Empire Builder moved to a more southerly route?

[VerMontanan]

Given the superior ridership performance of the Empire Builder relative to other Amtrak Long Distance trains, it would seem unlikely that changing its route could result in increased use of the service, since no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better. 

This is a non sequitur. The contention makes no sense at all.

 

Michael, I'm sure it doesn't to you.   It's really no different than your ridiculous claims that the Milwaukee Road transcontinental route was operationally superior to the competition.  You pride yourself on going to great lengths to show why things turned out the way they didn't or that they aren't.  This is no different.  Or, perhaps you're not capable of identifying success.  Whatever.

[nanaimo73]

Mark, and Michael,

Would a one year trial using Colorado Railcar DMUs operating between Billings and Spokane be the best way to see if there was demand in this corridor ? It looks like a 13 hour trip both ways, requiring 2 sets of equipment for daytime running in both directions.

[MichaelSol]

Given the superior ridership performance of the Empire Builder relative to other Amtrak Long Distance trains, it would seem unlikely that changing its route could result in increased use of the service, since no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better. 

This is a non sequitur. The contention makes no sense at all.

 

Michael, I'm sure it doesn't to you.   It's really no different than your ridiculous claims that the Milwaukee Road transcontinental route was operationally superior to the competition.  You pride yourself on going to great lengths to show why things turned out the way they didn't or that they aren't.  This is no different.  Or, perhaps you're not capable of identifying success.  Whatever.

Now, in light of recent discussions about moderation and personal attacks, why would you just spontaneously bring up the Milwaukee Road on this thread, accuse me of making "ridiculous claims" and allege that I am "not capable" of identifying "success".

Just want to pick a fight? That's sure what it looks like.

My point is that the question of whether the route of the Empire Builder could benefit from changes is entirely independent of the fact that "no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better." It is a logical fallacy to state that the success of the Empire Builder is directly related to less success on other trains, when in fact the success or lack there of of each train is pretty much dependent on the circumstances of each individual route -- not on whether or not other trains do or do not perform better.

It is the attempt to connect two completely unrelated facts to support a conclusion that is a genuine non sequitur.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

Or, perhaps you're not capable of identifying success.  Whatever.

Depends on whether the Empire Builder is your measure of "success". It is not an unqualified success. It is not a success at all.

From the September 2007 YTD Amtrak figures, the Empire Builder has so far lost $34.8 million on revenues of $58 million, a -37.5% rate of return on revenue.

In total dollars, eight long distance trains lost less, eight lost more.

The Empire Builder represented 11.24% of the total Amtrak system losses, yet contributed only 3.23% of the total system revenue.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

When I state that passenger traffic east of Whitefish is thin, that is based not only personal observation several times a year on the train in question but a sound statistical analysis as well, and the fact that it happens to match the poster's current figures simply underscores the fact that the observation is likely statistically truer than the alternative contention.

Well Michael, I guess we are seeing different things.  When I rode the Empire Builder this fall the train was so packed that it took five seatings in the diner to accommodate all who wished to eat, and was in operation until the train was past Rugby, North Dakota.   But your earlier comments about how the station stop at East Glacier is more used for surrounding communities rather than for Glacier Park usage, and your classic post from earlier in the thread, "The lounge/dome is must better utilized on the Portland leg along the Columbia River. Insofar as that limits breakfast before arriving in Portland to things wrapped in plastic; it at least has the benefit of the majestic scenery seen from the dome. By contrast to being herded, cow like, to the 'community seating' enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter, the lounge car to Portland is actually the more positive of the two alternatives" proves your lack of knowledge about the service (i.e. the term "dome") and that you're not above fictionalizing your story just to "prove" your point. (I'm aware of your fixation with degrading Cascade Tunnel, which has continuously used for longer than the Milwaukee Road's Western Extension, maybe even for a good reason, but the strong ridership and apparent lack of reported asphyxiations by passengers in the tunnel seem contrary to your claim).

Changing my description from the "Lounge/dome car" to "dome" car to prove some point, regurgitating another post, and bringing in yet another unrelated item, the Cascade Tunnel, does indeed suggest the depth of your emotional attachment to the Empire Builder.  Well, good for you. But you don't need to distort my remarks to justify your attachment to your train, and I fail to see any reason why you continue to do it.

But, while we're at it, you are going considerably beyond changing my remarks to fit your narrative: "ridiculous claims","fixation", "not above fictionalizing", "not capable", "lack of knowledge" ... all directed to the person, not the thread topic. Very much personal attacks of the type that the moderators allegedly deplore, but for which the rules seem to enjoy extremely selective, unpredictable, and arbitrary enforcement on Trains forums.

You are obviously winding up on this thread to a full blown series of personal insults, trying as hard as you can to start one of your cat fights about the GN or the Empire Builder. Can't you just disagree?

 

[MichaelSol]

 Would a one year trial using Colorado Railcar DMUs operating between Billings and Spokane be the best way to see if there was demand in this corridor ? It looks like a 13 hour trip both ways, requiring 2 sets of equipment for daytime running in both directions.

I am not familiar with the specific equipment, but a train would have to leave Billings about 7 a.m. or so to reach Sandpoint ... and would be leaving Sandpoint a little earlier than that to travel to Billings. Would I travel on a DMU? Don't know. If the schedule worked, probably.

I have a visiting former student who was somewhat underwhelmed by his bus trip from Portland for his visit, and I suggested taking the train back. The train was economically feasible for him, but the trip to either Whitefish or Spokane to catch the train was a hurdle.

[Murphy Siding]

     Weird- it's like I'm watching the sequel to a movie that I haven't seen in a while:Michael Sol & VerMontanan part II

[nanaimo73]

     Weird- it's like I'm watching the sequel to a movie that I haven't seen in a while:Michael Sol & VerMontanan part II

If they both bring up facts, and clear arguments, I'm all for it.

Mark, do you live in Missoula ? Is it fair to say you don't want a second Amtrak train in your state ?

[MichaelSol]

     Weird- it's like I'm watching the sequel to a movie that I haven't seen in a while:Michael Sol & VerMontanan part II

Glad you enjoy it. It's one of the reasons I don't like posting on Trains forums anymore and don't do much of it.

[zardoz]

Glad you enjoy it. It's one of the reasons I don't like posting on Trains forums anymore and don't do much of it.

FWIW, some us enjoy your posts, and find them refreshingly detailed and informative.

Not to mention how they inspire such interesting debates.

The forums are worse for the loss of such exchanges.

[Murphy Siding]

Glad you enjoy it. It's one of the reasons I don't like posting on Trains forums anymore and don't do much of it.

FWIW, some us enjoy your posts, and find them refreshingly detailed and informative.

Not to mention how they inspire such interesting debates.

The forums are worse for the loss of such exchanges.

For what it's worth, some threads seem to bog down into an "Oh yeah? Yeah!" type thread.  At that point, they sometimes turn ugly.  I'd *score* this currently at Michael 9/ Mark2.  I don't wish to discourage either from posting, but on this particular thread, they may have come to the bog.

[ValorStorm]

Glad you enjoy it. It's one of the reasons I don't like posting on Trains forums anymore and don't do much of it.

FWIW, some us enjoy your posts, and find them refreshingly detailed and informative. Not to mention how they inspire such interesting debates.The forums are worse for the loss of such exchanges.

For what it's worth, some threads seem to bog down into an "Oh yeah? Yeah!" type thread.  At that point, they sometimes turn ugly.  I'd *score* this currently at Michael 9/ Mark2.  I don't wish to discourage either from posting, but on this particular thread, they may have come to the bog.

Where did the "Oh yeah" come from to begin with? Why would anyone not want Amtrak service along the I-90 corridor? How could this make anybody angry? Indeed, why would anyone risk censure (as already happened on this thread earlier for a similar attack) over an insipid topic like this one?

MichaelSol, don't stop posting. Your posts are always true scholarship, and never specious. Certain forum members will do anything to appear as erudite as you are, because they can't be so. It's just vacuous self-validation. Don't return fire.

[VerMontanan]

     Weird- it's like I'm watching the sequel to a movie that I haven't seen in a while:Michael Sol & VerMontanan part II

If they both bring up facts, and clear arguments, I'm all for it.

Mark, do you live in Missoula ? Is it fair to say you don't want a second Amtrak train in your state ?

 

Dale,

I no longer live in Montana, but am a native.  No, I absolutely support Amtrak service through Southern Montana (and am a member of the Montana Association of Railroad Passengers) and other places, too.  But that's not what this thread was originally about, which was the possibility of moving the Empire Builder to the Southern Montana route.  True passenger train advocates never prefer to support one route losing service so another can gain.  And it's not like the thread was about rerouting a train like the Sunset Limited, a train burdened with many chronic problems all the way around, but rather Amtrak's most successful long distance train.  Hence the lack of merit in the original proposal.

The only way Southern Montana, or anywhere else, will see reinstated long distance rail passenger service will be a change in transportation policy in the United States which identifies funding to upgrade routes and provide equipment to run the trains.  A reinstated North Coast Hiawatha would require significant uprading of the railroad between Billings and Fargo, investment in stations just about everywhere along the route, and six sets of equipment to run a service on a schedule similar to that of 1979.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that given the current strains on the U.S. Treasury, that such a train is a long way off.

The sucess of the Empire Builder a good example of how to get passenger service reinstated on other routes.  When people read about the comfort and convenience of rail travel (such stories about the Empire Builder are all over the Internet) and how more and more people are patronizing the service, it might just get those in areas where there is no rail passenger service now to pressure their local, state, and national legislators to make a change (you have to start somewhere).  A change in the national policy overall would be much better than just focusing on one route.

Mark

[VerMontanan]

Or, perhaps you're not capable of identifying success.  Whatever.

Depends on whether the Empire Builder is your measure of "success". It is not an unqualified success. It is not a success at all.

From the September 2007 YTD Amtrak figures, the Empire Builder has so far lost $34.8 million on revenues of $58 million, a -37.5% rate of return on revenue.

In total dollars, eight long distance trains lost less, eight lost more.

The Empire Builder represented 11.24% of the total Amtrak system losses, yet contributed only 3.23% of the total system revenue.

 

There are many ways to view the utility of Amtrak trains.  All of them (with the exception of Auto Train on occasion, but this is also debatable) lose money.  Yet, the majority of Americans (most of whom don't even have access to Amtrak's skeletal system), support the service.  Another way to look at it was from the 12/18/2007 URPA (United Rail Passenger Alliance) newsletter:

The Empire Builder, Amtrak's long distance route between Chicago and
Seattle/Portland is the single best performer in the Amtrak system. This
one daily train in each direction generated 390,824,000 revenue passenger
miles and $53,177,800 in revenue. It carried 505,000 passengers for an
average length of trip of 774 miles, with 207 passengers riding every
train mile. The revenue per passenger mile was 13.61 cents, and the load
factor was 61%.

Contrast the Empire Builder with one of Amtrak's best managed short
distance corridors, the Capitols, which is overseen by a professional
railroader of repute working for the State of California. The Capitols
feed passengers in and out of the San Francisco Bay area, east to
Sacramento, with connections to Nevada. The Capitol Corridor runs for 168
route miles. The Capitol Corridor fields 16 trains a day in each
direction, which generated 96,404,000 revenue passenger miles and
$16,723,700 in revenue. The Capitols carried 1,450,100 passengers for an
average length of trip of 66.5 miles (the lowest length of trip in the
Amtrak system), with 81 passengers riding every train mile. The revenue
per passenger mile was 17.35 cents, and the load factor was 26.7%.

To sum up, one long train a day versus 16 corridor trains a day have
these comparative results:

The Empire Builder generated 294,420,000 more revenue passenger miles
than the Capitols.

The Empire Builder made $36,454,100 than the Capitols for the fiscal
year.

The Empire Builder carried 944,600 fewer passengers than the Capitols.

The Empire Builder's average length of trip was 707.5 miles longer than
the Capitols'.

The Empire Builder carried 126 more passengers per train mile than the
Capitols.

The Empire Builder's revenue per passenger mile was 3.74 cents less than
the Capitols'.

The Empire Builder's load factor was 34.3% better than the Capitols'.

This brings us to the always obvious question: Which is a more useful and
productive route, that of the Empire Builder or that of the Capitols?
From a purely economic standpoint the Empire Builder wins this race every
time. From a useful transportation output standpoint, the Empire Builder
also wins this race continuously. If you were an investment banker, or a
public servant charged with spending public money as wisely as possible,
which choice would you make for investment for the future, stability, and
growth?

California and North Carolina are probably the two most progressive
states when it comes to passenger rail. California's model works well
everywhere, and it should be duplicated as often as possible. But, at
what cost?

Amtrak continues to pledge its future to corridors like the Capitol
Corridor, which has high investment and inarguable low return on
investment. The Capitols will always require large public subsidies for
both operations and capital improvements. It will be an endless money pit
that does not serve even a measurable minority of travelers in California
as compared to other modes of transportation.

The Empire Builder, which supports a full infrastructure over a route
length of 2,206 miles through vast, empty spaces continuously outperforms
corridors from every standpoint. If a second or third daily frequency
were added over this same route, the predictable scenario is a lowering
of infrastructure costs per train departure, an increase in revenue
passenger miles because of a choice of departure times, and an overall
healthier route. What will not change is Amtrak's market share, which
nationally is about the same as motorcycles. Still, the Empire Builder
has a decent shot at complete viability from a financial standpoint,
while the Capitols will forever be mired in the economics of transit and
commuter services.

Again, which is the best investment? Californians, which pride themselves
on their "green" efforts, are willing to pay for their trains through
state subsidies. That's fine, because it is their choice to do so.
However, routes like that of the Empire Builder are much closer to not
needing any subsidy at a realistic point in the future. Is Amtrak going
about things backwards by promoting corridors which do nothing to help
Amtrak's financial picture? Is Amtrak trying to live off of someone
else's money (the states running corridors), instead of saying, "Gee! I
can make a go of this if only I choose to run the right type of trains!"?

[MichaelSol]

The Empire Builder ...  carried 505,000 passengers ...

The Empire Builder carried 944,600 fewer passengers than the Capitols.

This brings us to the always obvious question: Which is a more useful and
productive route, that of the Empire Builder or that of the Capitols?

Seems like an obvious answer.

[MichaelSol]

Or, perhaps you're not capable of identifying success.  Whatever.

Depends on whether the Empire Builder is your measure of "success". It is not an unqualified success. It is not a success at all.

From the September 2007 YTD Amtrak figures, the Empire Builder has so far lost $34.8 million on revenues of $58 million, a -37.5% rate of return on revenue.

In total dollars, eight long distance trains lost less, eight lost more.

The Empire Builder represented 11.24% of the total Amtrak system losses, yet contributed only 3.23% of the total system revenue.

There are many ways to view the utility of Amtrak trains.  All of them (with the exception of Auto Train on occasion, but this is also debatable) lose money.  Yet, the majority of Americans (most of whom don't even have access to Amtrak's skeletal system), support the service.  Another way to look at it was from the 12/18/2007 URPA (United Rail Passenger Alliance) newsletter:

The Empire Builder, Amtrak's long distance route between Chicago and
Seattle/Portland is the single best performer in the Amtrak system. This
one daily train in each direction generated 390,824,000 revenue passenger
miles and $53,177,800 in revenue. It carried 505,000 passengers for an
average length of trip of 774 miles, with 207 passengers riding every
train mile. The revenue per passenger mile was 13.61 cents, and the load
factor was 61%.

Contrast the Empire Builder with one of Amtrak's best managed short
distance corridors, the Capitols, which is overseen by a professional
railroader of repute working for the State of California. The Capitols
feed passengers in and out of the San Francisco Bay area, east to
Sacramento, with connections to Nevada. The Capitol Corridor runs for 168
route miles. The Capitol Corridor fields 16 trains a day in each
direction, which generated 96,404,000 revenue passenger miles and
$16,723,700 in revenue. The Capitols carried 1,450,100 passengers for an
average length of trip of 66.5 miles (the lowest length of trip in the
Amtrak system), with 81 passengers riding every train mile.

Perhaps I am just not capable of identifying success.

As of the September YTD report of Amtrak, the Capitols generated $39.2 million in revenue while incurring $33.2 million in total avoidable costs, carrying 1.5 million passengers. The Capitols cover their operating costs with $6 million profit.

The Empire Builder generated $58 million in revenue, while incurring $67.5 million in total avoidable costs carrying one-third the number of passengers as the Capitols. The Empire Builder cannot cover its operating costs, and loses nearly $10 million trying to do so. The fact is, the Empire Builder is the most expensive single train that Amtrak operates.

After adding in "shared costs" the Capitols lost $13.1 million carrying 1.5 million passengers while the Empire builder, carrying one-third the number of passengers, lost $34.8 million, nearly three times the bottom line financial loss as the Capitols.

YTD, the Empire Builder ridership growth of 1.6% was below the long distance train average of 2.4%, substantially below the short distance corridor train average growth of 7.6%. and far below the Capitols growth of 14.8%.

Yet, the Empire Builder is, therefore, according to you, the most successful train on Amtrak! Interesting measures of "success".

The fact is, the Empire Builder is one of the top five money losing trains operated by Amtrak.

Odd that you might pick the Capitols for a comparison. You might have picked the Acela/Metroliners -- earning $420.4 million, total costs of $292.2 million for a total positive contribution of $173.1 million. Odd, if you were indeed seeking out the example of the "best managed" for a comparison.

All of them (with the exception of Auto Train on occasion, but this is also debatable) lose money.

This is demonstrably, transparently false, and not just my "opinion." Nine Amtrak operations earn profits over their fully distributed costs. Twenty five Amtrak operations more than cover their direct operating costs. The Empire Builder does neither.

The NEC earns more in profit than all the rest put together. The fact is, the NEC trains cannot earn enough to offset losses on trains such as the Empire Builder. If it got rid of its Empire Builder type trains, Amtrak could be profitable. It's the Empire Builders that are killing Amtrak.

 

[nanaimo73]

   Here is yet another example of a poster who fabricates a statistical record. There is no support for what he says. He fabricates it entirely, for the purpose of pursuing a personal agenda. He has specifically falsified a published public record, in order to mislead readers on this forum.

It's a problem.

What's your solution?

Mark did not fabricate anything. His post comes from This Week at Amtrak - December 18, 2007, a weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc. I read most of it earlier today on the Amtrak Fan List.

Michael, I really appreciate the steam of information you post on this website. A lot of people learn quite a bit from your posts. But could you try to be a bit more pleasant when you are disagreeing with other members ? Perhaps more people would support your side if you were less caustic.

[cordon]

Down in the "Passenger" forum there is a thread asking why the Class 1 railroads can't take over passenger service.  My input there was that they could, and that passenger service would be no worse off; indeed, the ending of finger pointing and lack of cooperation between AMTRAK and the RRs would improve service and eliminate unproductive overhead costs devoted to managing the contentious relationships instead of running a railroad.

Here we have a golden opportunity to test that concept.  Instead of proposing moving the EB to the southern route, let's consider leaving it right where it is, where it appears to be doing quite well within AMTRAK.  Then let the state and local governments and other entities arrange financing to establish a new train along the southern route and have the railroad run it.

In this way the people would get their train, AMTRAK would not get disturbed, the RR would get new business, and we would find out whether or not the RR could operate passenger service acceptably.

 

 

[kenneo]

Success of the Empire Builder (and any/all of the other trains mentioned in this thread and/or run by AMTK) can be measured in three ways -- all at the same time (more of less)

A.     $$$$ Revenues, Expenses, $to the Bottom Line and so on.  $$$$$

B.     Needed Service or Social Bennefit -- Is the service needed.  Is it being used?  If not, what are the options.

C.     Combination.  If the answer to "B" is "Yes", then is the cost in "A" what you wnat to pay to support the service.

In "A", it will be a success if the contribution to the Bottom Line is "Black"; a failure if it is "Red".

In "B", it will be a success if the second question is "Yes" qualified by any "NO" answers to the first part; a failure if all answers are "NO".

In "C", it will be a success if you want to pay the piper what he needs to make it a go; a failure if you do not wish to pay.

The important part here, is are we speaking the same language?  We have to.  We all need to be on the same page, as it were, speaking the same language.  We can talk from different view points, and that should be evident from the context of our discussions provided we are speaking the same language (and I do not mean English). 

Therefore, if the evidence provided supports both points of view, than there can be no argument except for the holding of a particular point of view.  So, since the holding of a particular point of view is a personal and explainable item, it can be discussed but not argued upon, since a point of view is not a fact, it is an opinion which does not need to be supported by facts.  And, once explained, the rest of us just get to suck it up.  "I don't happen to agree, and here is why ----".

One last thought ---- be part of the solution.  Otherwise you are part of the problem - whether or not you intend to be.

[kenneo]

Down in the "Passenger" forum there is a thread asking why the Class 1 railroads can't take over passenger service.  My input there was that they could, and that passenger service would be no worse off; indeed, the ending of finger pointing and lack of cooperation between AMTRAK and the RRs would improve service and eliminate unproductive overhead costs devoted to managing the contentious relationships instead of running a railroad.

Here we have a golden opportunity to test that concept.  Instead of proposing moving the EB to the southern route, let's consider leaving it right where it is, where it appears to be doing quite well within AMTRAK.  Then let the state and local governments and other entities arrange financing to establish a new train along the southern route and have the railroad run it.

In this way the people would get their train, AMTRAK would not get disturbed, the RR would get new business, and we would find out whether or not the RR could operate passenger service acceptably.

 

Doesn't need to be tested.  If the freight road can send to the bottom line a contribution in dollars equal to the greatest contribution (say, in dollars per train mile) of any freight train that railroad now operates, the freight railroad would be in court to dismantle AMTK.  Doesn't matter the source of the funds (internal or external), it is the contribution to the bottom line that counts.

In the current situation, it is still the contribution to the bottom line.  AMTK does not make a sufficiently significant contribution.

[MichaelSol]

Mark did not fabricate anything. His post comes from This Week at Amtrak - December 18, 2007, a weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc. I read most of it earlier today on the Amtrak Fan List.

Michael, I really appreciate the steam of information you post on this website. A lot of people learn quite a bit from your posts. But could you try to be a bit more pleasant when you are disagreeing with other members ? Perhaps more people would support your side if you were less caustic.

I am sure that his crack to me above -- "or perhaps you're not capable of identifying success. Whatever" -- met your standards? Note his personal comments on the previous page: ... "ridiculous claims","fixation", "not above fictionalizing", "not capable", "lack of knowledge".  Do those fit your concept of "being more pleasant"?

If you have been called the names that I have been called by this individual on a variety of forums, and even on this thread, you would understand the problem. His remarks, above, are typical, and much of my sensitivity to the individual does go to a documented history of fabricating facts and controversies, topped with a rich heaping of personal insults.

In this instance, the published financial data for the Amtrak trains is readily available. He knows what they say, and that the article was transparently misleading. It is the idea of first, the multiple personal insults, and second, a transparently false representation of financial data, that I find objectionable.

He says all Amtrak trains lose money. Is that in the article, Dale? It is, after all, a fabrication, a complete fiction. I called it what it was.

Even though apt, I did not use the words that Mark used in reference to me regarding one of my posts quite recently, on this thread, on the page immediately preceding this one: "ridiculous claims","fixation", "not above fictionalizing", "not capable", "lack of knowledge".

Why do you find those direct personal insults more acceptable than an accurate description of false data?

  

 

[ValorStorm]

Michael, I really appreciate the steam of information you post on this website. A lot of people learn quite a bit from your posts. But could you try to be a bit more pleasant when you are disagreeing with other members ? Perhaps more people would support your side if you were less caustic.

Thanx for making a good point, and doing so without rancor. It's only fair that the same diplomacy be applied to MichaelSol's nemesis.

In his defense tho, VerMontanan's last couple of posts are genuinely polite. You have gotten nicer, Mark. In fact your comment in the MRL profitability thread was really informative, it was not self-contradictory, and it was brief. You're obviously smarter than you've been letting on. I'm not being sarcastic. You clearly have a lot to offer when you're nice.

But we can all forgive MichaelSol for being a little trigger happy. He was on the defensive a long time. VerMontanan, you were mean. 2005 was a particularly difficult year as I recall. But you're nice now. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

[nanaimo73]

Michael, I just don't want to see both of you kicked off of the forum. Mark M seems to post here less than 50 times a year, and he is not a walking library like you are. I don't see what is gained by your return fire. Where is the ROI ?

I am not sure if that newsletter stated every train looses money, but it sounds true to me. Perhaps there are NEC runs which cover their own costs, but do they cover their share of the overhead as well ? It seems unlikely, IMHO.

[MichaelSol]

I'm not a student of Amtrak, and its not something I follow. But, data is generally available and the idea of misrepresenting that data to support someone's affection for a particular passenger train is, to me, an alien concept. I like the Empire Builder as much as the next guy, and ride it considerably more than the next guy, but the idea of fabricating its financial credentials is just not a game I see a point in. The NEC is profitable compared to the Empire Builder. The Empire Builder represents just over 3% of Amtrak's revenues but now represents over 11% of Amtrak's system deficit. In 2006, it only represented 10% of the system deficit. It is not the most successful train, it is one of the biggest problems Amtrak has and considering its deterioration compared to 2006, it is getting worse, not better. I don't get the point in trying to argue otherwise. What's the point, except that creating a false reality confounds realistic solutions.

Click on the graphic to enlarge it. This report can be found at:

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0709monthly.pdf

 

[selector]

I wish I could help to referee this, but it becomes impossible when there is so much anger and tension.  This acrimony has history to it, clearly, and that is too bad. 

It is my hope, and fervent wish, that we can take a breath, and not let emotion colour our use of language, and to not make this into an ad hominem exchange that does nothing to dignify this thread, those reading it for useful information, or the forum that does the hosting.

FWIW, Julius Caesar said, nearly 2000 years ago now, "People gladly believe what they wish to."  My own version, more cryptic, is, "Belief is convenient."

Sometimes it is counterproductive to do more than to reply once to a shrill voice.  Let others judge. 

Please, stick to the facts as you know them, folks, but have the courtesy and integrity to add qualifiers when you are not sure or when you merely relate what others have said to you, and then move on to something else.  The debate ends the instant the other person becomes the subject of the argument...an ad hominem.  The personal attacks serve no purpose other than a macabre spectacle that is embarrassing to onlookers.

It seems that images, and links to credible sources, should stand as solid enough proof in the absence of anything as concrete that establishes the other side of the contention.  If the two forms of proffered evidence are in direct conflict, then the argument is moot; something more needs to be added with as much credibility.  Otherwise, we just go on and on, ad nauseum...

Please.

-Crandell

[cordon]

Down in the "Passenger" forum there is a thread asking why the Class 1 railroads can't take over passenger service.  My input there was that they could, and that passenger service would be no worse off; indeed, the ending of finger pointing and lack of cooperation between AMTRAK and the RRs would improve service and eliminate unproductive overhead costs devoted to managing the contentious relationships instead of running a railroad.

Here we have a golden opportunity to test that concept.  Instead of proposing moving the EB to the southern route, let's consider leaving it right where it is, where it appears to be doing quite well within AMTRAK.  Then let the state and local governments and other entities arrange financing to establish a new train along the southern route and have the railroad run it.

In this way the people would get their train, AMTRAK would not get disturbed, the RR would get new business, and we would find out whether or not the RR could operate passenger service acceptably.

 

Doesn't need to be tested.  If the freight road can send to the bottom line a contribution in dollars equal to the greatest contribution (say, in dollars per train mile) of any freight train that railroad now operates, the freight railroad would be in court to dismantle AMTK.  Doesn't matter the source of the funds (internal or external), it is the contribution to the bottom line that counts.

In the current situation, it is still the contribution to the bottom line.  AMTK does not make a sufficiently significant contribution.

Perhaps I was too brief.  I have no illusions that a passenger train is likely to make a good profit so that the RRs would be trying to get into that business.  That's not the point to my suggestion.  We the People have already decided to operate passenger trains at a loss because we perceive a benefit beyond the bottom line.

One point is that I believe the current arrangement (one company operating a different kind of train over another company's RR) creates unavoidable inefficiencies due to unproductive administrative and legal costs and offers no incentive to the RR to do a good job of hosting the passenger trains.  Plus, AMTRAK and the RRs seem to spend a lot of energy blaming each other for problems, instead of working on solutions.

So, one suggestion is to give a contract for passenger service to the RR with appropriate incentives and bonuses to spur acceptable performance.  I believe not only that the RR will be willing to take the job, but also that they will find ways to reduce the losses and to improve service.

Another point I implied, but didn't clearly state is that I don't think it is appropriate for the I-90 corridor people to ask for a passenger train at the expense of the EB people.  That's why I said to leave the EB alone.  Now, if they can work a deal where the EB people agree to give up the current EB, it might be an acceptable concept.

A third implication I made is that the people who want the new train should be willing to pay for it.  That's why I said it is they who should go get the financing.

To sum up, if they want a train, let them go buy one with their money, and buy it from the RR so they have only one company running trains on the company's tracks. 

 

 

[kenneo]

Down in the "Passenger" forum there is a thread asking why the Class 1 railroads can't take over passenger service.  My input there was that they could, and that passenger service would be no worse off; indeed, the ending of finger pointing and lack of cooperation between AMTRAK and the RRs would improve service and eliminate unproductive overhead costs devoted to managing the contentious relationships instead of running a railroad.

Here we have a golden opportunity to test that concept.  Instead of proposing moving the EB to the southern route, let's consider leaving it right where it is, where it appears to be doing quite well within AMTRAK.  Then let the state and local governments and other entities arrange financing to establish a new train along the southern route and have the railroad run it.

In this way the people would get their train, AMTRAK would not get disturbed, the RR would get new business, and we would find out whether or not the RR could operate passenger service acceptably.

 

Doesn't need to be tested.  If the freight road can send to the bottom line a contribution in dollars equal to the greatest contribution (say, in dollars per train mile) of any freight train that railroad now operates, the freight railroad would be in court to dismantle AMTK.  Doesn't matter the source of the funds (internal or external), it is the contribution to the bottom line that counts.

In the current situation, it is still the contribution to the bottom line.  AMTK does not make a sufficiently significant contribution.

Perhaps I was too brief.  I have no illusions that a passenger train is likely to make a good profit so that the RRs would be trying to get into that business.  That's not the point to my suggestion.  We the People have already decided to operate passenger trains at a loss because we perceive a benefit beyond the bottom line.

One point is that I believe the current arrangement (one company operating a different kind of train over another company's RR) creates unavoidable inefficiencies due to unproductive administrative and legal costs and offers no incentive to the RR to do a good job of hosting the passenger trains.  Plus, AMTRAK and the RRs seem to spend a lot of energy blaming each other for problems, instead of working on solutions.

So, one suggestion is to give a contract for passenger service to the RR with appropriate incentives and bonuses to spur acceptable performance.  I believe not only that the RR will be willing to take the job, but also that they will find ways to reduce the losses and to improve service.

Another point I implied, but didn't clearly state is that I don't think it is appropriate for the I-90 corridor people to ask for a passenger train at the expense of the EB people.  That's why I said to leave the EB alone.  Now, if they can work a deal where the EB people agree to give up the current EB, it might be an acceptable concept.

A third implication I made is that the people who want the new train should be willing to pay for it.  That's why I said it is they who should go get the financing.

To sum up, if they want a train, let them go buy one with their money, and buy it from the RR so they have only one company running trains on the company's tracks. 

 

Perhaps I was not clear - too short on content.

However it is done, if the freight road is compensated at or in excess of its most profitable freight train, it will do everything in its power to make sure that contribution continues.  It will run the trains "early", speed limits will become "suggestions", ALL trains will go into the hole ahead.

Example.  In the 1970's and early 80's, AMTK paid a bonus for on time performance, another bonus for each minute early for scheduled arrivals, and penalties for late performance or slow performance even if the train was on time or early.  You could have your train be 15 minutes early and still have to pay penalties.  Perfection was rewarded handsomly.

At this time, I was a telegrapher and interlocking operator with some main line dispatching authority due to bad radio coverage.  One fine day, #11 was early, as usual, and had racked up nearly an hour of credits.  I crossed a freight over in front of it, and #11 received a hard yellow that turned to green prior to #11's reaching the signal.  The train lost 90 seconds in running time slowing down and then speeding back up.  The SP lost $5,000 in penalties from AMTK for that 90 seconds and I recieved a bonus - in unpaid vacation days. 

When AMTK was forced to cut the incentives, I could have delayed that train for all I wanted to and there would have been no penalty - or extra vacation.  So, if it is to the railroads advantage to do something (read $$$), the will do all they can and probably step on anyone that attempts to get in their way.  It doesn't matter what the arrangement is, but they would prefer to use the method of greatest return.

Paragraphs two and three above.  I have no argument with your points.  Depending on how you want to cut the cake, the extra costs in the current arrangement can be justified, but the extra costs would be reduced by the RR taking over completely.  You will have to insert the costs for a Passenger Department, so the saving probably would not be great.  There is a drawback to having the railroad do all of it, and that is at connections.  There would probably still need to be a supervisory role for AMTK which would cost.

Paragraphs four and five -- see my "Point C" above.  It doesn't matter in the economic model who pays, or even how they pay, it just has to be paid by someone (singular or plural).

[ValorStorm]

Can you please try and condense your major points into a more concise post?

This needed repeating. I used to read the novella-length posts. I don't even skim them any more. And I'm certain I'm not alone. The copying & pasting in entirety of other people's scholarship? Just post a link!

Those of us who live along the MRL all wish we had Amtrak service. My friends Al, Sean, Chad, & Ken would probably appreciate a predictable, fast run. Whether it's tenable or necessary is what we've mostly been debating, & it's still debatable. But it's a mistake to deny the volume of Amtrak passengers driving to and from Missoula & the Bitterroot to Whitefish.

[VerMontanan]

Mark, and Michael,

Would a one year trial using Colorado Railcar DMUs operating between Billings and Spokane be the best way to see if there was demand in this corridor ? It looks like a 13 hour trip both ways, requiring 2 sets of equipment for daytime running in both directions.

 

Dale,

Your 13 hour estimation of running time from Billings to Spokane is about right, and 21 hours Billings to Spokane (via Wenatchee) or 23 hours via Yakima.  This is significantly slower than driving.  I don't think there's any question that the demand is there, but running a DMU might show otherwise.  Trains on shorter distances need to be more time-competitive with driving.  When one can drive from Billings to Spokane in 8 hours, a 13-hour train trip might not appeal to a lot of people.  And I can't help but think special consideration with regard to the DMU equipment would be necessary to supply a food service on a trip this long, and possibly because of steep grades over Bozeman Pass, Mullan Pass, and Evaro Hill.

A long distance service consisting of equipment as is available on western Amtrak long distance trains today would be welcomed, I believe, for trips like Spokane to Glendive or Helena to Dickinson.  But a DMU might look like a bus on rails to some, not as fast as the bus, and without the amenities that makes long distance train travel comfortable.

 

[VerMontanan]

   Here is yet another example of a poster who fabricates a statistical record. There is no support for what he says. He fabricates it entirely, for the purpose of pursuing a personal agenda. He has specifically falsified a published public record, in order to mislead readers on this forum.

It's a problem.

What's your solution?

Mark did not fabricate anything. His post comes from This Week at Amtrak - December 18, 2007, a weekly digest of events, opinions, and forecasts from United Rail Passenger Alliance, Inc. I read most of it earlier today on the Amtrak Fan List.

 

Dale: Thanks for verifying that the Empire Builder / Capitols comparison was issued by URPA, and was not my opinion, because that obviously didn't phase Michael from overlooking the origin of the content.  That's why I find him so entertaining.  Personally, I don't care for URPA's point of view in most matters, but there's nothing wrong with seeing alternate viewpoints on a topic when trying to understand such issues.  

As for Michael's thin-skinned (at least for a railroader, that's for sure) reaction to my comments, of "fixation" and "fictionalizing" and the like, I'll stand by them.  Restating his classic comment from earlier in the thread about riding the Seattle section of the Empire Builder, "being herded, cow like, to the 'community seating' enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter," I think these terms are appropriate.  

"Cow-like?"  As for "community seating," one has to wonder if he's serious (which would be much more charitable than the ignorance displayed).  After all, it's not like "community seating" hasn't been going on in dining cars for decades in dining cars all over the world.  "Fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic," applies to most things we consume nowadays, so why say it here?  That the dining car crew is "fed up with" is an unnecessarily rude jab at Amtrak employees in general (as even as a generalization is not provable); and the "deeply unpleasant tunnel experience" is something so far-fetched that the follow up logical question would be: Why don't people stop riding the train if that is the case, and why doesn't some federal agency forbid the train to pass through the tunnel on the grounds of compromised safety?  "Fixation" and "fiction" see pretty appropriate.  

By the way, in spite of this attempt on his part to fictionalize the experience about riding the train through Cascade Tunnel, reality shows otherwise.  In a recent newspaper article in the Wenatchee World (and other papers), it seems that the city of Leavenworth is embracing passenger train travel through Cascade Tunnel as they now have the funding for station facilities to become a stop along the Empire Builder route (more at: http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200732479734 ).  Also, this past weekend was the last weekend of the Alki Tours "Snow Train" between Seattle and Leavenworth.  The chartered Amtrak train runs usually four weekends before Christmas.  This year's train, with 13 cars, and a capacity of about 800 passengers per train, was sold out for all trips, as is usually the case.  If Michael's statement was not fiction, then something so "deeply unpleasant" would certainly have more of an impact.  

In addition, I'll stand by my comment about all Amtrak trains losing money.  Especially entertaining was Michael's comment, "The NEC earns more in profit than all the rest put together. The fact is, the NEC trains cannot earn enough to offset losses on trains such as the Empire Builder. If it got rid of its Empire Builder type trains, Amtrak could be profitable. It's the Empire Builders that are killing Amtrak."  Of course, if this was true, then why doesn't a private entity take over running the service if it makes money?  Because it doesn't and doesn't most places in the world, when all costs are considered with regard to the infrastructure.  Clearly, if the Northeast Corridor was making money, this being America and all, there would be many seeking to operate it.  But Amtrak has been around for 36 years, and so far, no one has surfaced to actually do it.  

The fallacy that the Northeast Corridor makes money can best be disproved by quoting none other than one-time Amtrak president and seasoned railroader W. Graham Claytor Jr. who responded to a similar claim, "A widely held misconception is that train travel covers its operating costs in the Boston-Washington Corridor. That is true only of train-operating costs. However, even excluding interest and depreciation on capital, total costs of the corridor are not covered by passenger revenues. Amtrak, as owner and operator of the Northeast Corridor, must pay for all the support facilities to operate the route's high-speed passenger trains: track, bridge and tunnel maintenance, station facilities, train dispatching, snow removal, security and virtually all the other costs of operating a major mode of intercity transportation."  This quote from Mr. Claytor (who is deceased) is from 1987, but situation with regard to Amtrak maintaining the Corridor infrastructure has not changed in 20 years.  

In 2005 and 2006, the Bush administration originally proposed a scenario that, due to lack of funding, would have eliminated all trains except those in the Northeast Corridor and other state-supported corridors.  In other words, the funding level would have eliminated long distance trains.  One figure was a funding at a level of $900 million, versus the $1.2 million or so (depending on the year) that Amtrak actually received.  If Northeast Corridor trains actually made money, no subsidy would be necessary, or rather a greatly reduced one would be required possibly for state-supported trains.  According to a study done when this reduced level of funding was proposed, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) estimated that eliminating long distance trains would only save $300 million per year and not right away, that it would take up to 5 years for the savings to be realized.  A DOT study estimated the savings at $484 million.  Regardless of which figures are accepted, the bottom line is that even without long distance trains, a subsidy is required for what is left, and most of that is logically the Northeast Corridor because other remaining services are largely state-funded (California, Illinois, Washington, North Carolina, Maine, Vermont, etc.) and their contributions are not part of