Air line Bankruptcy vs. Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

There already has been 7 Air line that have filed Bankrupt in this country. Add Two more to that list. As for Amtrak I think that this a major wake up call for Amtrak. What is it? Northwest air lines and Delta just filed chapter 7 or 11 yesterday.
Now that the Air line are taking a major hit,I think now is the time for Amtrak to get it's head together and try to get back costomers big time. As far as I can it.....
Now the Green light it pointing at Amtrak........It's Amtrak's move now.......
Allan.

[TomDiehl]

Unfortunately, Amtrak is hogtied by government actions (or in this case, inaction). Since Secretary Minetta is insisting that Amtrak become profitable, he should also attach the same requirement to the airlines. Of course to REALLY level the field, the airlines should be billed for the terminal services, air traffic control system, all FAA functions, etc. (yeah, like THAT will happen).

[nanaimo73]

Allan-
I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. Their problem is equipment. I believe if they had another 10 engines and 100 cars they would be put to full use. Due to Katrina the Sunset was cancelled (Texas Eagle has the schedule west of San Antonio), the CONO stopped at Memphis and the Crescent stubbed at Atlanta. That saved 5 trainsets which were needed elsewhere and probably well used. I am really surprised Amtrak stopped serving Houston.
Amtrak needs to lobby in Washington for funding during this Airline crisis, not look for more passengers.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Both are chapter 11, and none of the airlines troubles will translate into a single extra rider for Amtrak. Amtrak goes where it goes, and very infrequently.

Rail travel simply isn't a substitute for air travel, and never will be. Try going from Denver to Dallas on the train. How about Minneapolis to Los Angeles. How about anywhere to Las Vegas.

The only chance rail passenger travel has, is if airplanes run out of fuel, or simply become too expensive.

Get over trying to improve Amtrak, it ain't gonna happen.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Both are chapter 11, and none of the airlines troubles will translate into a single extra rider for Amtrak.

So true, and it's a real pity. Amtrak would have long ago gone into chapter 11 if it hadn't been a step-child of the government. Instead it's in a political limbo of perpetual de facto bankruptcy, it has absolutely no freedom of action. If the politicians could kill it quietly, they would.

QUOTE:
Amtrak goes where it goes, and very infrequently.

And those are very few places indeed for country like the US.

QUOTE:
Rail travel simply isn't a substitute for air travel, and never will be. Try going from Denver to Dallas on the train. How about Minneapolis to Los Angeles. How about anywhere to Las Vegas.

I've said elsewhere the competitive environment for Amtrak's long distance trains is about to become much more dire as very light jets, a new type of airplane, start coming online.
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?page=-1&TOPIC_ID=40942&REPLY_ID=426566#426566
As air taxis they will address the non-scheduled and small traffic markets.

QUOTE:
The only chance rail passenger travel has, is if airplanes run out of fuel, or simply become too expensive.
Get over trying to improve Amtrak, it ain't gonna happen.

You're too optimistic.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak's customers are a unique niche of the traveling public. Other than a complete stoppage of the airline network (like post-9/11), ridership won't rise appreciably.

Now how Amtrak can better serve that niche, and whether or not the government should subsidise them while they service that niche is subject of countless debates here and other places.

Here's an idea, the Feds should take over all the passenger airlines...we'll call it AmPlane! [:P]

[Anonymous]

On a scale of one to ten,How would you rate Amtrak's attendence rate of just how many passengers that do ride Amtrak today? Allan.

[Anonymous]

According to USA Today, 51.5% of the nation's airline capacity is now in Chapter 11. What was the Hill quote? "neither useful or ornamental".

[ndbprr]

I think you will find that throughout history the FEds have bailed out many a company including the railroads. CNW, Rock Island, Conrail come to mind. The fact is that air travel is much more important to commerce and the average traveler than rail is at this point in time.

[garr]

miker2002,

IIRC,the federal government gave/loaned Delta approximately $1billion shortly after 9/11/01. Sad to say that is roughly 6 times Delta's market capitalization on 9/14/05. The federal government's winning picks are almost as good as some of my stock picks during this time frame.

Jay

[CSXrules4eva]

Unfortunitly I don't think the bankruptcy (Spelling) of Northwest and Delta Airlines isn't going to increase ridership on Amtrak. Sadly people are most likely going to go with another airline in order to get fast, service in long distance travel. Now, the people might complain enough to were the government will have to give both companies money in order to satisfy the majority of the public's demand for swift, reliable service over long distances. In this case these two airlines might be allowed to merge in order to get rid of the debts and strainghten themselves out in terms of service. This will sort of be like the PRR and NYC deal. Most likely the two merged airlines will survive and grow unlike PC.
Unfortunitly I don't think these two Airlines in chapter 11 will effect Amtrak at all in terms of increased profits.

[dldance]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. ... I am really surprised Amtrak stopped serving Houston....

Amtrak is serving Houston from the Texas Eagle through their bus connection at Longview TX. I had a chance to talk with one of the Amtrak engineers who normally works out of the Houston area and he said that the reason that Amtrak has annulled the Sunset at San Antonio rather than continuing it into Houston is the congestion in Houston and the fact that Amtrak has better facilities for servicing and turning the train at San Antonio.

dd

PS - the airline banckrupcy is a Chapter 11 - they continue to operate as normal but they don't have to pay their long-term creditors until the courts work out a plan. The court may also invalidate pensions and labor contracts.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

On a scale of one to ten,How would you rate Amtrak's attendence rate of just how many passengers that do ride Amtrak today? Allan.

Allan, I don't quite understand your question. The real question that would put all of this to rest would be annual passenger miles by mode. The modes being, air, rail, water, bus, private automobile.

I'll try and do a little poking around on the net to see if I can find the answer. In the meantime, why don't you put the modes in order from greatest to smallest. The first two could be tricky, then the second two could also be tricky.

I'll give you a hint, water is dead last. It is also the slowest. The only time water travel makes sense is when it is an extreme shortcut, or there is no road access.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

Unfortunitly I don't think the bankruptcy (Spelling) of Northwest and Delta Airlines isn't going to increase ridership on Amtrak. Sadly people are most likely going to go with another airline in order to get fast, service in long distance travel. Now, the people might complain enough to were the government will have to give both companies money in order to satisfy the majority of the public's demand for swift, reliable service over long distances. In this case these two airlines might be allowed to merge in order to get rid of the debts and strainghten themselves out in terms of service. This will sort of be like the PRR and NYC deal. Most likely the two merged airlines will survive and grow unlike PC.
Unfortunitly I don't think these two Airlines in chapter 11 will effect Amtrak at all in terms of increased profits.

Actually durring the bankruptcy process, the airlines keep flying as if nothing happened. People holding tickets are not affected, nor are schedules. Look at United. It is the creditors who take a beating.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Can't beat the good old USDoT. Read it and weep. See where Amtrak figures in the big picture? Not even a noticible fraction of a percent. Intercity buses kick Amtrak's butt.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_01_37.html

The winner is the car, followed by the plane, then the bus, the train, and the lowly boat.

Americans actually log more miles on motorcycles than Amtrak, by better than a 2 to 1 margine. Even commuter rail beats Amtrak.

I actually thought there was a chance that air miles would be close to car miles, due to the distances. Not even close.

[SchemerBob]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Allan-
I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. Their problem is equipment. I believe if they had another 10 engines and 100 cars they would be put to full use.

Very true!! One of Amtrak's most recent stupid equipment acts is the mothballing of all of their Dash 8-40BP locomotives. They retired lots more than 10!! Amtrak used them mostly on the Auto Train because their hardware and pulling capacity was more efficiant. But they could have upgraded them (for some reason they thought they couldn't) and used them elsewhere. Hey, it wasn't very long ago that we still saw the P40s out on the long distance trains!! And if you fixed up the rest of the remaining in the series and you would have more than THIRTY locomotives!! And assign the Pepsi-Cans to trains too, BY THEMSELVES!! All Amtrak needs now are 2 engines on their long distance trains. Yet we still see three on the Southwest Chief. WHY! Sometimes it isn't even 9 cars long!! Amtrak has like, let's see. 207 P42s, 18 P32AC-DMs, 20 Pepsi Cans (now if they'd just use them), and like 30 or so P40s that they have shoved in a shed somewhere. If Amtrak would just get themselves together and fix up some of these engines we'd have a pretty nice fleet. Oh, and why should the F59s be only in California, or Washington, or North Carolina? We also have some other odball engines that COULD be used all around the system. Do the P32AC-DMs have to be kept in the northeast? NO, they could be brought out into the national system. Amtrak has 18, do they really need that many up there? I think Amtrak has got so stuck-up with their P42s (even though I like them) that they don't want ANY OTHER engine running their trains, period, except on the NEC and in California and North Carolina. Why, I haven't seen a different engine pulling any Amtrak train since 1996! NO KIDDING!

Why in the world do we think Amtrak is short on locomotives? They've got plenty if they'd just get themselves together and FIX THEM UP!! It does cost money, and it may be cheaper to buy new locomotives. If that's the case, WHY DOESN'T AMTRAK DO IT? Money from the government. That's how it is.

To tell you the truth, Amtrak has plenty of working engines already, they're just using the P42s for long-distance and any other train they can think of. That's why the locomotive suppy is so thinned-out. Come on, they only have 207! And then SHOVING the P40s in a closet somewhere and then REDUCING the other engines to CERTIAN REGIONS! What would happen if they brought out some other engines onto the shorter trains, or maybe even the long-distance trains? Amtrak would have more P42s to put on longer/shorter trains and everything is settled!

I am really tipped off about how Amtrak has just givin up on the P40s. Upgrading them would be to expensive, they say. Well, why haven't you scrapped them yet? Security. We're keeping them just in case of an emergency. Oh, so you say that they could come out onto the tracks in an emergency. WELL WHY NOT NOW!!!!!!!

We see all the little GP38s and SD40-2s on the freight railroads that have been around for DECADES and are still pretty common! Have they been updated? Probably, but PROBABLY NOT MUCH!! And the P40s are only 12 years old and Amtrak's ready to just SCRAP them!! At least when they scrapped the F40s they had a replacement all ready (The P40s!!). In the P40 case, they'res NOTHING to take their place, and NOTHING'S EVEN PLANNED to take their place, except these little stupid self propelled trainsets which I don't even think are INTENDED to take their place. CRAP!! Do you think Amtrak is really going to buy some of those?

GET IT TOGETHER AMTRAK!! If you want to stick around for a few more years you have to learn to get along with what you've got!! Upgrade the P40s. Get them out on the rails again, and not just on the Auto Train either. Put a powered engine on each side of the train so you won't have to turn them around again. Use the engine's you've got. DON'T JUST SCRAP THEM WITHOUT ANY SLIGHT PLAN OF REPLACEMENT!!! If you do that, what are we going to have in a few years? Maybe one P42 and no Pepsi Cans and all the little F59s and Cabbages goofing around in the west, and Amtrak's wondering, "Gosh, what are we going to do? We don't have any locomotives for the long distance trains and we can't use the F59s or Cabbages for that."

BIG LIE!! YOU CAN!!

Sorry but things like this just make me irrate.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]

[Anonymous]

One word.......Money!
Allan.

[Big_Boy_4005]

No Allan, the one word is insignificant. That is how Amtrak fits into the national transportation scheme, and it's funding is proportional to it's importance.

Don't get me wrong, I love trains just as much as anyone here on the forum does, but the American people vote with their dollars, and rail travel isn't what they want. It would only be a bigger waste of money to try to expand Amtrak.

Let's not forget who owns most the rails that Amtrak uses. To the railroads, Amtrak is like a fly buzzing in their ear, a major annoyance. They would love nothing better than to put it out of "their" misery, so they could concentrate on their real business, which is hauling freight. There is no money in the passenger business. It was on that very notion that Amtrak was formed. 34 years later, and we can't give up the ghost, though Bush came close this year.

Look for bigger budget problems next year, after the Katrina spending frenzy.

Dale and Bob, unless every single seat and room is booked on every train, the need for more equipment is entirely moot and speculative. For the most part, Amtrak does a pretty good job allocating the resources that it has. I seriously doubt that if a train fills up far enough in advance, they can't locate an extra car or two to accomadate the extra customers.

[oltmannd]

Bob-

The P40s are surplus because the express business never materialized.

They need 3 P42s on #3 & 4 to get over Raton - it's a 3+% grade - steepest of any Amtrak route. The train would stall with 2 units.

Even if they got the P40s in good working order, they have nothing for them to haul, nor the money to run any more trains and routes if they did.

Amtrak is waiting to find out what the gov't long term stategy is. Should it involve more trains or need more locomotives, its not a big deal to overhaul the P40s. Much cheaper & quicker than buying new. But, no need to do it now and then just have them sit. I costs quite a bit of money to have active locomotive, even if you don't use it. A stored locomotive does not need FRA inspections.

Most of the F59s belong to the state of California, who wouldn't like it very much if they went roaming all over the country. They also have very small fuel tanks and would not make it between the current fueling stops on the LD routes.

Amtrak is not a stupid as you may think.

-Don

QUOTE: Originally posted by SchemerBob

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

Allan-
I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. Their problem is equipment. I believe if they had another 10 engines and 100 cars they would be put to full use.

Very true!! One of Amtrak's most recent stupid equipment acts is the mothballing of all of their Dash 8-40BP locomotives. They retired lots more than 10!! Amtrak used them mostly on the Auto Train because their hardware and pulling capacity was more efficiant. But they could have upgraded them (for some reason they thought they couldn't) and used them elsewhere. Hey, it wasn't very long ago that we still saw the P40s out on the long distance trains!! And if you fixed up the rest of the remaining in the series and you would have more than THIRTY locomotives!! And assign the Pepsi-Cans to trains too, BY THEMSELVES!! All Amtrak needs now are 2 engines on their long distance trains. Yet we still see three on the Southwest Chief. WHY! Sometimes it isn't even 9 cars long!! Amtrak has like, let's see. 207 P42s, 18 P32AC-DMs, 20 Pepsi Cans (now if they'd just use them), and like 30 or so P40s that they have shoved in a shed somewhere. If Amtrak would just get themselves together and fix up some of these engines we'd have a pretty nice fleet. Oh, and why should the F59s be only in California, or Washington, or North Carolina? We also have some other odball engines that COULD be used all around the system. Do the P32AC-DMs have to be kept in the northeast? NO, they could be brought out into the national system. Amtrak has 18, do they really need that many up there? I think Amtrak has got so stuck-up with their P42s (even though I like them) that they don't want ANY OTHER engine running their trains, period, except on the NEC and in California and North Carolina. Why, I haven't seen a different engine pulling any Amtrak train since 1996! NO KIDDING!

Why in the world do we think Amtrak is short on locomotives? They've got plenty if they'd just get themselves together and FIX THEM UP!! It does cost money, and it may be cheaper to buy new locomotives. If that's the case, WHY DOESN'T AMTRAK DO IT? Money from the government. That's how it is.

To tell you the truth, Amtrak has plenty of working engines already, they're just using the P42s for long-distance and any other train they can think of. That's why the locomotive suppy is so thinned-out. Come on, they only have 207! And then SHOVING the P40s in a closet somewhere and then REDUCING the other engines to CERTIAN REGIONS! What would happen if they brought out some other engines onto the shorter trains, or maybe even the long-distance trains? Amtrak would have more P42s to put on longer/shorter trains and everything is settled!

I am really tipped off about how Amtrak has just givin up on the P40s. Upgrading them would be to expensive, they say. Well, why haven't you scrapped them yet? Security. We're keeping them just in case of an emergency. Oh, so you say that they could come out onto the tracks in an emergency. WELL WHY NOT NOW!!!!!!!

We see all the little GP38s and SD40-2s on the freight railroads that have been around for DECADES and are still pretty common! Have they been updated? Probably, but PROBABLY NOT MUCH!! And the P40s are only 12 years old and Amtrak's ready to just SCRAP them!! At least when they scrapped the F40s they had a replacement all ready (The P40s!!). In the P40 case, they'res NOTHING to take their place, and NOTHING'S EVEN PLANNED to take their place, except these little stupid self propelled trainsets which I don't even think are INTENDED to take their place. CRAP!! Do you think Amtrak is really going to buy some of those?

GET IT TOGETHER AMTRAK!! If you want to stick around for a few more years you have to learn to get along with what you've got!! Upgrade the P40s. Get them out on the rails again, and not just on the Auto Train either. Put a powered engine on each side of the train so you won't have to turn them around again. Use the engine's you've got. DON'T JUST SCRAP THEM WITHOUT ANY SLIGHT PLAN OF REPLACEMENT!!! If you do that, what are we going to have in a few years? Maybe one P42 and no Pepsi Cans and all the little F59s and Cabbages goofing around in the west, and Amtrak's wondering, "Gosh, what are we going to do? We don't have any locomotives for the long distance trains and we can't use the F59s or Cabbages for that."

BIG LIE!! YOU CAN!!

Sorry but things like this just make me irrate.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]

[Anonymous]

Ya your correct there Big boy 4005.
Allan.

[jeaton]

Thanks Don. In the three or four years that I have been following the fortunes of Amtrak very closely, I have yet to see any indication that locomotive supply is ann issue for Amtrak. I believe that legislation is in place that prohibits Amtrak from adding service unless such new service is "profitable". For all practical purposes, that is an out right total prohibition.

Absent that requirement, I think that car supply might be more of a limiting factor. There are cars on the repair line and if more funds were available, that situation could probably be improved, but there other more urgent uses for the cash available to Amtrak. I would not think it very prudent to spend money to fix something that is not currently needed.

As indicated by other posts, the airlines in bankruptcy are not making any significant cuts in service, and there is no indication that Amtrak will get a bump because of the situation. Actually gas prices might be a different issue. If I were to drive to Washington, DC, I would drop about $300 for gas to make the trip out and back. My round trip coach ticket would run $145. Any questions?

Jay

[SchemerBob]

Okay, you guys are all right. I knew all of this but wasn't using my head the other day. I was being kind of stupid myself [:D][:D]!!

[ndbprr]

just saw a very brief article that said the Sunset Limited lost an average of $464.00 for every passenger that rode it and was late 95% of the time. There's a train headed in the right direction. Another Amtrak success story.

[SchemerBob]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

just saw a very brief article that said the Sunset Limited lost an average of $464.00 for every passenger that rode it and was late 95% of the time. There's a train headed in the right direction. Another Amtrak success story.

Would this be partly because it's tri-weekly?

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

just saw a very brief article that said the Sunset Limited lost an average of $464.00 for every passenger that rode it and was late 95% of the time. There's a train headed in the right direction. Another Amtrak success story.

Well, let's see here . . .first off loss and profit are measured in terms of Revenue Passenger Miles, not per passenger! That figure is meaningless. You could also argue that the six largest airlines in North America last year lost $100 per passenger (which they did, BTW). The perfoemance of one single route doesn't mean that the entire system is flawed. As for being late 95% of the time, that was mostly the fault of a host railroad, combinerd with extremely high traffic levels and a lack of investment in track capacity in previous years - none of which are the fault of Amtrak.

Living in the northern Midwest, I would look forward to seeing a viable third choice in transportation alternatives. The air carrier serving the local airport - the only airline serving the local airport - has just entered bankruptcy, and the only other viable choice I have is to drive. Unless, I want to get up very early in the morning, and then spend the day reading or napping until I arrive at my destination. The Midwest HSR initiative would allieviate a lot of this. Until then, it looks like either I can fly (which has its own disadvantages, including getting me to my destinatiojn only one hour faster than driving) or drive (6 hours+ ) .

If it were a viable alternative, I'd take the train over driving. More trains and more frequencies would be very nice, however.

[ndbprr]

Ok so the loss per passenger numbers aren't the way you would like them presented. Can you still afford to be late 95% of the time?

[oltmannd]

If you're late 95% of the time, there isn't much need to publish a train schedule - it's meaningless!

But, can you "afford" to be late 95% of the time? Even with this poor performance, there are still plenty of riders. So, this says something about the demand for rail travel. It also says something about the need for precise timekeeping on long distance trains. On a 48 hour trip, if you're 5 hours late, that's only ~10%. On a 300 mile drive, does it bother you much if you make it in 6 hrs versus 5-1/2? Or, if you are 10 minutes late on a one hour flight?

On the other side, maybe you can't "afford" better timekeeping. In order to improve the timekeeping of the Sunset, it may require a large capital investment that won't have a positive ROI.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

If you're late 95% of the time, there isn't much need to publish a train schedule - it's meaningless!

But, can you "afford" to be late 95% of the time? Even with this poor performance, there are still plenty of riders. So, this says something about the demand for rail travel. It also says something about the need for precise timekeeping on long distance trains. On a 48 hour trip, if you're 5 hours late, that's only ~10%. On a 300 mile drive, does it bother you much if you make it in 6 hrs versus 5-1/2? Or, if you are 10 minutes late on a one hour flight?

On the other side, maybe you can't "afford" better timekeeping. In order to improve the timekeeping of the Sunset, it may require a large capital investment that won't have a positive ROI.

Again, Amtrak is at the mercy of the host railroads, in this case, mostly the Union Pacific (from Lake Charles LA, to Los Angeles CA a distance of 1776 miles). I'm sure we've all read about the meltdown of service that the UP had after their last devouring of other railroads. If they can't run the freights on time, what makes you think they care about a tennant (Amtrak) running on time?

Last month I rode the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, mostly on BNSF, and we ran pretty close to schedule most of the way, but it was more obvious that it was a fluid railroad with the Amtrak trains plugged in between the freights. All were moving at track speed, which I would estimate to be 79MPH.

[SchemerBob]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Again, Amtrak is at the mercy of the host railroads, in this case, mostly the Union Pacific (from Lake Charles LA, to Los Angeles CA a distance of 1776 miles). I'm sure we've all read about the meltdown of service that the UP had after their last devouring of other railroads. If they can't run the freights on time, what makes you think they care about a tennant (Amtrak) running on time?

Last month I rode the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, mostly on BNSF, and we ran pretty close to schedule most of the way, but it was more obvious that it was a fluid railroad with the Amtrak trains plugged in between the freights. All were moving at track speed, which I would estimate to be 79MPH.

I think BNSF does a much better job pusing Amtrak along with their freights. In 1999 the California Zephyr was delayed for about 6 hours when a freight train derailed in Winter Park Colorado...I can understand why it would take long, but another reason is that it is UP.

[Anonymous]

being a retired railroad conductor . i was wondering that all these response listed above saying amtrak will no be a help to our transportation mode . i guess these people above do not know anything about railroad or ever worked for a railroad. passenger rail is safe fuel efficient and less polluting. there are many people who do not fly or can't or won't, and many people fan't drive or can't and won;t.i wonder how many of the people who responsed to this article drive gas-guzzling SUC's thank you