I just took the train from DC to NYC. Such an experience.
The problem is marketing. They are and will always be a governmental corporation, run by bureaucrats and politicians...and like any governmental organization they cannot think on a real business basis. They will always be governmental because it's a pipe dream that a business is going to step in to run a passenger railroad without subsidization, as the airlines get with airport funding, like the highway lobby gets. And so because people complain about the more overt subsidization of Amtrak, it will never get enough money or mandate to...do effective marketing.
How many business travelers (the type who won't drive from DC to NYC, and who don't need a car to get around) realize that it's faster and cheaper to take a train than fly? Especially with the time taken in airport security checks, by the time you go from LaGuardia downtown, the shuttle doesn't compare...Amtrak puts you off in the heart of the city. And you don't have to take your shoes off or unload your laptop to get on the train.
Why isn't there a great advertising campaign about this? Why are the trains so ugly and unappealing? The Amtrak logo, that brand mark represents the wrong customer perception - that of a failing, underachieving, controversial service - they should junk the logo and start another one. Make the trains feel exciting with the design. Play on the allure of train travel, what remains of it. Why can't you reserve a specific seat, and have a really business class-type of experience on the train, like in an airline? Why is traveling by train such a gritty experience? The problem is marketing, and changing customer perspections, and they just aren't up to doing it and are thus consigned to the bottom feeding of the transport network.
Heck, rename it the Northeast Railroad, something throw-back-like, and get on with changing the brand.
I know that some may say it's a national railroad, but really, the future is in intercity travel between places where it is more time consuming and a hassle to fly. hat's the competitive advantage for Amtrak. They need to market to it. Like DC-Philly, Boston-NY, etc, etc...I'm sure there are more examples of these shorter routes in other regions too. The long distance train travel, the only advantage is for romantics, and there isn't enough of a market there to support it, it's a drain on the system.
First, the name of it already is the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington DC)
And obviously, the advantages are aleready known:
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/CorridorTrains.pdf
Note the second paragraph under "Corridor Development."
To some extent, they've alreay made the "dream" a reality, but as Mr Gunn put it, the real problem is they need to bring the railroad up to a "state of good repair" to realize its full potential. Marketing isn't a priority until that happens.
TomDiehl wrote: First, the name of it already is the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington DC)And obviously, the advantages are aleready known:http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/CorridorTrains.pdfNote the second paragraph under "Corridor Development."To some extent, they've alreay made the "dream" a reality, but as Mr Gunn put it, the real problem is they need to bring the railroad up to a "state of good repair" to realize its full potential. Marketing isn't a priority until that happens.
Hate to agree with you, but you have it right. Amtrak's creators fought with the Nixon administration over the ability of Amtrak to survive without a sizable subsidy from the government. (See "The Men Who Loved Trains") Amtrak needs not only to fix the cars it has, but start to find replacements for ALL of them! Amfleet cars are 32-34 years old. AmfleetII cars are closing in on 30 years of service. The first group of Superliners are rotting away in Beech Grove, because there are no funds available to repair them. The second group of Superliners need an overhaul that Amtrak cannot afford to give them at current subsidy levels. AND they will be over a quarter century old. There are no replacement parts for any Amtrak car in any service, anywhere*! THAT is a disgrace! (*note: Acela equipment IS included!)
IMHO durango has hit the nail right on the head with two assumption but perhaps doesn't do so well with a third:
CORRECT: Amtrak is a government-created, "quasi"corporate body with a monopoly over long-distance train travel. With only a few exceptions* Amtrak goes where no one else is allowed to go. This is rarely the case with airplanes or intercity buses. To put it another way, unlike Hertz vs. Avis, in the absence of competition, I frequently get the feeling Amtrak doesn't feel it has to "try harder" than it does. Although there are lots of dedicated, proactive Amtrak service employees, whenever I travel with VIA in Canada I am impressed by their sunny attitude up north: the employees actually seem HAPPY to have me on board, instead of taking the attitude that I am just one more (possibly) demanding person to have to cope with.
*(Such as MARC vs. Amtrak from DC to Baltimore or NJT vs. Amtrak from Philadelphia-Penn Station, NYC.)
CORRECT: Amtrak is nonetheless in competition with other modes of travel, particularly within the NEC. The traveler can indeed get from D.C. to NYC by renting a car, driving one's own car, taking the bus, taking Amtrak, or flying commercially.
DUBIOUS: Durango seems to be making the case that Amtrak should advertise much more to get some of the passengers away from the competition. A noble effort: but this rests on the assumption that a big opportunity for Amtrak is excess capacity; i.e., that Amtrak trains have a real problem with empty berths, parlor cars and seats. Far from it: it's all Amtrak can do to handle crowds at holidays, (or on many long-distance trains in summer). In fact, Amtrak has pretty well moved away from a system of buy-the-ticket on the spot and crowd onto an NEC train to one in which reservations are involved. And . . . in the sprit of market capitalism and supply-and-demand, Amtrak has numerous "tiers" of fare structure involved, even more within NEC, even more in the holiday crunch. Much like the airlines, the longer you wait and the pickier you are about scheduling, the more you'll pay, up to and including thru the nose! -- Don't take my word for it; this was TRAINS' magazines feature article two months ago. I for one was impressed in that article that Amtrak management has as much "moxie" to market its services so forwardly and to find some solutions to the under-supply of seats: renting idle NJT coaches on Thanksgiving Day struck me as a very healthy, proactive way of thinking.
Anyway, as the TRAINS article allows, Amtrak has to walk a tightrope between giving Americans as much access to trains as possible, but not wasting money by maintaining surplus equipment. That also has to be triangulated with a desire to make, or at least not lose, too much money. The real core flaw with Amtrak, to me, is that it not only is it a ward of the federal gov't, it's a "poor relation" among other transportation funding like omnibus highway-repair bills, subsidization of air traffic, and a gas tax that subsidizes and therefore encouages solitary traffic on the Interstates. I am far from alone among TRAINS discussion members in so believing!
Amtrak actually did a lot of print advertising in the 1970s and 1980s, much of trying to (re-)establish train travel (especially within NEC) as a viable transportation alternative -- trying to reach younger people who didn't grow up with the train-taking habit, or older people who had been totally alienated by many of the private roads' deliberate attempts in the mid- to late Sixties to drive the customer base away.
But once again, since Amtrak hasn't the capital funds to expand its capacity, why spend a lot of money advertising today, if it would only enhance demand for transportation services that have already been booked solid?
Like many of us, I'd like to see some significant structural improvements to the rail network: although it would be prohibitively expensive to create some sort of "bullet train" service between Chicago and Detroit, say, it would be relatively cheap to better seal up the ROW, improve the roadbed, if necessary introduce "tilt" train technology. Upgraded crossings with more gates and more sensitive gate function could sense and time accordingly the difference between an oncoming 40-mph unit coal train and a 100-mph electrified Amtrak corridor train. It's no secret that all of this technology has been available for some time. Just look at Acela and the Pacific Northwest Talgo trains.
I myself think that infrastructural improvements should be carried out by some other company or agency: look, for example, how successful the federally-funded PWA was when it electrified the Washington-New York stretch of the Pennsylvania Railroad (part of today's NEC) back in the 1930s. Once we'd have rail transit options that are faster and more sophisticated than the warmed-over 1950s stuff prevailing in most of the system, then Amtrak can advertise the heck out of it!
There aint enough Amtrack to be effective. And not enough Government to make it happen.
Imagine NEC replicated across groups of 3 or 4 cities across the USA. Example... Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland. Or.. Washington, Richmond, -Norfolk and/or Raleigh. And certain cities being hub towns where it will be possible to beat short haul airlines with smaller stations in between to at least get the cars off the over-stuffed highways.
The Europeans and Japanese have it over us in spades as does the UK.
I compare the long distance Trains similar to the old Beige Soviet Model of one train, one track for Siberia. They are nice, but not useful. I did consider Amtrack for a east coast run. Little Rock-Chicago then Chicago to Washington DC is a hard road to travel in either a sleeper (Money) or Coach. I can drive the same distance for less in gas (And less time too.) or have Southwest whisk me into BWI for less. Now if there was a Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville and so on NEC's direct to DC... maybe worth it at 150-200 mph.
Regarding the attitudes on the trains in the NEC I say it's typical of the grumpies who reside in the area. You get out here to the South or West you might actually find a little sunshine and more willingness to help you.
Sometimes I wonder if the PRR railroad with it's world class GG1's and it's fast Brokers had it all over the fossilized modern Amtrack.
I understand the need, obviously, to get track, cars and infrastructure up to speed, but buying new passenger cars - essentially the same as the old cars, i suspect (correct me if i'm wrong on this) - absent an effective marketing strategy is a strategy for fingernail-scratching survival, not growth. The Amtrak brand - what does it summon up? The brand, as it's been positioned, either intentionally or unintentionally -that's an essential problem. The "vision" for what Amtrak should drive a chunk of the infrastructure requirements - what the new cars would be like, certainly. Until they address the marketing aspect it won't be right. My proposition is that the Amtrak brand itself is so compromised there is not point in continuing with it, they ought to junk it, get a marketing strategy and create a new impression. A brand is just that, after all, sum of customer perceptions, good and bad, tangible and emotional. Advertising is a part of shaping that, of playing to competitive advantage. It can't, unfortunately, be effectively done after maintenance costs are taken care of...it's a question of a comprehensive strategy.
I know that Amtrak did some advertising in the past...but they need an effective agency and get away from that striped logo and representing what is a failed customer experience. Look at what the US military does with its ad campaigns...not to take political stance, but as marketing campaigns, the Army has been, historically, very effective in the volunteer military era. It can be done.
It's true that the government should asign itself to pick up all infrastructure eneeds not directly related to the customer experience. If they did that, and got the politicians and their bureaucratic employees out of the way, then we might see what "Amtrak" could be.
the Northeast Corridor - yes, it's a line of Amtrak, kind of a weird subsidiary feel, but not a true brand, at least it's not being positioned effectively as such. Maybe if they marketed it it might have a better impact. I think that calling it a specific railroad - kind of a throwback type name, might conjure nicely, coupled with parallel customer experience improvements. If there was a train between the cities in NC, call it the Carolinas TriCities railroad. Anyway, it's just a notional thought. But they need to do something to create specific brand values, and a sense of competitive advantage vis-a-vis other transport modes to succeed. It's about the customer. That's Amtrak's problem.
I understand the western politicians would want to cut off funding if Amtrak didn't make a midnight stop in Idaho or wherever. But how much do east coast citizens subsidize western water systems? How about the Alaska railroad...? It's something that is regional, but a national interest I think it's likely true that rail transit is largely most competitive in short trip between relatively large urban centers...and I think that california probably qualifies in place too.
One othe competitive advantage in the global warming era - train travel pollutes less. While clearly not the lead item in a marketing campaign, the point might play well on the east coast (blue states). It's one element of branding that helps a sense of how the customer feels about train travel.
I'll put a sock in my mouth now. Sorry for the rant, but i love trains. I'd like to see a rebirth of quality train travel.
Well . . . that's the Hell of it, isn't it, Durango? If Amtrak had bigger capital budgets it probably would buy fresher rolling stock for corridor use, create new trains and tap into what is probably still a growing transportation market in NEC. It's that whole "poor relation" thing: the agency gets just enough money to do things but not enough to do them well. Your drab experience with an NEC trip is not necessarily the result of poor planning by Amtrak--more a matter of them having to devote the lion's share of resources (after wages, taxes) to keeping the whole movement going.
Many if not most of the time I and others have ridden Amtrak I've experienced that "death by a thousand cuts" feeling . . . the Southwest Chief sitting in Union Station long after its departure time with no explanation, and no air-conditioning . . . The sleeping-car "attendant" who appears long enough before the train leaves not to help people with their baggage -- and then disappears after supper . . . the upsettingly chilly winter air temp on board Amfleet shells in the Midwest, which has much colder weather on the whole than the East Coast, for which the original Metroliner cars were climate-engineered in the mid-1960s. TRAINS magazine's recent stats of the absolutely appallingly late arrival of the Auto Train at its destination demonstrate exactly how a star-crossed train can ruin not only a day but a whole vacation. I'm sure many of us have these quasi-horror stories that render train travel not as comfortable or reliable it ought to be -- and therefore squandering the natural advantages passenger rail has over other modes of transit, such as being able to plow thru snow and ice storms when the planes are grounded, to stop in remote communities, and to beat the time of the solitary traveler on Interstate highways.
A couple of quick remarks: A better train experience can be had without resorting to electrification. A recent thread on the "Railroads" post (I think) points out that VIA Rail Canada routinely runs (diesel) corridor services at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Southwestern Ontario, sometimes up to 100 on the principal Toronto - Kingston - Montreal route: they do this still using some of the exact same vintage North American post-World War II equipment Amtrak inherited from its original members. Of course, this requires an excellent roadbed and no-fudge priority given to the varnish. Notice that VIA isn't hindered by some American rule that a passenger train cannot exceed 79 mph without in-cab signaling -- isn't it time that rule was seriously re-examined in light of today's superior CTC and radio communication?
You mention North Carolina and indeed it has the right kind of environment to subsidize passenger trains -- a conurbation of small separate cities strung out along existing transportation corridors (most of them north-south) The trains must be operated by Amtrak; nonetheless, the Carolinian, the Piedmont and to some extent the Palmetto are purely regional in function whether or not that intermediate class of train between commuter on the one hand and long-distance on the other officially exists. Not many people need to commute on a daily basis all the way from Raleigh to Charlotte; happily, though, the trains' virtue is their ability to make intermediate stops for intermediate commuters: Salisbury to Kannapolis, say, or Raleigh to Durham. These trains would not exist but for the tender mercies of subsidies by N.C. taxpayers and coordination thru North Carolina DOT. The trains are successful and definitely keep some Carolinians off the overcrowded expressways like I-95 and I-85. Many of them run on capacious pre-mega-merger mainlines like the ex-Southern. If state subsidy can be financially justified, what's wrong with any of that?
Sorry to have been so long-winded. Hopefully I am not re-creating the wheel too often in my analysis of improving train service - these are issues I'm still working out on my own and with your and others' help. - al