But unless there is a concerted effort to define, market, and operate a rail passenger service in this country, the argument is all there is!
The crux of the matter is that there may be an added 1.5 billion per year to "do some stuff" with Amtrak. What are the priorities? Do you concentrate on adding or enhancing operations such as the California trains, the Illinois trains, the Michigan trains, the Empire Service, the Harrisburg electric trains, or do you spread it around spending money on more sleeping cars and adding a Chicago-Florida LD train?
Or on the thread where Don Oltmann raised the question of priorities, the general sense was that the extra 1.5 billion/year of Lautenberg-Lott was unserious when we should be building HSR, which requires much higher budgets.
I am of the opinion that an extra 1.5 billion over 5 years can have a significant impact if it is spent wisely, although my concern is that the advocacy community is committed to business as usual and spending the money on more of same. You want a 110 MPH Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis train with 10-trains a day frequency, or do you want more sleeping cars and more LD trains (Desert Wind, Portland Rose, Chicago-Miami, daily Sunset, New Orleans-Jacksonville)? Or are you going to be mad at "the politicians" for not allowing you to have both right now?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
There's a nice chart in this month's Trains with revenue, ridership and frequency of the Capitols Corridor trains. Interestingly, the farebox recovery is now over 50% and the cost per pass. mile is 1/4 of that on NEC.
Maybe a template for the salvation of Amtrak?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic wrote: But unless there is a concerted effort to define, market, and operate a rail passenger service in this country, the argument is all there is! ....The crux of the matter is that there may be an added 1.5 billion per year to "do some stuff" with Amtrak. What are the priorities?....
....The crux of the matter is that there may be an added 1.5 billion per year to "do some stuff" with Amtrak. What are the priorities?....
The first priority is before that, it is to determine the priorities of transportation needs and applications. When that is determined, then you can start talking about how much money you throw at each mode, where, and why.
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.
oltmannd wrote: henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote:[ The other side of this line of thinking is, if Amtrak gets chump change and does even less with it, would anyone other than railfans miss it much if it was dissolved?Why does everyone assume that only railfans like Amtrak? There are thousand using Amtrak daily who are not "foamers" but real people needing public transportation. And thousands more would if it were availabe, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed. That's not a railfan foamer's dream, thats the outline of what should be Amtrak's business and operating plan.Outside of the Northeast, LA & SF, and perhaps Chicago and Seattle, who, other than railfans, even knows if an Amtrak train goes thru their town? 0.1% of all intercity trips are on Amtrak, and that includes the NEC, where 50% of the ridership comes from. There are 4.5M people in metro Atlanta. I don't know a one, other than RRers and railfans who know that:1. there is only one Amtrak a train a day, each way in Atlanta. You tell people that and they are surprized that there aren't more.2. the train goes to NY and New Orleans3. where the train station is in Atlanta, even though it is right next to the busiest road in the state. (I75-I85 "connector")I agree that there is a need for "available, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed" service and it's what should define "Amtrak's business and operating plan." But, does any of that describe most of the lines on Amtrak's map? No. Most of the lines on Amtraks map have "infrequent, only occasioanally reliable (and that begs the question of relaible to begin with...), expensive to operate, 1950's style, and invisible to the public" service.Would dissolving Amtrak (which is very different from eliminating all Amtrak service) help or hurt the cause of getting "availabe, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed" service" where it can be justified?
henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote:[ The other side of this line of thinking is, if Amtrak gets chump change and does even less with it, would anyone other than railfans miss it much if it was dissolved?Why does everyone assume that only railfans like Amtrak? There are thousand using Amtrak daily who are not "foamers" but real people needing public transportation. And thousands more would if it were availabe, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed. That's not a railfan foamer's dream, thats the outline of what should be Amtrak's business and operating plan.
oltmannd wrote:[ The other side of this line of thinking is, if Amtrak gets chump change and does even less with it, would anyone other than railfans miss it much if it was dissolved?
The other side of this line of thinking is, if Amtrak gets chump change and does even less with it, would anyone other than railfans miss it much if it was dissolved?
Why does everyone assume that only railfans like Amtrak? There are thousand using Amtrak daily who are not "foamers" but real people needing public transportation. And thousands more would if it were availabe, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed. That's not a railfan foamer's dream, thats the outline of what should be Amtrak's business and operating plan.
Outside of the Northeast, LA & SF, and perhaps Chicago and Seattle, who, other than railfans, even knows if an Amtrak train goes thru their town? 0.1% of all intercity trips are on Amtrak, and that includes the NEC, where 50% of the ridership comes from.
There are 4.5M people in metro Atlanta. I don't know a one, other than RRers and railfans who know that:
1. there is only one Amtrak a train a day, each way in Atlanta. You tell people that and they are surprized that there aren't more.
2. the train goes to NY and New Orleans
3. where the train station is in Atlanta, even though it is right next to the busiest road in the state. (I75-I85 "connector")
I agree that there is a need for "available, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed" service and it's what should define "Amtrak's business and operating plan." But, does any of that describe most of the lines on Amtrak's map? No. Most of the lines on Amtraks map have "infrequent, only occasioanally reliable (and that begs the question of relaible to begin with...), expensive to operate, 1950's style, and invisible to the public" service.
Would dissolving Amtrak (which is very different from eliminating all Amtrak service) help or hurt the cause of getting "availabe, frequent, reliable, efficiently operated and properly marketed" service" where it can be justified?
Competition tends to produce a better outcome. One of Amtrak's problems, it appears, is a lack of any passenger rail competition. So the incentives to do things better, faster, cheaper are insignificant or non-existent. Competition could change that. One way to do it, perhaps, would to be to adopt, with adjustments, the model used in Australia.
The long distance trains (Ghan, Indian Pacific, and Overland) are operated by a private contractor over tracks owned by the federal and state governments. The contractor does not have any direct completion from other railway operators. But the contract is re-bid every ten years. If the operator wants to keep the contract, he had better meet the contractual performance standards. Having ridden all three of the aforementioned trains, I took away the impression that the service is far superior to the service offered by Amtrak's long distance trains, including the much acclaimed Empire Builder.
In Victoria, which is located on the Southeastern coast of Australia, the intrastate passenger trains are operated by a private contractor. Prior to privatization the service was poor. After the service was restructured, it improved dramatically.
In Texas the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) operates quite nicely, without Amtrak, over tracks owned by Dallas and Fort Worth. It is a commuter service, to be sure, but it is also an intercity service, although Dallas and Fort Worth are only 32 miles apart. It is an example of a good service that operates independent of Amtrak. Another example of this model is staged to open in the Austin area near the end of this year.
I tossed out this idea a while back, but I'll throw it out there again.
Have Amtrak bid out the sleeper/diner service to a hotel/restaurant company. It actually would be a reverse bid, i.e. "how much do I have to pay you for you to run this business". The winner would get the lump sum and then get to keep all the revenue or at least some fraction of it. Lowest bid wins. Contractor sets fares, does marketing, branding, reservations, staffing, packaging, tours ...everything. Amtrak just promises a ride and servicable equipment.
oltmannd wrote: I tossed out this idea a while back, but I'll throw it out there again. Have Amtrak bid out the sleeper/diner service to a hotel/restaurant company. It actually would be a reverse bid, i.e. "how much do I have to pay you for you to run this business". The winner would get the lump sum and then get to keep all the revenue or at least some fraction of it. Lowest bid wins. Contractor sets fares, does marketing, branding, reservations, staffing, packaging, tours ...everything. Amtrak just promises a ride and servicable equipment.
I would do it a little bit differently.
Although I referenced the contracting for the long distance trains in Australia for illustrative purposes, I would get out of the long distance train business.
I would keep the Amtrak reservation system; it works very well, although I would bid it out.
I would provide federal and state incentives for city to city trains in corridors of approximately 300 miles. The trains would offer light meal service, but the traditional dinning car would be history.
Amtrak could take a lesson from Greyhound, which is a competitive business that has to respond to market forces. It, realizing that it cannot compete for the long distance passenger, has restructured its routes to concentrate on paired cities, i.e. San Antonio to Dallas, Pittsburgh to Cleveland, etc.
If ever there was a glaring hole in Amtrak service it is LA to LV. The traffic is bad on I-15 everyday now but Feidays and Sundays are out of the question. The major problem is the two states involved cannot get together. And the UP does not want any Amtrak traffic on tthat line.
Al - in - Stockton
Time is Money, why would anyone, with a need to travel, other than a Railfan, ride for 2 days when they can fly in 2 hours?
The Railroads of the USA were going bankrupt running both Long Haul and Commuter Passenger Service in the 1960s.
The US Government formed Amtrak to take over "Interstate" Passenger Service.
States, or groups of States, took over and set up Commuter Railroads.
The Freight Railroads, without fleets of Passenger Locomotives and cars to run on government dictated high speed service, began to make money, lots of money. Even the US Government Freight Railroad, Conrail, after billions spent, made money. It was "Privatized", later it was broken up and sold.
Unless America was to turn to "Socialism", in this "Free Enterprse System", no "for profit" corporation would even bid on Passenger Service unless the Government would Guarantee to cover the losses.
All Transportation should have some Goverment support, Airports and Traffic Control, Highway Construction, Passenger Railroad Support. It is how you GROW a country, promote Industry and Trade.
Long Haul Passenger Service does not support the above, it is for Tourists, it might be better supported by Cities or States that would package the trips.
Commuter Service under the present setup seems to be growing underwritten by local Taxpayers.
Passenger Runs of 500 miles or less, this is the only place Amtrak belongs. This is where the Amtack Budget should be spent, developing High speed Corridors where densely populated Cities are close enought to provide a NEEDED Service. Remember, The Acela is only "First Class" and "Business Class", no Coach. The people in the Northeast know about it and ride it, it's there for them every hour, no long Airport Check-in, no bumper to bumper Traffic. Take a run from New York to Washington, ride in a clean and comfortable train, do business, interview perple, and be back in New York that afternoon.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
In addition to the Los Angeles-San Francisco HSR core; how much more bang for the buck could be achieved extending service north from San Jose to Richmond and south, bypassing LAUPT, to San Diego with additional direct one-seat services?
Electrification of the line from Fresno to Sacramento may provide faster through service than through Oakland as well as partial HS running from San Diego and Los Angeles.
Samantha wrote: Competition tends to produce a better outcome. One of Amtrak's problems, it appears, is a lack of any passenger rail competition.
Competition tends to produce a better outcome. One of Amtrak's problems, it appears, is a lack of any passenger rail competition.
I don't think the lack of competing rail matters as much as the enormous competition from the other transportation modes
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
110 mph is easy for Chicago-Saint Louis; but only compounds the problems with growing peak suburban services and the need for more frequent peak Hiawatha service. As it is, 79-mph Hiawathas catch up with Metra trains and limit line capacity.
The Hiawathas #330 and #339 are scheduled for 10 and 5 additional minutes despite no additional stops. How much of these differences are allowances for running around and not passing a Metra train at a station is not readily apparent. The basic 92-minute schedule allows 5 minutes padding for an unhindered trip.
110-mph Hiawathas would expand the size of the service window that is needed, reducing capacity for Metra without major investment in adding a third main. Adding a third track takes more than some grading and drainage; there are bridges, signals and crossovers, more grade separations just for safety for rising train volume, and relocating crossing signals and outbound platforms and shelters. While $270 million for triple-tracking affords some benefit for expanding Metra express services, the prime beneficiary would be an expanded, faster Hiawatha service.
In addition, the Hiawatha already is faster than the auto throughout most of the day. Where the train begins to lose competitiveness is in the time waiting for a departure or early arrival, and in arrivals too late and departures too early for the purpose of the travel. The current Hiawatha schedule mitigates this with relatively convenient schedules to serve time-sensitive mid-morning, mid-day, early afternoon, and late afternoon markets.
Concurrently, Canadian Pacific probably does not like being shut out during the peaks, as many as six hours and would like a third track from Techny to Rondout. In preliminary discussions, CP is asking for substantial capacity improvements for hourly 79-mph service; and Amtrak doesn't want to sour a good working partnership.
For these reasons, I believe combined peak 79-mph Hiawatha-Metra outer zone/skip-stop express trains would more fully utilize capacity and share costs offsetting the additional Metra car-miles, possibly reducing or deferring the need for a third track. Slower service with additional suburban stops still would be as fast as driving; and half-hourly service reduces the wait time and reaches underserved and unserved markets.
Which is the major problem: the states not getting together or the UP?
And what about Cajon, even with the third track? Or is this where congestion and driving time offer some attraction for rail?
gardendance wrote:f Samantha wrote: Competition tends to produce a better outcome. One of Amtrak's problems, it appears, is a lack of any passenger rail competition.I don't think the lack of competing rail matters as much as the enormous competition from the other transportation modes
Amtrak's current funding structure almost completely insulates them from mode to mode competition. Amtrak has more reasons to change nothing than they do to try any inovation.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: "You want a 110 MPH Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis train with 10-trains a day frequency...."
First, 110 mph is not doable for parts of the existing Chicago-Twin Cities corridor, even with tilting suspension.
I recognize adding Madison is both political and market-driven; but let's not think the service will fly between Chicago and the Twin Cities. The orientation needs to be more regional. For this reason, serious consideration should be given to the Rochester, MN alternative for at least a pair of trains. The Empire Builder and a counterpart flip schedule between Chicago and the Twin Cities via Red Wing, MN and Columbus, WI may be warranted.
All the trains may add up to more than ten-a-day; but some would not go all the way, and others would be extended beyond the Twin Cities to Moorehead. I see a separate Twin Cities- Duluth service oriented primarily to the casino.
A major problem is that Amtrak is in full attrition mode at the present. There areno equipment orders on the books at all. The fleet is slowly shrinking. There arethose in Congress and the Bush administration that don't believe Amtrak shouldbe operating food service cars and sleepers. Amtrak's compromise is the regrettable"diner-lite". And McCain is waiting in the wings!
There are some of us here who think it's wrong for taxpayers to subsidized sleeper patrons. How again are subsidized sleepers a common good?
Don't get me wrong, though. I LOVE travelling in a sleeper and eating in a diner. I'm just pretty sure my next door neighbor shouldn't be subsidizing my trip.
I think Amtrak has to find a way to get sleepers and diners to pay their incremental operating costs or get out of the business.
I actually just read that Amtrak is adding a $1 per fare to pay for one extra Acela car for each of the 20 train sets. It's a wire story, but here is one link.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/30/catch-a-fast-train/
I rode Acela last month and it was probably 80% full in the quiet car. I walked the entire train several times during the ride from WAS to NYP and all the non-Quiet-Car seats were double occupied.
For capacity planning reasons I find it very puzzling there aren't real seats in the huge Cafe Car on Acela like there is on the Regionals, or just regular seating on one side with a little open space for the Cafe counter. Lots of open space to stumble around and those stupid standee stool counters nobody is using because they're so uncomfortable for sitting. I guess they originally wanted to serve real food in there and changed their mind but didn't change the seating arrangement. I think 6 or 8 rows could go on the left and the corridor would be where the standee stool counters are, and relocating the service counter to face this corridor.
In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs. And it would be counter productive to eliminate them on longer distance trains(longer, not long, but including all trains which time would allow) when not having diner service might mean no patrons at all. And bringing back the Harvey Houses is not an option either!
Somewhere above Samantha said something about AMtrak needing competiton in the passenger train market. That would be difficult in today's railroading because, for one thing, Amtrak was borne out of the collection of competing and non competing services thus eliminating competiton in that way, and secondly, the elimination of tracks and lines and the merging of companies has negated the capacity for competion.
We've got to stop segrating Amtrak from the rest of the national transportation sytsem and look at rationalizing everything into an intermodal system of moving people.
The Acela "Cafe Car" is more than food, it has the closed in Conductor's Office, with more than a desk. The electronics for the Station Announcements, TV display system (CNN), and a duplicate of the Engineer's CRT Screen is in there.
Between the Counter and the end of the car is storage and Rescue Equipment, including a Rescue Bridge to span to an adjacent train (remember, no steps on the passenger cars).
henry6 wrote: Get rid of long distance trains (definition?)
Amtrak classifies the following trains as long distance: Silver Star, Cardinal, Silver Meteor, Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, City of New Orleans, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight, Lake Shore Limited, Palmetto, Crescent, and Auto Train. These trains carry sleeping and dinning cars, as well as lounge cars on most trains, which is probably an Amtrak criterion for classifying them as long distance.
There are some other trains, such as the Carolinian, Maple Leaf, etc. that cover more than 500 miles, but they are classified as State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridors by Amtrak. Some of these trains cover more than 500 miles. Classifying them as short distance trains, apparently because they don't have a dinning car and sleepers, seems a bit of a stretch.
henry6 wrote: In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs.
In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs.
Nope. Not true. Especially food service. http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
Amtrak's own Inspector General says that it costs $2 for every $1 of food served.
I will have an opportunity to check out the Acela Cafe Car on September 30th when I take a morning Acela from Philadelphia to New York.
I had hoped to get up to Boston earlier in the year to ride the Acela, but my plans did not pan out. But the Philadelphia trip is a go: I have my airline tickets and Amtrak reservations.
What is the top speed attained by the Acela between Philadelphia and New York? Also, what is the top speed attained by a regional train between Philadelphia and New York? Lastly, what is the top speed of the Acela between Philadelphia and Washington?
And here is a question for someone from Philly. How far is it from the Southwest Airlines terminal to the SEPTA station where, as I understand it, I can catch the train to 30th Street Station?
The cost per passenger numbers Amtrak is stuck with are a result of the low level of service.
For example, how many stations are owned, supplied with utilities, (electrified, heated, air-conditioned, maintained) and staffed for one train a day? If you assign the cost of those stations to that one train that is an astronomical fixed cost.
Minimal level of service does not save any money on fixed costs, only on those costs actually incurred by running the train. That makes the cost per train, cost per mile, and cost per seat skyrocket. Since the train only uses the station for 5 minutes, what does that make the cost per minute of maintaining that station?
With each additional train per day, the fixed cost numbers per train go down.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
oltmannd wrote: henry6 wrote: In effect you are not subsidizing sleeper patrons as they pay a premium price which covers the service above the regular fare. The same with dining cars, meals are priced to cover costs. Nope. Not true. Especially food service. http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdfAmtrak's own Inspector General says that it costs $2 for every $1 of food served.
Thanks for this reference. It substantiates what I have determined from my number crunching; in fact, had I know of its existence, I could have saved myself a lot of work.
As a CPA, financial analyst, and audit manager, I have prepared and distributed numerous studies similar to this one. As a result I have developed a pretty good feel for high quality work. The OIG did their homework, and they put together a first class report.
Unlike NARP or the Passenger Rail Working Group, the OIG recognized that coming up with one number, i.e. the money that could be saved by eliminating sleeping, dinning, and lounge cars on long distance trains, was unrealistic. So it did what most sophisticated financial analysts do. It put together three plausible scenarios.
The best outcome would be to eliminate the current long distance route structure. Then, where there is a possible demand for the service, introduce paired city services, i.e. Houston to San Antonio, Tucson to Phoenix, Charlotte to Atlanta, etc.
The frustrating thing about putting together a report like the OIG did is that the politicians, as well as vested interest groups, don't get it. They acknowledge the excellent work done to produce the report. They say that they agree with many of the conclusions. They say that they will adopt the recommendations. And they do nothing. Or worse, they ignore them, and continue business as usual, like refurbishing the sleeping and lounge cars on the Coast Starlight so that they can lose even more money, with the sleeping car passengers being the largest beneficiaries.
I thought about sending this report to NARP, which performed a laughable counter report, but it dawned on me that I would be wasting my time. NARP has made up its mind regarding the long distance trains, including the sleeper class service, and it does not want to be confused by the facts.
If I were the president of Amtrak, with the authority to do so, I would adopt the report's recommendations in a heartbeat, with two possible exceptions. I would have some type of on board food service, albeit like that offered on the Heartland Flyer, but perhaps in a spruced up area in the lower level on a Superliner Coach, I would retain the cafe cars where appropriate. I would also reconfigure a couple of the coaches or sleepers as business class cars, with seats similar to the business class seats on international flights, to see if there is a market for them. In both cases I would insist that the food service and business class service cover all the incremental costs.
But then I am not the president of Amtrak. So the system will muddle along until it comes time to lay out some serious money to replace the existing long distance equipment. Then the fun will start.
OK. But still as I mentioned, what would be the cost in lost traffic if meals were not provided? Its a judgment/marketing call. But it may be the cost of doing business, too, and be recovered somewhere elese in the service. You didn't say about sleeping car costs, but I believe that is why you pay extra for it: to cover the costs. It may or may not be a profit center.
And, Samantha: yes, those are Amtrak's definitions or designations of Long Distance trains, but under my plan they would all be redefined or redesignated; defnitiely would be assinged to the authority of the region's serviced. In other words, we can keep Amtrak, but we can redesign and reorganize the whole thing and not be held to today's or yesterday's s.o.p.'s.
Samantha wrote:What is the top speed attained by the Acela between Philadelphia and New York?
Samantha wrote:Also, what is the top speed attained by a regional train between Philadelphia and New York?
Samantha wrote:Lastly, what is the top speed of the Acela between Philadelphia and Washington?
Samantha wrote:How far is it from the Southwest Airlines terminal to the SEPTA station where, as I understand it, I can catch the train to 30th Street Station?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.