CMStPnP FYI..... Looks like Amtrak is going to try something similar on the Cardinal. Should be interesting how this turns out. Although I will say that Amfleet Business Class 2-2 seating I have experienced before and it is not all that more comfortable on a LD route. Still think they need to come up with a better Business Class Seat for LD Travel. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/01/cardinal-adds-business-class
FYI.....
Looks like Amtrak is going to try something similar on the Cardinal. Should be interesting how this turns out. Although I will say that Amfleet Business Class 2-2 seating I have experienced before and it is not all that more comfortable on a LD route. Still think they need to come up with a better Business Class Seat for LD Travel.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/01/cardinal-adds-business-class
CMStPnP FYI..... Looks like Amtrak is going to try something similar on the Cardinal. Should be interesting how this turns out. Although I will say that Amfleet Business Class 2-2 seating I have experienced before and it is not all that more comfortable on a LD route. Still think they need to come up with a better Business Class Seat for LD Travel. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/01/cardinal-adds-business-class FY: I believe on the Cardinal, it is two-and-one seating.
FY: I believe on the Cardinal, it is two-and-one seating.
Midland has it right. Even a rigid, semi-governmental body like Amtrak can be prodded into change by a dose of competition. Perhaps if they had made changes a few years ago, Indiana might not have sought an alternative.
Does it seem like a coincidence that Amtrak introduces a new business class service on a LD route (Cardinal) soon after a private contractor (Iowa Pacific) introduces business class on that same train on its alternate days?
Bits and pieces. The name was supposed to be Sam1's cat, as I recall. Seemed to be of a higher rank than an accounting clerk, as worked in Australia for awhile. Rather prickly about fellow passengers on public transport (smelly, shouting and playing loud music). And the style was unlikely to be seen again -'whilst' indeed!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CMStPnP schlimm A former poster. In my experience folks like that do not leave. Much more likely she changed her screen name (ditching her reputation) and still posts here on occassion.
schlimm A former poster.
A former poster.
In my experience folks like that do not leave. Much more likely she changed her screen name (ditching her reputation) and still posts here on occassion.
Whilst such is possible, Milw, I've seen nobody else on here with her stylistic quirks.
The CFO thing may have been my false impression. I have no background in accounting myself, and defer to you on the subject.
dakotafredIn a rare slip, she alluded to it herself once -- in connection, as I recall, with her being one of the rare women CFOs in the utility industry. In any case, a green-eyeshade type who was always crunching numbers to disqualify Amtrak as transportation (even as she rode it tirelessly).
If she said CFO.......I throw the BS flag. I would believe Accounting Clerk. No way did she have a CPA certificate either. Sorry, two CPA's under my employ, my Father was a CPA..... and I work with Executives all the time, she was definitely not at either level of proficiency....that I am 100% sure of. Have enough accounting courses under my belt including Intermediate Accounting to know she never mastered the subject area enough to get a CPA certificate.
CFA possibly / maybe......which is really a certification for those that could not pass the CPA exam in my opinion.
The dead giveaway she was not a CPA and was somewhere beneath that level is that CPA's are out of the gate multi-industry and although they are not experts on the railroad industry they do know how many of the financial mechanisms used by the railroad industry work (such as equipment trust certificates). Also, in order to remain certified and keep their CPA they have to attend ongoing education with CPA's from other industries on changes to accounting practices, etc. Accounting Clerks not so much and she was pretty aloof on Railroad accounting enough to convince me she had little to no understanding of it (CPA would have some understanding). She kept attempting to apply how the Electric Utility industry would do things........to the Railroad industry. Some similarity in areas but not the same industry or same practices. So she convinced me she did work in for a Utility Company in it's Accounting Department BUT her focus was far more narrow than a CPA would have in the same Department.
BaltACD MidlandMike I remembered he was the guy with the PRR keystone avatar, and was an accountant. I guess it has been a while since I have seen a post from him. Him or her - some posts alluded to being female.
MidlandMike I remembered he was the guy with the PRR keystone avatar, and was an accountant. I guess it has been a while since I have seen a post from him.
I remembered he was the guy with the PRR keystone avatar, and was an accountant. I guess it has been a while since I have seen a post from him.
Him or her - some posts alluded to being female.
In a rare slip, she alluded to it herself once -- in connection, as I recall, with her being one of the rare women CFOs in the utility industry. In any case, a green-eyeshade type who was always crunching numbers to disqualify Amtrak as transportation (even as she rode it tirelessly).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes.
sam1 ?
As sam1 showed, the capital costs should not be confounded with OE.
schlimm ... The NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak, especially LD routes. ...
... The NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak, especially LD routes. ...
As I said earlier, not true when NEC infrastructure costs and backlog are considered. Some have argued in other threads that the NEC is a drag on the rest of Amtrak. I would not necessarily go that far. But I thought the point of the thread was to look at new economic overnight accomodations that might earn more money for ATK. It seems to have digressed into an excuse to eliminate unfavored segments of the national carrier.
Wizlish schlimm MidlandMike "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf That has been said on and on. But they still do not come close to covering above rail operating expenses. Humor me here. What is missing is whether the cost of providing service to those sleeping-car passengers exceeds the amount of total revenue they provide (corresponding to that 36%). (For current purposes, don't include the incremental cost of the dining-car services for the time being.) If it does... by how much?
schlimm MidlandMike "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf That has been said on and on. But they still do not come close to covering above rail operating expenses.
MidlandMike "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
"Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue."
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
That has been said on and on. But they still do not come close to covering above rail operating expenses.
Humor me here. What is missing is whether the cost of providing service to those sleeping-car passengers exceeds the amount of total revenue they provide (corresponding to that 36%). (For current purposes, don't include the incremental cost of the dining-car services for the time being.) If it does... by how much?
This is what I was getting at, but failed to (re)state. As Schlimm later confirmed, those specific figures are not readily avalable.
Cannot. In past someone got internals from amtrak
We've all been over this many times. No passenger service anywhere covers capital expenses. But some middle distance services here and in other countries (300-500 miles) do cover operating expenses. The NEC subsidizes the rest of Amtrak, especially LD routes. LD services, if you can call them that, are a necessary evil [no, change that to a lobbying PR effort]. But dining cars and sleepers should cover a bigger percentage of their OEs.
MidlandMike schlimm MidlandMike The senior discount isn't on the room charge, it's on the ticket price to all seniors, including coach. Seniors in general are not a high income group. Excepting the airlines, many travel segments like hotels and rental cars give senior rates. Like the airlines, Amtrak has used yeild pricing for a few years now. "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf That has been said on and on. But they still do not come close to covering above rail operating expenses. I'm not sure if you are just referring to sleepers or all of LD. If you look at total costs, including capital expenses, than even the NEC with its infrastructure backlog, is a financial money pit.
schlimm MidlandMike The senior discount isn't on the room charge, it's on the ticket price to all seniors, including coach. Seniors in general are not a high income group. Excepting the airlines, many travel segments like hotels and rental cars give senior rates. Like the airlines, Amtrak has used yeild pricing for a few years now. "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf That has been said on and on. But they still do not come close to covering above rail operating expenses.
MidlandMike The senior discount isn't on the room charge, it's on the ticket price to all seniors, including coach. Seniors in general are not a high income group. Excepting the airlines, many travel segments like hotels and rental cars give senior rates. Like the airlines, Amtrak has used yeild pricing for a few years now. "Sleeping car passengers, who pay much higher fares, account for 15 percent of long distance riders but contribute 36 percent of total revenue." https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
The senior discount isn't on the room charge, it's on the ticket price to all seniors, including coach. Seniors in general are not a high income group. Excepting the airlines, many travel segments like hotels and rental cars give senior rates. Like the airlines, Amtrak has used yeild pricing for a few years now.
I'm not sure if you are just referring to sleepers or all of LD. If you look at total costs, including capital expenses, than even the NEC with its infrastructure backlog, is a financial money pit.
Sure, Congress's well-rehearsed complaint. Do we really need to revisit here that, yes, ALL Amtrak services "lose money" -- as do all public services, worthwhile and otherwise, that smooth out life in the United States.
Coaches and sleepers. Diners and lounges. NEC and LD. Certainly air services and highways. All lose money, every one. (While greasing the wheel for the general comfort and prosperity.) So what, exactly?
What we ostensible rail fans are supposed to guard against is discrimination against our preferred passenger mode, whose operating subsidy, per the new transportation bill, is no more -- approximately $300 million -- than that for "essential" air services to unessential places.
C'mon, peeps!
Why give a 10% discount for a segment of the population that largely does not need it on a business line that does not cover its costs? Use demand pricing as the airlines do.
United, American, Delta and SW all reported large profits for the quarter ending in Oct., some were records. Amtrak should not make a profit, but should cover operating expenses.
CMStPnP I think at a minimum Amtrak should have a surcharge for when all the beds are not occupied (single occupancy) as they used to do in Europe in the 1980's. It would be one small way to encourage higher spend on Amtrak on board services. Even though it might be marginal (alchol and the surcharge and maybe snacks between meals).
I think at a minimum Amtrak should have a surcharge for when all the beds are not occupied (single occupancy) as they used to do in Europe in the 1980's. It would be one small way to encourage higher spend on Amtrak on board services.
Even though it might be marginal (alchol and the surcharge and maybe snacks between meals).
Ther is a hefty surcharge to single sleeper travelers. I priced a CZ superliner roomette one way, at $449 for one senior, and $591 for two seniors. (The senior rate was about $25 less per person)
schlimm I think we are discussing multiple business sectors in regard to Amtrak: the NEC and other corridors; LD trains overall; and sleeper class on LD. LD trains show little or no growth with a high proportion of elderly. Sleeper is only 10-15% of the LD passengers. The focus with Amtrak and on here of a small portion of a small segment seems out of proportion, but then, many/most posters are seniors. I am also, BTW. The title and initial posts of this thread were on finding new revenue streams not on rationalizing a focus on a minor segment. If sleeper fans want to find more revenue, how about raising sleeper fares 25% or more to reflect the costs?
I think we are discussing multiple business sectors in regard to Amtrak: the NEC and other corridors; LD trains overall; and sleeper class on LD. LD trains show little or no growth with a high proportion of elderly. Sleeper is only 10-15% of the LD passengers. The focus with Amtrak and on here of a small portion of a small segment seems out of proportion, but then, many/most posters are seniors. I am also, BTW. The title and initial posts of this thread were on finding new revenue streams not on rationalizing a focus on a minor segment. If sleeper fans want to find more revenue, how about raising sleeper fares 25% or more to reflect the costs?
The notion that the older clientele will die off soon, presumably negating the need for Amtrak, is pretty speculative and hard to prove.
Fifty years ago I recall hearing the same thing about model the railroad hobby. The argument was that hobbyists were mostly up in years, and the hobby would soon die. Well, it didn't happen. Lots of people deferred or limited their hobby activities during their working years because of other demands on their time and money. Once retirement time came, they became quite active in the hobby, replacing the previous generation of retirees.
Since Amtrak travel takes time, it is most useful to those who have the time to use it. In many (but by no means all) cases, that means retirees. I don't think we'll be running out of retirees any time soon.
There's no way to count the number of wide-eyed, train-loving kids I encountered in my Amtrak career. As long as children are fascinated by trains, and as long as those children continue to grow into traveling adults, there will be a need and a demand for rail travel. Whether the U.S. will continue to fill that need is an entirely different question.
Tom
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.