"Why Train Tickets Cost So Much In America"

[Overmod]

PJS1

Of interest to an accountant, at least, the FY22 numbers include Frequency Variable, Route Variable, and System Fixed costs or expenses.

This might, in fact, be sufficient to allow a skilled analyst to appreciate what I understood the 'increased frequency' proposal to involve: the division of a single 'transportation service' train into two shorter trains, presumably with sufficient aggregate capacity that there would be no overcrowding of the more popular consist.

We have (for at least some of the LD trains) a division of existing consists with no new equipment, a division of motive power 'incrementally' (from requiring multiple units to being handled by a single P42 or Charger) and -- presumably -- the ability to enforce priority over 'twice' the window of freight traffic "free".  The proposer can list what he thinks the on-train crew and attendant requirements might be, if they don't scale reasonably closely to the 'aggregate' original.

On the other hand, the requirements for food service of all kinds, complete with their operating and commissary expenses, now double (or service gets cut in what might easily be Biaggini-like ways).  Engine crew requirements are now doubled, the whole length of the route, and this quickly leads to what may be many more engineers qualified on passenger operation and 'engaged to be waiting'.  Other distinctive costs can be fairly readily identified and their magnitudes vs. profitability or ridership 'take rate' estimated.

The biggest problem I have with the idea as proposed is that it assumes that a great many of the potential origin-destination pairs will have both the boarding and detraining at 'sensible' and safe hours, rather than (as seems far more likely to me) either one or the other winding up in the same sort of wee-hours difficulties the combined train presents.  No amount of tinkering with a transportation-based schedule will likely address this problem adequately, even if some of the trains run California-Zephyr slow through the night.

The big thing that stands out, to me, is that if the Lorton to Sanford train runs an above-the-line profit, almost surely one of the Chicagoland-to-Florida Auto-Trains we've been proposing should be capable of the same.  Perhaps much, much more so if it becomes practical to autonomously switch carriers in and out of the consist at intermediate points, say near Louisville or the Atlanta area, or from connecting freight services, or to run shorter Auto-Train consists with market-determined frequency and scheduling to have more services per week...

[PJS1]

wjstix

 One problem Amtrak has is on many of it's routes it only has one train a day. That can cause scheduling problems for patrons. 

The preliminary numbers for FY22 show that Amtrak’s long-distance trains had an Adjusted Operating Loss of $563 million.  Only the Auto Train earned an Adjusted Operating profit.  It was $22 million.  

 

Increasing the frequency of the long-distance trains, which presumably is the suggestion, probably would increase the losses significantly.  Where do you get the money to expand the long-distance services?  Or any Amtrak services? 

 

Of interest to an accountant, at least, the FY22 numbers include Frequency Variable, Route Variable, and System Fixed costs or expenses.  Prior to this year these costs were not shown by route.  They provide a more complete picture of the fully allocated costs of supporting a service. 

 

Most of System Fixed costs are the depreciation of prior period capital expenditures.  In FY22 the NEC drove 39.7% of these costs compared to 29.4% for State Supported and 32.7% for Long-distance trains.

 

Heretofore, I had assumed that 70 to 80 percent of the company’s depreciation expense was driven by the NEC.  I was wrong.  The FY22 numbers show the importance of having access to an organization’s books to know what is accurate.

[blue streak 1]

BaltACD

 My personal feelings passenger routes should have at least two trains in each direction a day, scheduled nominally 12 hours apart, thus one of the schedules SHOULD be in a passenger friendly time window.  Of course those thoughts and $5 might get me a cup of coffee somewhere.

 

 

The two trains a day 12 hrs apart have an added benefit.  In case of a needed absolute work window ( AWW ) or short term emergency repairs all service is not cancelled.  An example is NS's closure of the Crescent M-TH south of ATL after the first of each year.  A night train through the area would at least provide some service. 

 

We often see that occurring on the Atlantic coast trains to Florida.

[BaltACD]

wjstix

One problem Amtrak has is on many of it's routes it only has one train a day. That can cause scheduling problems for patrons. If you want to make say a 300 mile trip on a train, but the train stops in your starting point at 2 a.m., you probably would rather drive. But if there was an alterate train on the same route coming through during the daytime, you might well take it.

My personal feelings passenger routes should have at least two trains in each direction a day, scheduled nominally 12 hours apart, thus one of the schedules SHOULD be in a passenger friendly time window.  Of course those thoughts and $5 might get me a cup of coffee somewhere.

[wjstix]

One problem Amtrak has is on many of it's routes it only has one train a day. That can cause scheduling problems for patrons. If you want to make say a 300 mile trip on a train, but the train stops in your starting point at 2 a.m., you probably would rather drive. But if there was an alterate train on the same route coming through during the daytime, you might well take it.

[charlie hebdo]

Exactly!  In the distant past, when passenger train services (meaning decent snd multiple trains between points) were available, they were patronized, even in the early days of the interstates well into the 60s. Now there are few point to points where rail is an option as transportation.  But it could happen, expecially with overcrowded airways and highways.

 

[Ulrich]

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 

charlie hebdo

Ulrich and 54Light: You are both right but many on this continent and on here always claim the differences between our situation and Europe are too large. The myth of exceptionalism prevails and we are left with almost no passenger services outside of the NEC and (?).

 

 

 

 

Exceptionalism is not that much of an issue as much as the greater distances involved and a cultural bias in favor of the automobile.

 

 

The vast majority of train trips in North America are on the order of 500 miles or less just as they are in Europe. In Canada in particular, VIA trips between Toronto and Montreal (350 miles) account for roughly 90% of intercity passenger miles. 

I can't argue with the cultural bias in favor of the automobile here; however, that bias is being eroded by ever higher gas and vehicle prices.. reasonably priced train service in densely travelled corridors would bring people to rail  here just as it has in Europe. 

It can be done.. even over mountainous terrain.. just look at what Spain and Italy have done.. both of their high speed networks are challenged with grades and the need for lots of tunnels and bridges. Montreal-Toronto by way of contrast is far flatter, with the odd bridge needed here and there and no need at all  for any long mountain bores.  Same would be true for Calgary-Edmonton out west.. 

In Europe, as well, intelligent regulations that are coming on stream now  prohibit short hop flights where rail is a viable alternative.. We should do that here too.. and soon.. if we hope to meet our climate targets. 

Build it.. make it reliable and convenient..price it right.. and people will flock to rail. The Charger trains are a good start; however, their full potential can't be realized without a dedicated right of way built specifically for this purpose.  

 

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

charlie hebdo

Ulrich and 54Light: You are both right but many on this continent and on here always claim the differences between our situation and Europe are too large. The myth of exceptionalism prevails and we are left with almost no passenger services outside of the NEC and (?).

 

Exceptionalism is not that much of an issue as much as the greater distances involved and a cultural bias in favor of the automobile.

[charlie hebdo]

Ulrich and 54Light: You are both right but many on this continent and on here always claim the differences between our situation and Europe are too large. The myth of exceptionalism prevails and we are left with almost no passenger services outside of the NEC and (?).

[54light15]

Ulrich, I could not agree more. Toronto took over 2 years to sort out the Presto transit pass. I thought, why don't they go to London and copy the Oyster system? it's already sorted out. Just do that. But, no. 

[Ulrich]

In Europe train travel is more "mainstream" and much more affordable. I recently returned from a trip to Italy with my wife... we took the train from Rome to Naples & Pompeii and back.. and then Rome to Florence and on to Venice. Trains are frequent, fast, and on time..The fast trains often exceed 300km/hour.. but one doesn't feel it as they glide along their own dedicated right of way.. 

We in North America should look at how the Europeans do it: there's some "build it and they will come" aspect to it. No need to reinvent the wheel.. only I suppose a need to put our egos aside to accept that others have perhaps already figured it out for us. 

[Convicted One]

Gee, if the government is willing to subsidize airplanes, and trains. and ports (oh my!)...then they should be willing to pay me to stay home and out of everybody's way...

That's the mentality I see in all these guilt peddling activists claiming that other modes (besides their "pet") are receiving an unfair advantage.

If one wants to experience the ambience of transport by passenger rail, then there is no better place to do it than on a train.

When one has a priority for their destination, then there most likely are better options.

 

Then, there is that whole "amortization of costs" thing with all the dubious trimmings.  charging the Miami station for snow removal simply because a passenger might end up in Minneapolis. We've covered that before, but it's still relevant.

[Victrola1]

CNBC did a report on the cost of riding Amtrak. Taking the plane is often cheaper. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr6NHVddYow&ab_channel=CNBC