gardendance wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.Didn't they essentialy do this anyway? Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
HarveyK400 wrote: Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.
Commuter can be compared to Amtrak. Back in 1970 I rode the Metroliner for the first time from New York to Philadelphia and returned late on Silverliners and changing at Trenton. For basic transportation there was little difference for all the cost in re-inventing the EMU. Granted, some travelers are more time-sensitive; but I've thought that running Silverliners non-stop might have done the trick.
Didn't they essentialy do this anyway? Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400 wrote: ...Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan....I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
...Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan.
...I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
The NEC, which includes the Acelas, the regional trains, and the special trains, is not profitable. For FY 2007, which is the latest audited fiscal year, the NEC covered its operating expenses and contributed $258.3 million to interest and depreciation.
A conservative estimate of the interest and depreciation attributable to the NEC is $276.3 million, which means the NEC realized a fully allocated loss of $18 million in FY 2007. This assumes the per cent of interest and depreciation allocated to the NEC is the same as the per cent of NEC revenues to total operating revenues. This is a very conservative estimate and probably under states the loss. If 70 per cent of the interest and depreciation was attributed to the NEC, the loss would have been $128.5 million, and 80 per cent would have resulted in a loss of $183.7 million.
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
What is bemusing to me is that Amtrak operates the Acelas as an exploitive premium-fare service with a capacity under 300 passengers. I'm glad they're making money on it, but the Acelas take up space that could move three times as many passengers into Manhattan.
Acelas also exploit sunk investment in the 4 and 6-track Broad Way built by the Pennsylvania Railroad south of Newark. I've always wondered how the NEC can be successful with its high costs despite high ridership and the premium fares. Even so, whatever espoused profitability has not brought an investment in catenary modernization.
For me, the workhorses are the Regionals.
True.
Acela, Every Hour, each way, yes, good service. Add to that "Regional Service" in The Corridor, hauling Coaches and making local stops, you have service saturation.
Speed? 90mph is Good, much of it at 135mph is Great, short runs at 150mph is For Show.
Commuter Note: Boston's MBTA runs most of there lines, locomotive hauled, at 80mph, Metro-North from New Haven into New York City, with MU cars, is 90mph territory.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Moving people from one place to another, as in Commuter Rail in Commuter Coaches, can not be compaired to Amtrack.
Maybe this is where the mission of Amtrak gets blurred. There only success is the Acela running the Northeast Corridor. Lets not debate "Success".
The Acela moves people as on an Airliner, not as low cost mass transet.
This is the interior of an Acela, First Cass is 1-2 seating, Business Class is 2-2, there is no Coach Class. Note the big Windows, the Overhead Cargo Bins, the Guide lights alone the carpet on the floor, the Window Curtains, each seat with its own overhead Reading Light (as in an Airliner), fold down Tables, Foot Rests, this is a Class Act.
There is a place for dreams and possibilities to inspire. Fools are dreamers that ignore realities; and there is a fine line between romanticism.
Madison-Milwaukee only has CP freight to deal with east of Watertown, and then probably with no intermediate stops and a pure point-to-point operation. Would more riders be gained with intermediate stops or lost with the additional time for stops?
At 110 mph, a non-stop train might make the run between Milwaukee and Chicago in a hour, but at what cost in comparison to service along the corridor and accommodation for CP and Metra?
I always seem to be arguing against the dreams of the MHSRA because they are single-minded and overlook the equally valid opportunities for utilizing existing assets and the high cost for limited utilization of improvements to meet peak demand. One problem for me is justifying a window for even 79-mph Amtrak trains carrying 400 passengers as opposed to one or two Metras carrying 1,400 each. Which one would take more cars off the Edens and Kennedy?
Los Angeles Rams Guy wrote: HarveyK400 wrote:The UP recently restored the second main track in western Iowa, eliminating any need for a joint line.I'm aware of the UP having the double track back in place between Denison and Missouri Valley BUT if a paired track arrangement between the UP and the CN could be established between Denison and Council Bluffs it would add that much more capacity in western Iowa. As it is right now the CN runs about one train a day each way between Council Bluffs and Tara/Ft. Dodge. A lot of work would have to be done on the CN's mainline as well to get it up to the lofty UP standards but it would be well worth it. I agree as much as anybody here that Amtrak's real strength lies in the short to medium-distance corridors. Towards that end, here are the corridors that need to be developed, IMHO:(1) Cheyenne - Denver - CSprings - Pueblo/La Junta/Trinidad (to connect w/Southwest Chief)(2) Twin Cities - Kansas City (likely over UP's "Spine Line" mainline)(3) Los Angeles - Las Vegas(4a) Chicago - Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Omaha (via IAIS)OR(4b) Chicago - Clinton - Cedar Rapids - Ames/Boone - Omaha (via UP)
HarveyK400 wrote:The UP recently restored the second main track in western Iowa, eliminating any need for a joint line.
I'm aware of the UP having the double track back in place between Denison and Missouri Valley BUT if a paired track arrangement between the UP and the CN could be established between Denison and Council Bluffs it would add that much more capacity in western Iowa. As it is right now the CN runs about one train a day each way between Council Bluffs and Tara/Ft. Dodge. A lot of work would have to be done on the CN's mainline as well to get it up to the lofty UP standards but it would be well worth it.
I agree as much as anybody here that Amtrak's real strength lies in the short to medium-distance corridors. Towards that end, here are the corridors that need to be developed, IMHO:
(1) Cheyenne - Denver - CSprings - Pueblo/La Junta/Trinidad (to connect w/Southwest Chief)
(2) Twin Cities - Kansas City (likely over UP's "Spine Line" mainline)
(3) Los Angeles - Las Vegas
(4a) Chicago - Quad Cities - Iowa City - Des Moines - Omaha (via IAIS)
OR
(4b) Chicago - Clinton - Cedar Rapids - Ames/Boone - Omaha (via UP)
I'd be surprised if any of these have as good a cost/benefit ratio of the corridors east of the Mississippi that have been discussed. Mostly lack of population along the route. And, the rural interstates west of the Miss aren't projected to be grid locked any time soon. I 95, 85, 75, 81, 70, 80 and 90 in the east are all pretty much full, right now, and grid locked on holidays.
For example, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland would be cheap to build out (flat, straight, exisiting ROW was originally double track), it's shorter, and the major cities are all 1M+. 40% of North America's population lives within 500 miles of Harrisburg PA. This territory is the fertile ground for corridor development, especially when you consider that the NEC can provide a good anchor for expansion.
Take out CA and TX and Chicagoland and there's not much left to provide anchor cities.
Denver is nice sized, but Cheyenne and Pueblo aren't all that large. You could make a good case for Ft. Collins to Colo. Springs commuter rail, though.
Building out to Las Vegas over Cajon to serve the weekend peak of "tourists" to Las Vegas seems to be a bad idea to me. Let the casinos figure out how to fuel their growth and leave my wallet out of it!
Chicago to Omaha vs. Chicago to Nashville?
Twin Cities to KC vs. Chicago to KC or Chicago to Twin Cities or Chicago to Detroit or Chicago to Pittsburgh?
To add, Acela Speed:
South of New York, it's the condition of the 1930 Catenary (Over Head Wire System) that limits the speed to 135mph. The track is OK except for the defective tie replacement in NJ. Amtrak was testing 145 mph to see if it was safe, I did not hear the results. When and if Amtrak gets the money thay plan to replace the Catenary with the "constance tension" type.
New Haven into New York, most of the track is owned by the commuter railroad which is replacing the 1914 Catenary with a better but not "state of the art" system. Fine for there trains but no help to the Acela.
North of New Haven it's all new, state of the art, constance tension Catenary.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: 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. Two things. One is that faster-than-driving may not be fast enough. For most people, the train is a leg of an intermodal trip, and while more frequent trains may compensate for slower travel time, there is the time loss of the intermodal interface to consider. Also, a faster train may enable work travel patterns that aren't even considered with cars and unavailable by plane. A two hour Madison-Chicago travel time would be a rough daily commute, but, say, some lawyer need to be in a Chicago office a couple times a week and in Madison the rest of the time, that sort of thing would become possible. Madison would become a kind of satellite to the Chicago business center. On the other hand, I am kind of getting the point that a 2-hour Madison-Chicago travel time is a Midwest High Speed Rail Association talking point -- maybe the reality is closer to 2 1/2 hours.The second point: I see the merits of a reliable 79 MPH service over vague promises of 110 MPH. But if 110 MPH goes by the wayside, what have we been talking about all of these years about the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative? Is this whole thing a crock on account of traffic saturation of Metra commuter trains? Will corridor trains require a separate right-of-way from both the freight trains and the commuter trains? What does this say about the claims of rail offering a capacity advantage over highways? It seems as capacity-constrained as anything else -- the current Hiawatha is offering the seat capacity of a tenth of a freeway lane in each direction as it is. So are you telling me that I have been making a fool of myself these past years, standing in front of a literature table telling passers by "One hour Madison-Milwaukee, two hours Madison-Chicago" all of these years? That on account of commuter train congestion, this is all a fantasy?
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.
Two things. One is that faster-than-driving may not be fast enough. For most people, the train is a leg of an intermodal trip, and while more frequent trains may compensate for slower travel time, there is the time loss of the intermodal interface to consider. Also, a faster train may enable work travel patterns that aren't even considered with cars and unavailable by plane. A two hour Madison-Chicago travel time would be a rough daily commute, but, say, some lawyer need to be in a Chicago office a couple times a week and in Madison the rest of the time, that sort of thing would become possible. Madison would become a kind of satellite to the Chicago business center.
On the other hand, I am kind of getting the point that a 2-hour Madison-Chicago travel time is a Midwest High Speed Rail Association talking point -- maybe the reality is closer to 2 1/2 hours.
The second point: I see the merits of a reliable 79 MPH service over vague promises of 110 MPH. But if 110 MPH goes by the wayside, what have we been talking about all of these years about the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative? Is this whole thing a crock on account of traffic saturation of Metra commuter trains? Will corridor trains require a separate right-of-way from both the freight trains and the commuter trains? What does this say about the claims of rail offering a capacity advantage over highways? It seems as capacity-constrained as anything else -- the current Hiawatha is offering the seat capacity of a tenth of a freeway lane in each direction as it is.
So are you telling me that I have been making a fool of myself these past years, standing in front of a literature table telling passers by "One hour Madison-Milwaukee, two hours Madison-Chicago" all of these years? That on account of commuter train congestion, this is all a fantasy?
I think you could follow the NC model. Start with 79 mph service with a plan to improve running time incrementally. NC has the advantage of actually owning the ROW - which gives them great leaverage with NS in getting the work done. They've been pretty aggressive in removing equalateral turnouts and replacing them with #20s so that they can run through them at 79. They've also added some 2nd track back in spots and added signalling/CTC to the portion east of Raleigh as well as improved the superelevation in spots to raise some curve speeds.
The route is part of the SEHSR initiative which plans connection Charlotte with the NEC with speeds up to 110 mph. NS is friendly toward 90 mph on existing track, but 110 will require a new track on existing ROW. But, since NC owns the route, perhaps these rules are merely guidlines in this case.
You can likely keep capacity up for Metra, CP and Amtrak on the double track with some targeted additions of track. Some 3rd track for passing sidings in spots that avoid adding bridges and/or some platform tracks for Metra that would allow overtaking moves.
Living in the west one or two new corridors have been created that are quite successful. The Sacramento to San Jose service is one and the Vancouver - Eugene is the other. San Diego - Los Angeles was already there and has since been expanded north up the coast. The other highly successful California corridor is the San Joaquins between Oakland and Bakersfield with bus feeders to southern California and Las Vegas. The latter will serve as a feeder for the proposed HSR if it gets built.
Not counting the CZ daily service should be provided to Reno from Oakland. There is never enough seats on the CZ available for Sacramento - Reno or Oakland - Reno passengers. Either that or a couple of extra coaches added to the CZ just between Reno - Oakland.
Additional services needed are direct Los Angeles - Phoenix service (Not the present Bus Connection)
Seattle - Ellensburg - Yakima - Tri Cities connecting with the East and Westbound Empire Builder to and from Portland. This old Northern Pacific route would solve a major transportation problem for that area. This should be handled solely by the State of Washington.The westbound train could connect in Seattle with the Empire Builder going east and the eastbound could connect with the Portland section of the Empire Builder requiring two sets of equipment. It would give residents of the Tri Cities direct access to Seattle something that has been needed for a long time.
Of course Los Angeles and Las Vegas needs to be connected by daily trains. I-15 has reached the saturation point on weekends and weekdays are now extremely busy as well.
A daylight train connecting Redding with Sacramento is overdue now and needs to be addressed in the near future. The Coast Starlight carries very few of these passengers do to the ungodly hour both NB and SB operate. With the Coast Starlight operating at or near capacity more of the shorthaul passengers are being turned away in favor of those traveling longer segments.
Being a frequent rider of the Pioneer when it was in service it is sorely missed by the passengers who boarded at Pendleton, La Grande and smaller communites in Oregon and Boise and the other Idaho towns.
Those people in southern Montana have been screaming for rail service for sometime now and a Spokane - Livingston - Billings route is definitely needed. I would suggest from Billlings it turn south and serve Gillette, Cheyenne, and Denver. This could operate as a feeder to the CZ and Empire Builder.
Another route that needs to be addressed is a Houston - Dallas - Denver service. All three cities are continuing to grow except for the present housing crisis that will probably last another couple of years.
A future route could also connect El Paso with Albuquerque and Denver. All three cities are growth areas in the west.
Someone ealier mentioned a Minneapolis- St Paul -Kansas City route. If that route becomes reality why not extend it south to Dallas and Houston. It would be a modern Twin Star Rocket.
There is no direct Kansas City - Denver service, why not extend the Missouri Mules from St. Louis to Denver. Or operate a connection from the LA - CHI trains from Lamar.
It almost begins to sound as if Denver becomes a hub city for Amtrak in the west wiith the proposals I have suggested. And that is probably as it should be.
Al - in - Stockton
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6 wrote: 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
You are making the NARP argument, but they never have any survey or data to back up their claim. My anecdotal evidence suggests this is grasping at straws.
I suppose on the western trains it may be a bit different, but on the east coast trains, the coach passengers don't use the diner much. It's pretty much all sleeper passengers. Last time I rode the Crescent, I was the only coach passenger in the diner for dinner and breakfast. So, you can lump the cost of sleepers and diners together or split them apart, it still equals red ink.
Amtrak should have some hard data, but I don't know if they've shared it. But, given that diner-lite is happening, I suspect Amtrak didn't have the ammo to keep the status quo.
I'll put it another way. Who needs a diner more? A guy who gets on the Lake Shore at 9 PM and gets off at 3PM or a guy who gets on the Maple Leaf at 7 AM and gets off at 10 PM? Which train has the diner? Which train does not? Why?
Might the Crescent do better as a pair of day trains out of Atlanta? One to New Orleans and one to NY? It moves through some pretty high density territory in the dead of night. The growth in population has occurred mostly in the 30 years that Amtrak has run the train. Amtrak has not added stops to accomodate new population centers, not dropped withering flag stops on the route. (The train stops in Toccoa - population a couple K, but not the north Atlanta suburbs - population >1M) It is exactly as the Southern ran it in 1979.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.