How do we reconcile the almost same number of passenger miles on the NEC and the rest of the syste?
These so called think tanks are funded by big oil companys. The Think tanks are filled with professors that were thrown out of traditional universitys for having extream bias and not being neutral.Some fudged reaserch so that a predertmined outcome would happen so they could keep getting funded.
Providing infrastructure of various sorts, including for transportation, has been a government function since the early republic days. A national rail infrastructure, much akin to highways and air transport infrastructure is sensible. Operations can be private, public or some hybrid. The devil is in the details. But the goal should be having efficient operations to provide transportation. If some private concern thinks it can make a go running land cruises with deluxe accomodations and "fine dining" from CHI to SEA for example, let it try. But that should not be a subsidized government passenger service because so few people use them (EB and CZ) even now at discounted prices. Passenger rail has a place, especially 21st century HSR, for routes <300-500 miles. Longer distances become competitive and popular as speed increases.
Ed Ellis tried a privatization of sorts with the "Hoosier State". It did not turn out too well since his contract did not provide enough of a state subsidy.
PJS1Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
So ... No. Privatization would be an easier pill swallow if someone actually wanted it.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
PJS1 zugmann PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization! Has anyone ever expressed interest? Not directly! Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
zugmann PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization! Has anyone ever expressed interest?
Has anyone ever expressed interest?
Not directly!
Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
Think tanks are great, however money wells are required for privatization. The only way 'privatization' can show a profit is if the privateers are in charge of the fare box and all the cost elements of a operation are subsidized.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If the NEC were put up for sale, with some government support for the infrastructure, there might be some takers. It is close to covering its fully allocated costs.
One way to get there would be to have an regulated entity own rails. It would be open to anyone that wanted to run a train on it as long as they met the health and safety standards. They would have to buy a slot just like the airlines have to buy gates at the airports that they serve, but competition has a tendency to burst the gates.
Brightline and Texas Central are private investor projects. I am among their cheerleaders.
MidlandMike makes the point that elected officials made the decision to save the passenger trains. It was not the first or last government mistake. One thing is clear. The people did not want it, at least in sufficient numbers at the fares required to cover the costs.
Amtrak has cost the taxpayers $34.6 billion in historical dollars and more than $40 billion in 2009 constant dollars. It is a relatively small sum in the scheme of things, to be sure, but I can think of a lot of things where the money could have been better spent, i.e. healthcare for the poor, education, etc.
The government should not be a commercial transport operator. It should help develop rights-of-way; it should also make sure that the users pay for them.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
PJS1You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization!
PJS1 MidlandMike ......you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent. Needless to say, I disagree with your perspective. Did the industry need to be saved and transformed into a bloated government bureaucracy? Or like the airlines or intercity bus companies that could make it in the market place, should only those segments of the industry that had some potential to be viable been saved? No one knows whether the NEC and perhaps LAX to San Diego could have survived had the government not elected to take over passenger rail service in the United States. Perhaps you were not arround during the PC bankruptcy. Not only did the NEC need to be saved, but the whole freifht system in the Northeast needed government bail-out. But the fundamental question remains: Why should the federal government have saved collectively passenger trains that their users would not pay for? Why should it have gone into the passenger rail business since did not go into the airlines, bus, or cruise ship business? Maybe the airline, bus, and cruse ship business didn't need intervention. Subsidies to other modes of transport, which unlike Amtrak are not direct cash payments, have nothing to do with how much money the U.S. has or should invest in passenger rail, and where it should be invested. If you already concluded that subsidies to other modes have nothing to do with passenger rail, then why are you asking why Amtrak souldn't be treated like the other modes? In retrospect, which is always easier than foresight, creating Amtrak was a mistake. What we got is a sub-par passenger railroad with more than 20,000 government employees whose productivity is questionable and who appear to be over paid. Amtrak was created as a ward of the government because no one else was going to do it, and national rail passenger service was considered worth saving by those elected. And so far no one else has stepped up to take it on.
MidlandMike ......you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent.
Needless to say, I disagree with your perspective.
PJS1 ... So, here is the question that I never get a satisfactor answer to. The government has not taken over failed airlines or intercity bus companies. So, why should it be in the passenger rail business. If it cannot be sustained in the competitive market place, it should be allowed to die. The creation of Amtrak was more about sloppy sentimental politics than rational decision making.
...
So, here is the question that I never get a satisfactor answer to. The government has not taken over failed airlines or intercity bus companies. So, why should it be in the passenger rail business. If it cannot be sustained in the competitive market place, it should be allowed to die.
The creation of Amtrak was more about sloppy sentimental politics than rational decision making.
The reason you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent. The entire intercity rail passenger network is not equivalent to individual airline or bus companies. Yes, individual airlines and bus companies have gone out of business (with competitors taking up the slack), but individual passenger carrying rail companies have also gone out of business without intervention, such as the Colorado Midland, and of course thousands of passenger train-offs have been approved by the ICC.
Even if you are speaking of entire transportation industries, the government has bailed out the airline industry with $billions in the years after 9/11/01, and bails out bus companies (and cars and trucks) by supplementing the highway trust fund with general tax dollars among other things.
PJS1 jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. I am not an expert in labor contracts. But I spent a decade or more re-engineering a Fortune 500 Corporation. So, I know what rocks to start looking under and what questions to ask. Here is one example to ponder. In 2012 the average compensation for the lead server and attendant server on Amtrak’s dining cars was $88,970. Adjusted for inflation the number would be close to $97,292. Of this amount approximately $72,000 would be salary and the remainder would be benefits. Undoubtedly, most of the on-board servers believe that they are fairly compensated. They have all kinds of arguments as to why they need to be paid higher wages, i.e. being away from home, serving on a rocking train, safety in case of a wreck, etc. But compared to people working in similar positions, including flight attendants, which I laid out in another thread, a prudent business person would take a hard look at the justification for these numbers. They are, by-the-way taken from Table 3, Page 22, Amtrak’s Food and Beverage Service Audit, OIG-A-2014-01 dated October 31, 2103. But it not just the cost of labor. Savings could be realized through better management of the workforce on the trains. For example, as noted by the auditors, Amtrak tends to keep the same level of on-board staffing during high and low demand periods. Also, it keeps the same level of staffing from end-point to end-point even though the average load factor may diminish significantly from one intermediate point to an end-point. They noted the practice of keeping a full dining car staff on the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and New Orleans even though the average load factor east of San Antonio is considerably lower than west of San Antonio. The auditors noted that many of the on-board staff are required to clock-in two to three hours before train time. This practice incurred unnecessary cost. Actually, I believe Amtrak has reduced the clock-in lead times. Management could take a hard look at whether many of the stations served by Amtrak need to continue being staffed. As it is, staff is being eliminated at several stations. Included in the hit list is Marshall, TX. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 80 percent of American households have a computer. As is true for the airlines, as well as Greyhound, Megabus, etc., an increasing percentage of wannabe travelers are booking on-line, thereby eliminating the need to sell tickets across the counter. Are there other opportunities where the staffing at intermediate stations could be eliminated or reduced? No one is talking about paying Amtrak’s engineers less than those running for the Class 1s. It is the ancillary personnel, especially those on the long-distance trains, that shoulld be looked at carefully. Moreover, no one believes that paying subpar wages is a winner. But by the same token no prudent business person pays more than what it takes to get people to perform the work.
jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts.
OK, so you aren't going to renogotiate more realistic (read: lower wages) contract with T&E staff, just food and beverage staff (and others). I think Oltmann's ideas for boosting efficiency are more likely to bear fruit. Run the more promising western LD routes (CZ, EB, Coast Starlight) as land cruises with fine dining (with prices in the $7000 range as mentioned in another thread). On shorter corridor runs where the bulk of passengers are riding <5 hours, most people don't care about "dining" so onboard cold and microwavable self-serve foods and drinks should suffice. RIF or reassign the now redundant staff.
BaltACD oltmannd PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3. To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done. Right off the top of my head...some simple ones. Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue. But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding. Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals. Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off. Why have service personnel at all? Just load the animals on board and stop in accordance approrpiate section of the Livestock Bill of Lading. 24 Hours for Feed, Water & Rest - extendable to 36 hours on Shipper request.
oltmannd PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3. To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done. Right off the top of my head...some simple ones. Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue. But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding. Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals. Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off.
PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3.
To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done.
Right off the top of my head...some simple ones.
Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue.
But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding.
Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals.
Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off.
Why have service personnel at all? Just load the animals on board and stop in accordance approrpiate section of the Livestock Bill of Lading. 24 Hours for Feed, Water & Rest - extendable to 36 hours on Shipper request.
You've obviously seen a Mega-Bus...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH I find it rather amusing that a lot of these postings suggest cutting the number of service personnel on the trains to just above the level found on the various airlines and would later complain about the lack of amenities on said trains. Cutting personnel costs also means eliminating amenities.
I find it rather amusing that a lot of these postings suggest cutting the number of service personnel on the trains to just above the level found on the various airlines and would later complain about the lack of amenities on said trains. Cutting personnel costs also means eliminating amenities.
It all about judging the value of the ammenity against the cost of providing it. It's the job of Amtrak's marketing dept. to figure this out. It doesn't seem like that's what they've been doing over the past decades.
Improving productivity is always a no-brainer, though. Anything that get more done with the same or the same done with less is always worth pursuing.
In the early 1990s, I rode the train from Philadelphia to London ON a couple times. Got up really early, caught 5:45 clocker at 30th St and then Maple Leaf from Penn. Got off at Aldershot ON and caught VIA to London, arriving about 10PM. Only food service was basic Amcafe food on the Maple Leaf. It wasn't a problem. Pre-made sandwiches and microwaved burgers were the mainstay of the menu back then. They were okay. I don't think the dining experience was a factor either way for anybody riding the train.
Where dining can be a factor is when you're primarily selling to tourists (which is what Amtrak should be doing with it's western LD fleet.)
Check out how KiwiRail sells their trains. https://www.greatjourneysofnz.co.nz/northern-explorer/
The Northern Explorer is an 11 trip between Wellington and Auckland. It's prime purpose is tourism, but there were a good number of locals riding, too.
Check out the on board menu
https://www.greatjourneysofnz.co.nz/assets/food-menus/scenic-trains-menu.pdf
just prepackaged cold items and microwaved hot items.
(when you book, you have an option to pre-order your meals. They warn you that they often run out of some items en route)
On board, there is a small staff and everyone is cross-trained, meaning the cafe might stop serving during a station stop and you might find the conductor pitching in at the cafe during peak times.
Does the service make money? I doubt it, but I doubt it bleeds red ink, either. But it seems the government believes it's worth spending the bucks to help attract foreign tourists.
Amtrak and it's appologists need to stop defending the status-quo on absolute terms and figure out how to get the most from what we have - show the value of that in global terms - and defend THAT.
There are lots of examples from around the world on how to go about that.
In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable.
Good perspective. I tried to make clear in my previous post that it is not just wages, although I believe they are a factor, but it is equally about work rules, which is what you are saying.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I find it always interesting how easy it is to forget the people that don't have smart phones or can't/don't use internet. I think we have to wait at least one more generation. And than there is the law requiring to make food service cost effective but without eliminating jobs. Regards, Volker
And than there is the law requiring to make food service cost effective but without eliminating jobs. Regards, Volker
If a person doesn't have access to the internet, i.e. computer, smart phone, etc., they can call Amtrak at 1-800-USA-Rail. Or maybe they can get one of the grandkids to help them. And in most places they can go to the public library to use a computer or even get help using one, although it would not be a good idea to use a library computer to book a reservation and pay for it with a credit card.
Texas has deregulated its electricity market. It was opened to competition for the customers of the investor owned electric utilities, which serve about 80+ percent of the customers in Texas. Practically everyone that I knew howled that it would not work. They were wrong. By most accounts it is a success.
Interestingly, although they could have joined the party, the public power companies - usually owned by the cities, and the co-ops - usually owned by their members, refused to allow competition. One size fits all!
If there is one thing that sends a cold chill up and down the spine of governments, it is the idea that they might have to compete for customers. The only group that may be worse, at least in Texas, are the homeowner associations.
I find it always interesting how easy it is to forget the people that don't have smart phones or can't/don't use internet. I think we have to wait at least one more generation.
And than there is the law requiring to make food service cost effective but without eliminating jobs.Regards, Volker
PJS1If the system were privatized, mangement would have the authority to negotiate realistic labor contracts. And that could change the economics dramatically.
I am as anxious to see Amtrak reformed (brought closer to the 21st century) as anyone. That said, 1. you seem to be pushing privatization as though it were the only solution. The reasons for private railroads failing to run a passenger system 47 years ago remain, but likely magnified. 2. Your references to foreign rails privatization are sketchy and misleading. 3. What makes you think privatizing would lead to dramatic reductions in labor costs through renegotiating contracts? Are the wages of UP (or BNSF, et al.) and Amtrak engineers wildly different? I realize it is almost impossible to find out since the effective pay numbers seem to be top secret, but it seems unlikely that there would be a large disparity either now or in the future.
zugmann jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. Please tell us what's unrealistic. And are the unrealistic parts only unrealistic because unionized railroaders have held onto what other workers have had taken from them? Some people won't be happy until everyone else is making minimum wage. End of story.
jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. Please tell us what's unrealistic. And are the unrealistic parts only unrealistic because unionized railroaders have held onto what other workers have had taken from them?
Some people won't be happy until everyone else is making minimum wage. End of story.
Everybody 'but them' as they are superior.
jeffhergertI didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. Please tell us what's unrealistic. And are the unrealistic parts only unrealistic because unionized railroaders have held onto what other workers have had taken from them?
PJS1 CSSHEGEWISCH Does anybody remember that Amtrak was established because private operation didn't work?? That was more than 45 years ago. The country has changed. Actually, although I am reluctant to point to other countries, privatization is working in Japan and France on some lines. If Amtrak were privatized, the long distance trains probably would be toast. So too would some of the corridors that don't attract sufficient traffic. But maybe not. If the system were privatized, mangement would have the authority to negotiate realistic labor contracts. And that could change the economics dramatically. So, here is the question that I never get a satisfactor answer to. The government has not taken over failed airlines or intercity bus companies. So, why should it be in the passenger rail business. If it cannot be sustained in the competitive market place, it should be allowed to die. The creation of Amtrak was more about sloppy sentimental politics than rational decision making.
CSSHEGEWISCH Does anybody remember that Amtrak was established because private operation didn't work??
That was more than 45 years ago. The country has changed. Actually, although I am reluctant to point to other countries, privatization is working in Japan and France on some lines.
If Amtrak were privatized, the long distance trains probably would be toast. So too would some of the corridors that don't attract sufficient traffic. But maybe not.
If the system were privatized, mangement would have the authority to negotiate realistic labor contracts. And that could change the economics dramatically.
I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. Please tell us what's unrealistic. And are the unrealistic parts only unrealistic because unionized railroaders have held onto what other workers have had taken from them?
I'm reminded of a sentence in Doug Riddell's book, "From the Cab - Stories from a Locomotive Engineer" when he was working for Amtrak. "The gargantuan concessions are unions made are now termed paltry."
Jeff
CSSHEGEWISCHDoes anybody remember that Amtrak was established because private operation didn't work??
Those that discount the past are bound to repeat it. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Does anybody remember that Amtrak was established because private operation didn't work??
oltmannd To be fair, Amtrak has been beaten into this shape by decades of fighting over subsidy and micromanagment. It's rare when they have a leader who tries to rise above the "beat-down". They seem to have one now. I can only hope that Wick's focus on getting Amtrak internally functional will mesh well with Anderson's focus on market relevency.
It's rare when they have a leader who tries to rise above the "beat-down". They seem to have one now. I can only hope that Wick's focus on getting Amtrak internally functional will mesh well with Anderson's focus on market relevency.
You are correct to conclude that the system's has played a heavy role in damning down innovation. It is the nature of the government beast, i.e. 535 supervisors plus the President and Vice President.
As long as Amtrak is a prisoner of Congress, management will be beaten down. The way out is to privatize it. And restructure it so that it can compete on a level platform.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.