SD40s with 3 AC locomotives.
But, you can't just toss around words like, "they are old", "they are fully depreciated". Those are just words. The devil is in the engineering detail. The state of the art is pretty static.
schlimmRunning trains on 70 year old routes utilizing a panoply of outmoded types of equipment (baggage cars, diners, parlor cars, sleepers, lounge cars, etc.) at slow speeds (50-70 mph) may have been good service back then, but it is not today and is not what the public wants.
Or, at least, they are not willing to pay what it costs to run.
I'm sure there is a nice little niche market for the "Nostalgia Express" but it has nothing to do with developing a modern passenger rail network.
schlimm I'm sure there is a nice little niche market for the "Nostalgia Express" but it has nothing to do with developing a modern passenger rail network.
You've got me all wrong....I don't believe in living in the past but visiting it and learning from it. A quality service or product, designed and presented with intelligence, sincerity, and integrity and reliability matters no matter what. That's not nostalgia, that's knowledge, intelligence, integrity, and honesty.. It is not the "nice little niche market" but the whole enchilada of doing something honestly and with purpose.
...will somebody get rid of that damned Facebook banner at the bottom of this and all pages!
Vague, almost meaningless generalities. The specific issue was new sleeper cars or rebuilt ones. My view, which is to reduce the number of LD trains and convert them to coaches, is based on the idea that we need modern services rather than continuing these outmoded Nostalgia.Expresses.BTW, just click the X on the right of the banner at the bottom of the page, or do you need a porter?.
Honest service, usable service, integrity and reliability are generalities? Without a blueprint with details, we can only talk in generalities. But I call my points precepts, facts, needs, not generalities.
And I do click the damned thing ...every time I get a new page from Trains:...It is being over done, guys, enough ale
rady!...
Railspike,
Amtrak publishes a fact sheet about its long distance service. You can see it here:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
According to the fact sheet 15 per cent of passengers ride in sleeping cars but they produce 36 per cent of the revenue on those trains. The 85 per cent of people who ride in coaches produce the remaining 64 per cent of the revenue. No doubt there are extra expenses for sleeping car passengers. However, I suspect that the added revenue makes up for those extra expenses and adds a significant amount besides.
Actually, most riders do not stay on for the whole trip; most people ride 600 miles or less. This means that a long distance train is also in intercity train over the route it serves. If you look at the time tables for these trains you will see that they stop at many stations.
With best regards,
John
henry6But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers wel
Henry,
One thing I have noticed is that Amtrak doesn't provide open sleeping cars. They were popular for many years and VIA Rail still uses them but Amtrak does not. In Europe you can get a couchette--the European version of an open sleeper--for very little. I wonder why Amtrak does not use them and if it should.
With best regards, John
schlimmMy view, which is to reduce the number of LD trains and convert them to coaches, is based on the idea that we need modern services rather than continuing these outmoded Nostalgia.Expresses.
Schlimm,
Do you consider all sleeping cars to be "Nostalgia Expresses?"
Best regards, John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.