The real traffic on LD trains is not the end to end passengers. Most traffic that boards at one end detrains at stops in route. Passengers boarding at in route stops mostly continue to the destination. While some passengers will go from intermediate stop to intermediate stop. When scheduling, Amtrak needs to pay more attention to how traffic volumes are distributed on their LD routes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One Adding one car to take advantage of peak usage times fits the criteria of "growing the business" (I guess) but it really only exploits existing spikes in ridership levels, it isn't really creating new business. The eastbound departure time from Chicago is dreadful for anyone not making the full trip to the east coast. I know I once cancelled my entire plans to travel east from Los Angeles via rail after learning that after connecting with the Lakeshore then on to my ultimate destination they would be dropping me off after 11 PM out in the middle of a corn field with no taxicab service.
Adding one car to take advantage of peak usage times fits the criteria of "growing the business" (I guess) but it really only exploits existing spikes in ridership levels, it isn't really creating new business.
The eastbound departure time from Chicago is dreadful for anyone not making the full trip to the east coast. I know I once cancelled my entire plans to travel east from Los Angeles via rail after learning that after connecting with the Lakeshore then on to my ultimate destination they would be dropping me off after 11 PM out in the middle of a corn field with no taxicab service.
Can we say whether adding cars during peak season to meet its demands is growing the business ? This poster has no idea. Does some one who needs or can only book a train during any peak period remember it and then book Amtrak during an off peak period ?
Agree that LSL departure times are difficult. Only see one solution given present equipment restraints.
Swap back departure times with Capitol. That has been proposed previously but would have undesireable arrival times for Capitol. As an aside -- Once enough V-2 sleepers are in service changing the LSL back will enable its Boston sleeper to be rotated to a possible 66 & 67 sleeper that would only require one more sleeper for the service.
Until off peak sleeper demand is met we can only guess if total ridership will increase. The question has to be how many coach passengers are denied sleeper space?
blue streak 1for the Silver Meteor and the additional revenue over costs that happens with the addition of one coach.
I'd be much more impressed if they were to add additional runs (two round trips per day) on the Lakeshore or some such.
The eastbound departure time from Chicago is dreadful for anyone not making the full trip to the east coast. I know I once cancelled my entire plans to travel east from Los Angeles via rail after learning that after connecting with the Lakeshore then on to my ultimate destination they would be dropping me off after 11 PM out in the middle of a corn field with no taxicab service. (Amtrak had scuttled the connecting shuttle bus service that was implemented for that terminal when their original route/schedule was first created)
Much like my local bus company, they whittle away at services and features until the product remaining appeals to no one.
Glancing at some of the PRIIA studies, for riders of LD trains, 62-68% are 55 and over.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Given the number of "I've never ridden a train before" riders of all ages I see on our tourist line, there won't be a lot who have tried it...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Paul_D_North_Jr Convicted One I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"? . . . [snipped - PDN] How could they know ? How many have ever tried it ? - Paul North.
Convicted One I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"? . . . [snipped - PDN]
How could they know ? How many have ever tried it ?
- Paul North.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted One This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
This is a false assumption by many persons. Read the PRIIA for the Silver Meteor and the additional revenue over costs that happens with the addition of one coach. ( profits for that car ). Believe it is approximately $700,000 per year. So growth by adding additional cars will reduce operating loses. That still does not make a train ( route ) self supporting but does improve the bottom line. We know that the Meteor this Thanksgiving had 4 V-1 sleepers and 6 coaches. Have not seen reports for this December .
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/570/756/2011%20PRIIA%20210%20Report%2009-26-11_final.pdf
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+EAS
Oh yeah, that clears it up. Thanks, you've added to my forum experience today.
Wiki? Google?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
The EAS criteria? What's that?
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level? By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation. Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here. What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?
schlimm Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level? By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation. Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.
Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?
By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation.
Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.
What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?
There could be many. The EAS criteria could be used to determine where services might be needed, including current LD routes in flyoverland, but also other places not currently served. Curent patronage would be a factor of course. Much as it might be nice, providing a heavily subsidized sleeper service for a one-time grandchild vacation or visitors from overseas seems hard to justify compared to many other, more pressing matters.
Removal of long-distance service not only hurts those who do or will ride the trains, but also their connections that won't see them because of that lack. Plus the businesses that depend on them. But certainly improvements are needed.
If Amtrak is inconvenient as to place and time where you live, is there connecting bus service that permits most of the long-distance trip to be by train, where you live?
daveklepper 4. fairness in spending tax dolllars: granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.
4. fairness in spending tax dolllars: granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.
schlimm If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure." Or he could google for some discussions.
If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure." Or he could google for some discussions.
Murphy SidingI live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?
I have justified public subsidization of LDs many times in the past, and mentioned:
1. Mobility for the handicapped and elderly
2. encouraging domestic and foreign tourism
3. backup transportation for emergnencies
schlimm rrnut282 Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train) I would suggest you re-read the posts.
rrnut282 Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)
Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)
I would suggest you re-read the posts.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do. Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads? ALL.
Murphy Siding schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do. Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?
schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.
If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.
Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?
ALL.
oltmannd This is because the frt RRs aren't going to allow even on extra minute of delay to their trains when you add on the passenger trains
I would opine that if the "successful" premise of this thread was met, that would mean it was profitable.
And if it was profitable, I think you'd see the freight railroads anxious to run the show themselves. They would make it work if there was sufficient greenery.
daveklepperExcept when growing the business means far less need for extremely expensive highway widening,
You may have just hit upon a solution!! Add a line item to everyone's income tax form "would you prefer to pay a 10% tax surcharge to rebuild highways in this country, or a 6% tax surcharge for passenger rail expansion?" And let the tax payer choose.
Then watch the &%^$#^$ scramble to keep their jobs come next election!! lol!!
Paul_D_North_JrHow could they know ? How many have ever tried it ?
In a way, I think that was my point. Just with a different perspective.
I believe that they have a higher priority in preserving their jobs than in making mass transit a growth industry, does that blow some of the fog away?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.