Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
A possible new direction for Amtrak Long Distance

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="John WR"] I searched the internet for the 2005 report on Amtrak sleeping car service that another poster refers to but I could not find it.  However, I did find a report from the National Association of Railroad Passengers which rebuts the above report.  A link is below in order that all may be able to read the NARP report and draw their own conclusions: http://www.narprail.org/resources/capitolhill/statements/339-narp-rebuttal-of-dot-inspector-general-report-on-dining-and-sleeping-cars [/quote] The IG's report is relatively easy to find. I just Googled DOT IG's report on long distance train ..... It popped up immediately with NARP's response in the number two position. To gain an understanding of the methodologies deployed by the IG, one must read the entire report, including the footnotes. Doing so is important for an understanding of how the findings were derived.   NARP is a special interest advocacy group. It does not have the staff to compete with the IG's horsepower. Nor is it independent. Its attack on the report's findings are heavy on opinion, light on analytics, and filled with anecdotal observations.    Here is one example: "There is no scientific way to allocate costs between coach and sleeper. Once the decision is made to run the train, any such allocation is arbitrary. Clearly, the OIG’s assignment of 100% of dining, lounge and checked baggage service costs to sleeping-car passengers is wrong."   If NARP's staff understood activity based cost accounting, they would know that their statement is incorrect. Activity based cost accounting is not a science in the sense that physics or math is a science.  But it follows a rigorous methodology that is reviewed by independent reviewers at each key step along the way. I did not interpret the report to say that 100 per cent of checked baggage costs are attributable to sleeping car passengers. Also, the checked baggage cost is not the major driver behind the loses incurred by the long distance trains. Here is another example:  "The OIG’s tables which attempt to neatly assign precise subsidy levels to coach and sleeping-car passengers are meaningless. Such phrases as the following, based on the OIG’s incorrect conclusions, are wrong and should not become the basis for public policy: “disparity between the level of subsidies for coach class service and the level of subsidies for sleeper class” and “the cost of the sleeper class and other amenities is so expensive that the revenues pale in comparison.” These phrases are polemic and misleading because they obscure the high degree of subjectivity (and, in our opinion, inaccuracy) inherent in the OIG’s attempt to segment subsidy levels by class of service."  NARP does not offer any counterpoint data nor does it provide any substance in its argument that the methodologies are flawed.   The report recognized that some sort of food service would be required on long distance trains, but pointed out rightly that the current business model, i.e. dinning cars and full length lounge cars are not cost effective.  NARP did not offer any supported counterpoints.  If I were the Executive Director of NARP, and I wanted to attack the report, I would have hired an independent national consulting firm like Booze, Allen & Hamilton to dig into the data with the same degree of thoroughness as the IG deployed and come up with sustainable counterpoint data. Clearly, NARP did not do that.  Amtrak's management, staff and Board of Directors had an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of the report. We don't have access to any edits that they proposed or whether they were accepted. However, it should be noted that Amtrak's management and the board accepted the IG's findings and recommendations. Had they believed that the report was seriously flawed, they probably would not have accepted it. Subsequently, as has been discussed in these forums, the food service on Amtrak's long distance trains (dinning car and lounge car) has proven to be a major cost issue. If anything it has gotten worse since the IG's report. I belonged to NARP for two years. I did not renew my membership because of the organization's blind adherence to a passenger train mentality that is long past its usefulness. NARP is against any change in the current model no matter how broken it is. It wants to keep running long distance passenger trains as if it is 1950. The IG's report did not go far enough. It should have recognized that the long distance trains serve little if any public need. They should be discontinued, and the resources should be used to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag