Paul, here are figures as of early 2008:
Long Distance Assigned
Superliners 89 out of service
Horizon-Long Distance 28 out of service
Amfleet I 10 out of service
Amfleet II 41 out of service
Viewliners, all: 20 out of service
Heritage Diner: 5 out of service
Heritage Dorm: 9 out of service
NEC
Amfleet, All: 71
Metroliner: 35
West
CalCoach: 4
CalCoach-Bag: 3
CalDiner: 1
Other status unknown.
for more info go to flyertalk.com
Also, Amtrak's equipment status is available at multiple sites on the web for anyone to easily find.
Earl
From looking at the various web sites that have some accounting of the fleet, it appears that there are at least 80 Amfleet I cars that are currently out of service and not part of the active fleet.
Assuming the ~400 Amfleet I's in service are responsible for about 10 million of Amtrak's trips, and space on 80 additional cars could be sold at the same rate, that's capacity for an additional 2M trips per year that could be made available in months.
No need to do Capstone upgrade on them to get them running again, just scrub them down good, patch'em up and reappolster. Do the upgrade later, on the fly.
That could bridge the gap nicely until new equipment arrives in a few years.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Also, is there any reason a TurboSleeper couldn't be designed for faster overnight runs? I too love the ideas of the Turbo being returned.Problem is still if the freight RRs would allow the Tuirbos enough tije to speed up and slow down to hit their peak strides.
-Morgan
If I was the President of Amtrak, and it was run like a business, I would not have to worry about replacing the sleeping, dinning, and lounge cars. Recognizing that less than 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers ride the long distance trains, with only 2.04 per cent booking a sleeper, I would sell the long distance train business to anyone who wanted it. I doubt there would be many takers.
I would buy equipment that would best meet the potential market for passenger rail, which is relatively short, high density corridors. Before I worried about the technology, although it is important, I would focus on design features that would appeal to the customers and reduce operating costs. After all, at least in a free market environment, the first objective of a passenger carrier is to entice enough people to use it. They want a ride that is safe, economical, convenient, frequent, comfortable, and dependable. Most passengers don't care whether the train is push-pull, active or passive tilt, turbo charged or powered by rubber bands, etc.
Equipment is only one variable in a passenger transport system. Buying better rolling stock, without considering how it fits into the total system, will produce a sub-optimized outcome. If passenger rail is to become a truly competitive surface transport system, management needs to make its equipment buy decisions within a total system perspective and not in isolation.
Upgrading the equipment should go hand in hand with improved stations, i.e. better parking, waiting areas, convenience features, ticketing, fare verification, etc.
Along with any equipment upgrades, I would, at a minimum, implement an automated ticketing and fare verification system similar to that at Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Or should I say it; a system similar to what the airlines have installed. Doing so would undoubtedly influence the design of new passenger cars.
Passengers would be required to buy a coded e-ticket(s), preferably on-line, to get through the platform access gates, which they would pick up at ticket kiosks just outside the gates. They would need to use the ticket to enter the enclosed station platform, as well as exit the enclosed platform at their destination, where the amount of the fare would be deducted from their ticket. If the ticket was purchased for a single ride from A to B, the machine at the exit point would take the ticket. If the ticket was part of a multi-ride ticket, the fare for the leg traveled would be deducted, and the ticket would be returned to the user. This is the system used by BART.
Passengers purchasing their e-tickets on the Internet would receive a discount, while those buying them from a ticket agent would pay the full price. Hopefully the incentive would motivate a high percentage of passengers to buy their tickets on-line. It could work. Southwest Airlines sells nearly 70 per cent of its tickets on-line.
The BART concept works whether a person is traveling from the San Francisco Airport to Powell Street or from Chicago to St. Louis. There is no reason why it would not work on Amtrak, other than resistance from people who make a career resisting change.
If fares are verified at the station, the need for on board verification goes away. This would reduce the number of people required on the train. For most runs, a locomotive engineer, a trainman and a café car attendant would be all the crew that is required.
One requirement for the cars would be automatic doors and entrance ways that are ADA compliant. This means they would have to be low floor or the stations would have to have raised platforms. Raised platforms are expensive, but some of the cost could be offset by reduced labor costs and the savings from the elimination of the long distance trains, which alone could result in a return of $59 billion by 2050. That would pay for a lot of raised platforms or better cars or both.
It might be possible to have it both ways. When I was in San Francisco in June, I rode the light rail train (L) to the zoo. The cars are configured to handle high level platforms from downtown to West Portal. Beyond the Portal the high level platform access plates retract and the steps required for street level boarding appear. Actually, they are hidden under the high level access plates. They were there all the time.
The goal would be to buy a standard car that could be configured for business and coach class as well as a café. It could be used anywhere on the system. Again, taking a cue from Southwest Airlines, it is more efficient to work with one design. It simplifies staffing, training, maintenance, etc., which means reduced operating costs. And for an organization that loses as much money per passenger mile as Amtrak, saving money should be a primary goal.
Sam: What short distance are you seeing? Aside from AmtkCali, and NEC, most all of the US is too spread out for short dense corridors. In order to do the above. you'd first need a more solidified track base. Granted, this would help tremendously in every other situation as well.
Judging from al lthe Mass Transit debates around me, they DO care about what powers them. Not to the extent we do, but they do care. The Airlines had a tough time getting people over turboprops as opposed to Jets.
I fail to see the difference between the configurations. or more aptly, the similarities. a 10-6 is not a Buisness Class car, is not a Diner, is not a coach. Buisness class cars are geared with special tools for buuisnesses. I can see keepin the power outlets, the Wi-Fi, but we don't all need the big tables, or special private room. As to Cafe, We can use the opening fromthe meeting room I suppose.
Let me be the first to say: I refuse to be relegated to buying a ticket online. Is it easier? possibly. But there are some things that are best done face to face. Picking up the tickets to go across country is one of them. I've ridden BART, and for short distances, their system works. And I've used the digital touch screens at the Airport. And everytome, those screwed up. When I ran in my Uncle to the Amtrak station to adjust his travel date, it was so much easier to tell the lady what needed to be done. One of the great things about Amtrak is that you can adjust travel times without getting slapped by fees as much as the ticket. The Bart System wopuld be overwhelmed by all of the additional stations added in, and so would the user. Putting that much into automation is just asking for trouble. This also removes the personal flair that since the early days of Railroading touches the hearts and souls and is only rivaled by Saint Nick. This is not resistance to change, it's a statement of fact. I'm currently car-hosting for the WFMS Indiana State FairTrain. If all that was done before anyone got on the train, it would be no different than driving. Watch sometime as a conductor/porter/whoever leans down and takes the ticket from the hand of a little kid and hands him back the stub. He got to play a role in the grand scheme of the train. And there's a twinkle in his eye, if not the trainman's as well, just from that little exchange. People look forward to "Tickets. Tickets please" I say again: This is not resistance to change, it's a statement of fact.
Now, just so you cvan have the same fair chance to poke back, What would I do? (And I state now: Not yet out of High School, no buisness sense) The first thing is keeping what I have going strong. If not stronger. This means that if cars are crowded, another is needed. And this might include outsourcing cars to get more done faster. This is a short term fix intended to last out in time for the new stuff. Which would include re-installing diners. Not just microwaves on wheels. Why? Because people wnat them. They are the most important piece. If I wanted a can of spaghetti that acts like a sponge and bounces like a tennis ball,. I'd drive and eat at Quikie Marts. As to wheelchair access, and even platform height, has already been solved: Ramps Doesn;t need much, just a kick out from the side by the car attendant, and people can walk, crawl, roll, heely, or even bounce on up. Sandwich the rtamp between the floors, and it's not taking up space in the car itself.
Car orderts are being filled, and the trains are again running with breathing room, It;s time to look at infrastructure. Where are the heaviest delays caused by freight? And are there any places where we can streamline by building a designated Amtrak Main nearby? If the answer is yes, as I suspect it is, then it;s hogh time to fix those. Then we need to get into testing the waters for new runs. Where can we branch out at? Where can another Amtrak California or NEC be installed?
Digitally, an automated teller would not be ruled out. But not shoved down people's throats. Sales weekends to discount one or the other isn't bad, but not a permanent solution. Nothing's being saved.
Ohm as I advocated the Turbos, Turbotrains would serve later as key pieces to testing and bridging High Speed capabilities, They woulc still be subject to freight trains, but if thery can make the run on a new timeschedule while the new corridor is being built, so much the better. As a new line has been improved, the turbos would pick up and move on, or find a niche and we'll replace them..
I had always been amazed to hear that San Francisco had automatic transition from floor level doors to step down doors, and was equally amazed to see it in action.
The cars are 2 section articulated, 3 sets of double doors per side. The steps at the operator's #1 end doors do not change, but the #2 and #3 steps, operator observable via mirrors, do. While the light rail train is moving, with passengers aboard, they just ring a warning bell and the floor changes to steps. If you happen to be standing in the doorway-stepwell you get an amusement park funhouse experience. Makes one wonder about organizations using safety risk and liability exposure as excuses. Does anybody know what the situation is, or risk analysis was, in San Francisco for passengers who claim injury from the floor-step mechanism? I imagine it's similar to what one would expect with, for example, escalators.
Another example is Buffalo light rail. The car interior is high level, they use exterior folding steps for low level platforms. Time marching sideways, it's not really much different, just more substantial, than pre PCC streetcar folding steps.
Not much reason I can think of why if moveable floors is acceptable on light rail quick start and stop with standees it can't be acceptable on mainline passenger trains with floor sensors that could keep people out of the vestibule during transition.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
We had movable steps as standard for years. They were known as steps and traps. No automation, of course, and a simple "Excuse me, there are people getting off and on at the next station" from the trainman to the dutch-door fan, instead of a warning bell.
But in the end, I still think that the USA needs a subsidized long distance train service where all classes of service and the food and the cleanliness and the personell are all a credit to the country. Like Canada has. But this is different than Amtrak expansion and corridors and where to spend gobs of money. The Superliners and Horizen equipment is not so old that a real overhaul with the best technology in terms of truck design, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, should suffice for all long distance requirements, and new technology used to address the high-speed and interim speed corridors. And some of that might be applied to rebuilding Amfleet equipment. The first priority should be to repair what can be fixed.
But in the end, I still think that the USA needs a subsidized long distance train service where all classes of service and the food and the cleanliness and the personnel are all a credit to the country. Like Canada has.
Does that mean Amtrak gets to follow the example in Canada in all details 1) paring long-distance service down to one or perhaps two showcase trains, 2) run that train with long consists of whatever equipment is available or can be purchased second hand instead of talking about new Viewliner purchases, 3) charging substantially higher fares for sleepers in exchange for an improved quality of service?
The current Canada long-distance service is the outcome of a Conservative government actually carrying out the sort of retrenchment to VIA that has the advocacy community South of the Border sticking pins in a Norm Mineta doll.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Flashwave wrote: Sam: What short distance are you seeing? Aside from AmtkCali, and NEC, most all of the US is too spread out for short dense corridors.
Sam: What short distance are you seeing? Aside from AmtkCali, and NEC, most all of the US is too spread out for short dense corridors.
There are a number of potential passenger rail corridors in the U.S. in addition to the corridors that you cite. None of them, as far as I know, have the population density of the NEC, which is necessary to justify passenger rail, but some of them may get there in the next decade or so.
It is important to remember that a railway train is designed to move large numbers of people. Otherwise, they don't have a prayer of covering their operating costs, which should be a requirement for any passenger rail system. This is why I believe that they are only justified in relatively short, high density corridors. And then only if they can run over existing or upgraded existing rights of way.
In Texas, with which I am most familiar, potential corridors are Dallas to Houston, Houston to Galveston, Houston to San Antonio, Fort Worth to Austin and San Antonio, and Austin to San Antonio. In each case the distance is roughly 200 to 250 miles, except for the Austin to San Antonio (ASA) and Houston to Galveston corridors.
The most likely next corridor in Texas is the ASA, followed by the Houston to Galveston corridor. Unfortunately, a recently released study by TxDOT threw cold water on the ASA. Making it feasible would require a freight train by-pass from just north of Austin to just east of San Antonio to permit the implementation of the ASA along the current UP route. The estimated cost is $2.4 billion to build the bypass, plus another $600 million to upgrade the UP for corridor passenger service. This totals $3 billion. TxDOT further estimated that these improvements would generate $1.4 billion in benefits over 20 years. One does not have to be much a financier to know that this is a negative return.
The only operational Texas corridor is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) that runs from Dallas to Fort Worth. The TRE operates nearly 50 trains a day, and it carries approximately 8,800 riders a day. Actually, it carries approximately 4,400 people, since most of the riders commute into Dallas or Fort Worth in the morning and commute home in the evening.
In 2006, when the ridership and the number of trains was considerably less than today, TRE passengers received an average subsidy of $6.44 per trip. Subsequently, DART and the "T", which own the TRE, rolled the TRE subsidy into their over all subsidy numbers. I suspect they were embarrassed at the per passenger subsidy required to float the TRE.
Transit systems, including commuter rail, in Texas get from 10 to 18 per cent of their revenues from the fare box. The remainder is made up from sales tax levies collected in the cities served by the transit and commuter rail systems. These taxes, however, are not enough to cover the construction costs for the light and commuter rail systems. Accordingly, most of the Texas cities with rail systems did what many Texans are loath to do. They turned to the federal government a significant portion of the construction money. Without it light rail and commuter rail in most Texas communities would not be possible.
henry6 wrote:Should Amtrak what? We in America have to wrestle down the question of what is best for the country, its businesses and its people. We continually squabble over if whether if it is good for business is it good for people or vice versa.
These are mutually exclusive? Aren't businesses owned by people?
henry6 wrote:Should Amtrak what? Whose government role are we adhering to?
The government can only do what the Constitution mandates and allows.
The government's role with repect to Amtrak is to provide for the common good.
The argument is whether or not Amtrak is a "common good".
Are subsidized sleeper trips for Don Phillips and the rest of us middle class train riders a common good? That's a stetch. I say no.
Is coach service to the middle of nowhere Montana a common good? Maybe.
I providing employment for 20,000 workers a common good? No. That's only a "good" for those 20,000, particularly if they could be doing something else more useful.
oltmannd wrote: henry6 wrote:Should Amtrak what? Whose government role are we adhering to? The government can only do what the Constitution mandates and allows.The government's role with repect to Amtrak is to provide for the common good.The argument is whether or not Amtrak is a "common good". Are subsidized sleeper trips for Don Phillips and the rest of us middle class train riders a common good? That's a stetch. I say no.Is coach service to the middle of nowhere Montana a common good? Maybe.I providing employment for 20,000 workers a common good? No. That's only a "good" for those 20,000, particularly if they could be doing something else more useful.
Is providing a decent Infrastructure a common good? Heck Ya. There are several ways this can go, most of them political. If you want, we can start calling the USRA of WWI a common good or evil. It's the same principal. The Govt pulled everything together to try to make things run smoother.
henry6 wrote:I am eliciting the breadth of answers I figured on. But, note: businesses are run by people, yes. But under our laws businesses are often seperate (and sometimes equal) entities with rights the same as people (indiviudals) have. So who should government serve? Does a government built and maintained highway help transportation (buses, trucks, autos; transportation equipment manufacturers) or private individuals who drive or ride or make a living manufacturing equipment? Or since private enterprise gains all the benefits of being because of a highway, why should private enterprise, therefore, build and maintain a highway? If a railroad can alleviate a problem...lets say a passsenger train that lessens traffic congestion, alleviates pollution, provides the right of way, the equipment, and the ride itself...should that be solved solely by government building and operating that railroad or solely by private enterprise building and operating that railroad? Our society is so integrated and dovetailed with business and government, the lines so blurred, the demarcations so politicized, it is impossible to argue for or against either side anymore! And the situation isn't going to change.
I don't see any mutual exclusivity in any of your "either/ors". Or, is that your point?
Are trains a solution to a problem or are they a solution in search of a problem? To which problem are sleeping cars a solution?
I have this feeling that if by some magic wand we had fast, frequent, affordable rail corridor service throughout this land and if we lost all of the sleeping-dining-lounge car service in exchange, a major portion of the passenger train advocacy community will feel cheated and defeated.
Don Oltmann pointed out that sleeping cars once had the overnight business trip market -- you board a train, have a meal, retire to a private compartment to sleep overnight, disembark the train in your destination city and go about your business -- and that the business-traveller market has been lost for some 50 years now to the airliner and hotel room.
There is a contingent who cannot, prefer not, or will not travel by airline. I have an aging family member who is not able to travel by air, but he is not in a condition to travel by train either, and perhaps the only reasonable mode to take him any appreciable distance would be by air charter.
I fail to see how a trip on a long-distance train on a sleeping car provides some externality or social benefit beyond the person who choses that mode of transport -- a long-distance sleeping car trip is not more cost effective than airline travel, regardless of who and how the trip is paid for, it does not meaningfully relieve highway, airline congestion nor save meaningfully on fuel. When this issue gets discussed, sleeping car space is effectively an accomodation.
So, does it constitute a market failure that for 99 percent of the travelling public to more or less accept air transportation for distances in excess of several hundred miles, and is there a social requirement to provide high rates of subsidy to make sleeping cars available to the remaining 1 percent at fares they are willing to pay? This argument doesn't work for tourists from outside Canada and Mexico because they had to take a plane to get here.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Don Oltmann pointed out that sleeping cars once had the overnight business trip market -- you board a train, have a meal, retire to a private compartment to sleep overnight, disembark the train in your destination city and go about your business -- and that the business-traveller market has been lost for some 50 years now to the airliner and hotel room.
Don't forget the redeye market, you board the airplane at some ungodly hour, get a few winks in your coach seat, disembark the plane in your destination city and go about your business.
Does the subsidized Canadian promote the public good of the citizens of Canada?
Again, is the Canadian model something you want for the U.S.? The number of trains they run LD (one) and the sleeper fares they charge (high) and the equipment they run (Heritage fleet -- i.e. old) are the result of a Conservative government slashing the subsidy budget, something that has been proposed here, in response to which the advocacy community is claiming that the sky is falling.
It's not a merry go round at all - just an effort to shine some bright light into some very dark corners.
It's not about subsidizing passenger trains vs. not subsidizing. Almost all here agree that some sort of subsidy is necessary and good.
It IS about what we get for our subsidy.
It IS about efficiency and productivity and technical and management drivers thereof.
It IS about what to do next.
As long as the advocacy groups believe that there are no "bad" trains and that if only 1952 were here again and as long as they are primarily cheerleaders for Amtrak, hope for productive and efficient passenger rail transportation is dimmed.
If the advocacy groups were to get tougher and take on the role of helping to focus the available dollars and were to become an Amtrak watchdog, then we might get somewhere....
But the point is the Canadian does probide a service, does leave a positive image in people's minds, serves decent food and is a sharp operation. Amtrak's long distance service should at least equal that. Fares? High fare for the casual leasure tourist traveling during peak season. Discounted fares for those with handicaps and proven medical problems that truly prevent commercial flying, especially veterans. Discounted fares to fill seats during slack periods. And I am not saying that Horizen and Superliner equipment be scrapped in favor of 1950 Budd equipment, but that the Horizen and Superliner and some long distance Amtrak equpment, all lots more modern than that on the Canadian (better? a very arguable quesiton) be brought up to that standard of cleanliness and general maintenance. And this includes the out-of-service equipment. But investment in dualble state of the art for corridors for highway and airport congestion relief? A separate issue and that is where the really big bucks should be spent.
daveklepper wrote: Discounted fares for those with handicaps and proven medical problems that truly prevent commercial flying, especially veterans.
Discounted fares for those with handicaps and proven medical problems that truly prevent commercial flying, especially veterans.
If the argument that Amtrak should provide service to people whose handicaps and proven medical restrictions prevent them from flying is valid, it should serve every community in the United States with a population of more than XX. Fill in the numbers. There is no logical reason why handicapped people in Lubbock should not have the same service as handicapped people in Austin, TX.
If there is a viable market for long distance passenger trains in the U.S., private enterprise should provide the service. They can run it as a seasonal tourist service.
If Amtrak was permitted to drop its long distance trains, the savings would grow to an estimated $59 billion by 2050, which would pay for more than a few miles of improved corridor services.
Flashwave wrote:Sam: I'm still missing it: what are you calling a long distance train? (Emprie and Zephyr are givens, but what else are you whacking out? Any more private ventures and the tracks are gonna be full.
Amtrak classifies 15 of its trains as long distance. They are the Silver Star, Cardinal, Silver Meteor, Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, Californa Zephyr, Southwest Chief, City of New Orleans, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight, Lake Shore Limited, Palmetto, Crescent, and Auto Train.
I would eliminate all of them. They bring in only 23 per cent of Amtrak's revenues while racking up 142 per cent of the operating expenses before other charges. After other charges they eat up 48 per cent of the federal subsidy required to cover Amtrak's loses, as per the 2007 operating and annual reports. Although ridership is up in 2008, so are expenses. As a result, some of the long distance trains are losing even more per passenger mile than the lost in the first eight months of 2007.
If the states want to operate the long distance trains, or if a private operator wants to operate one of them or all of them, which no one in a business would be foolish enough to do, with the possible exception of the Auto Train, they could do so. If California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana wanted to operate the Sunset Limited, they would be free to do so providing they could negotiate an operating agreement with the hoist railroad.
Samantha wrote: Flashwave wrote:Sam: I'm still missing it: what are you calling a long distance train? (Emprie and Zephyr are givens, but what else are you whacking out? Any more private ventures and the tracks are gonna be full.Amtrak classifies 15 of its trains as long distance. They are the Silver Star, Cardinal, Silver Meteor, Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, Californa Zephyr, Southwest Chief, City of New Orleans, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight, Lake Shore Limited, Palmetto, Crescent, and Auto Train.
So you want to pull the only real train out of the "Midwest Corridor"? the Hoosier State doesnm't get anywhere.
Samantha wrote: I would eliminate all of them. They bring in only 23 per cent of Amtrak's revenues while racking up 142 per cent of the operating expenses before other charges. After other charges they eat up 48 per cent of the federal subsidy required to cover Amtrak's loses, as per the 2007 operating and annual reports. Although ridership is up in 2008, so are expenses. As a result, some of the long distance trains are losing even more per passenger mile than the lost in the first eight months of 2007.
You sound like an accountant! Many businesses have suffered under such thinking. When you order a sandwich in a resturant they could elimiate the pickle or chips, the lettuce, the mayo, even the plate because they are all extra to the two pieces of bread and a piece of meat! I know Amtrak is not a sandwich, but I have enounterd so many businesses who have suffered with that kind of thinking. Railroads who had shed branch lines and local services because there was a cost attached lost the business to trucks thus they had no cars to put on their long distance trains so they elminiated the whole railroad. So when you are providing a service, such as a rail passenger service, you have to look at the whole of the operation and know that this train or that feeds into the system so that the whole system somehow succeeds. Maybe what we really should be looking at is what I have advocated over the past several years and that is rationalize groups of regional systems inter linked with services. Maybe there would be one train that linked it all from Portland, ME to Portland, OR, maybe not; but some kind of model based on regional needs coupled with inter regional needs has to be looked at.
henry6 wrote: Samantha wrote: I would eliminate all of them. They bring in only 23 per cent of Amtrak's revenues while racking up 142 per cent of the operating expenses before other charges. After other charges they eat up 48 per cent of the federal subsidy required to cover Amtrak's loses, as per the 2007 operating and annual reports. Although ridership is up in 2008, so are expenses. As a result, some of the long distance trains are losing even more per passenger mile than the lost in the first eight months of 2007. You sound like an accountant! Many businesses have suffered under such thinking. When you order a sandwich in a resturant they could elimiate the pickle or chips, the lettuce, the mayo, even the plate because they are all extra to the two pieces of bread and a piece of meat! I know Amtrak is not a sandwich, but I have enounterd so many businesses who have suffered with that kind of thinking. Railroads who had shed branch lines and local services because there was a cost attached lost the business to trucks thus they had no cars to put on their long distance trains so they elminiated the whole railroad. So when you are providing a service, such as a rail passenger service, you have to look at the whole of the operation and know that this train or that feeds into the system so that the whole system somehow succeeds. Maybe what we really should be looking at is what I have advocated over the past several years and that is rationalize groups of regional systems inter linked with services. Maybe there would be one train that linked it all from Portland, ME to Portland, OR, maybe not; but some kind of model based on regional needs coupled with inter regional needs has to be looked at.
I;ll shorten this: WHy have a XCorridor if I can;t go anywhere?
Flashwave wrote: henry6 wrote: Samantha wrote: I would eliminate all of them. They bring in only 23 per cent of Amtrak's revenues while racking up 142 per cent of the operating expenses before other charges. After other charges they eat up 48 per cent of the federal subsidy required to cover Amtrak's loses, as per the 2007 operating and annual reports. Although ridership is up in 2008, so are expenses. As a result, some of the long distance trains are losing even more per passenger mile than the lost in the first eight months of 2007. You sound like an accountant! Many businesses have suffered under such thinking. When you order a sandwich in a resturant they could elimiate the pickle or chips, the lettuce, the mayo, even the plate because they are all extra to the two pieces of bread and a piece of meat! I know Amtrak is not a sandwich, but I have enounterd so many businesses who have suffered with that kind of thinking. Railroads who had shed branch lines and local services because there was a cost attached lost the business to trucks thus they had no cars to put on their long distance trains so they elminiated the whole railroad. So when you are providing a service, such as a rail passenger service, you have to look at the whole of the operation and know that this train or that feeds into the system so that the whole system somehow succeeds. Maybe what we really should be looking at is what I have advocated over the past several years and that is rationalize groups of regional systems inter linked with services. Maybe there would be one train that linked it all from Portland, ME to Portland, OR, maybe not; but some kind of model based on regional needs coupled with inter regional needs has to be looked at.I;ll shorten this: WHy have a XCorridor if I can;t go anywhere?
The part I like is "racking up 142 per cent of the operating expenses." Just "operating expenses," not comparing it to the operating expense of something else.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.