NYC#25 wrote under another thread, "Its getting grimmer. Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK is holding up the Amtrak funding bill that we all thought was a "slam-dunk". He's blocking the appointment of the Senate conferees and that may make it impossible to pass it before Congress ends this session." This post is probably a better fit for the discussion about the future of Amtrak.
Holding up and reviewing the request for the incremental funding for Amtrak is a prudent step. The federal deficit this year will be more than $400 billion. The projected deficit for next year is more than $430 billion. This will bring the federal debt to more than $10 trillion excluding the impact of the federal government assuming the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The funding problem could be resolved with two steps:
Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.
Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway.
Samantha wrote: Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway.
So take a tablespoon of water out of Lake Michigan and that drops the water level how dangerously low? The monies for Amtrak should not be the sole part of the transportation budget to be penelized nor be spotlighted in an overall budget of waste and over inflated programs that gratify the few.
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.
henry6 wrote: Samantha wrote: Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway. So take a tablespoon of water out of Lake Michigan and that drops the water level how dangerously low? The monies for Amtrak should not be the sole part of the transportation budget to be penelized nor be spotlighted in an overall budget of waste and over inflated programs that gratify the few.
The federal transportation budget, as well as the whole federal budget, is being reviewed. And it is likely to be reviewed even more so next year. Amtrak's funding is being reviewed because it is seaking a larger increase, per cent wise, than other transport segments, while carrying less than four tenths of one per cent of the traveling public.
A tablespoon analogy does not even begin to address the issue of the proper funding for Amtrak or any other segment of our transportation system.
Samantha wrote:The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
Given the relative scales of long-distance and other trains as well as the mathematical absurdity; it's a little difficult to believe Long-distance trains chew up 140% of operating expenses. As recently posted, most long-distance train direct costs may exceed revenue by 140% and more with the Sunset running at over 300%.
The national system:
Inter-city corridors usually are inter-state as well; and would seem to fall into the category of interstate commerce and federal responsibility. The problem with state funding is that the economic influence of a city often extends well beyond state boundries, even in a state as large as Texas. Illinois and Wisconsin have cooperated with the Hiawathas; but anything Michigan might desire to do to improve service from Chicago is hindered by lack of cooperation from Indiana where a disportionate burden of cost would be bourne for the derived benefits.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. Given the relative scales of long-distance and other trains as well as the mathematical absurdity; it's a little difficult to believe Long-distance trains chew up 140% of operating expenses. As recently posted, most long-distance train direct costs may exceed revenue by 140% and more with the Sunset running at over 300%. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC. Inter-city corridors usually are inter-state as well; and would seem to fall into the category of interstate commerce and federal responsibility. The problem with state funding is that the economic influence of a city often extends well beyond state boundries, even in a state as large as Texas. Illinois and Wisconsin have cooperated with the Hiawathas; but anything Michigan might desire to do to improve service from Chicago is hindered by lack of cooperation from Indiana where a disportionate burden of cost would be bourne for the derived benefits.
Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
For FY 2007 the operating loss for the long distance trains was $440.4 million. The system operating loss was $309.7 million. Divide 440.4 by 309.7 to get 142.2 per cent. It is not mathematical magic. It is due to the fact that the NEC trains covered their operating expenses and contributed $258.3 million to cover interest and depreciation, offset in part by the loses incurred by the other corridor trains. The loses, by the way, were before interest and depreciation.
The national system provides once a day service to some medium size and small cities. In many instances the train arrives in the middle of the night, and if a passenger misses it, he or she has to wait 24 hours for the next one. Calling this a national system requires a bit of tongue in the cheek. Most of the cities served by the so-called national system have excellent air and bus service for people who cannot or choose not to drive.
If the justification for the national system is that it provides service to medium and small communities, Amtrak should provide service to every community in the U.S. with a population above XX. Choose a number. Of course, given the cost of doing so, it is out of the question.
NARP argues that Amtrak would not be supported if a meatless bone (the national system) was not thrown to the politicians outside of the NEC states, Illinois, and California. Never mind that there is no evidence for this assertion.
It may be appropriate for the federal government to provide some of the seed money for corridors that cross state boundaries. But most of the funding (80 per cent), to the extent the fares do not cover the costs, should come from the states hosting the service. After all, it is their citizens that benefit directly from it.
The national airways system is a national system. Most people in the U.S. can drive to an airport in a couple of hours, get on a plane, and fly anywhere in the country or the world. The same concept applies to the federal highway system. But many people, especially in the west and southwest, cannot readily use Amtrak. Not to mention the fact that most of them don't want to use it.
It is unfair to ask the people of Milwaukee to pay for corridor rail between Austin and San Antonio. It is equally unfair to ask people in Texas to shoulder the cost of providing rail service between New York and Washington. These are regional transport solutions. They are not national in any sense of the word. And neither is the anemic national train system.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC.
I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You are correct in remembering riding NJT Arrow mu's in SEPTA service in and out of Philadelphia. For a short time NJT and SEPTA ran THROUGH SERVICE, using each other's mu equipment. It was not Amtrak's objections that ended this service, but NJT's complaint that SEPA's mu's were not maintained adequately.
I don't remember the particular dates of this operation, but it was about 40 years ago.
oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC. I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
Why is it that to "discontinue all long distance trains" for whatever reason seems to be the anti Amtrak panacea for what ails our whole transportatin budget? Does anyone say eliminate the purchase of asphalt or sometihng for highway patching because it costs too much?
You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.
Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.
Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote:
Samantha wrote:
If by the beast you mean the long distance trains, you're correct. They will probably be with us until the equipment needs to be replaced or the nation has a financial melt down as a result of its crushing debt load. But as you point out there are some steps Amtrak could take to reduce the bleeding.
The first would be to eliminate the Sunset Limited and Cardinal. Running a train three days a week does not make any sense. No one, outside of a few rail buffs and local mayors, believes that a thrice weekly train is a serious travel option. In fact, most people don't believe that a daily train is a serious travel option.
The second step would be to eliminate the sleeping cars, lounge cars, and full service dining cars on overnight trains that are out only one night, i.e. Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, etc. The full service dinning cars could be replaced by a dinning/lounge car similar to the ones on the City of New Orleans.
As stated in a previous post, Amtrak could convert some of the surplus cars into business class cars, i.e. with seats that reclined nearly flat, like those on American Airlines International Business Class flights, to see if there is a market for this class of service on one night out trains. The service would be required to cover its full cost.
The sleeping cars, lounge cars, and dinning cars could be retained for the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and the Southwest Chief. These trains have the potential to attract passengers who want a land cruise experience.
As an aside, do you think anyone from NARP or Amtrak reads the Trains' forums?
Phoebe Vet wrote: You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.
Three to five trains a day could provide a decent service. The key question is whether the service area population is large enough to support them, i.e pay the fares to cover at least the operating costs, with the states picking up the capital costs.
Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases.
daveklepper wrote:For a short time NJT and SEPTA ran THROUGH SERVICE, using each other's mu equipment.... it was about 40 years ago.
...
it was about 40 years ago.
Which would make it all Penn Central equipment-- right?
I'm guessing nobody can find a timetable showing a thru local NY-Phila after 1960. The employee timetable might show a PRR or PC local arriving Trenton and a different-number local leaving Trenton a few minutes later, which could be the same equipment for all we know-- but I doubt any public timetable showed a local train running thru.
Running one Amtrak train a day is not doomed to be unprofitable.
The incremental variable and fixed costs allocated to the passenger train should be only a small part of moderate to heavy rail operations. This should afford the one-train-a-day advantages that are less likely with multiple-train passenger services requiring more fixed-asset capacity improvements. The Wolverine's direct costs are 112% where Amtrak owns part of the line and NS has limited freight operations; and the Blue Water's are 80% with moderate CN freight operation for part of the route.
Also, it isn't the road that runs the truck. We have a network of Interstates and National (US) routes. A 2-lane national road was built and maintained across Wyoming to carry 2,000 vehicles a day and another across Ohio may carry 20,000. It's a question of access, not cost-benefit. Will the vehicles on the Ohio road ever drive across Wyoming in any significant number to justify sharing costs? Even if only one truck used the road it would still be there. The roads are cross-subsidized. Why should the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) be held to a discriminatory standard?
Only two trains do not achieve the magic 50% "farebox recovery" mark deemed a reasonable criteria for public transit: the Sunset (no surprise) and the Hoosier State. Assuming farebox recovery is based on direct operating costs, the respective direct costs to revenue are 331% and 340%. As for the Hoosier State, this needs more study. The Cardinal comes in at 194%, better than the 196% for the California Zephyr for the 4th and 3rd worst respectively.
A few ideas have been tossed around to improve the Sunset; so let's not act too hastily to discontinue the train. The present schedule does not work. See the companion thread.
Whatever the belt-tightening, I am not convinced that withdrawing sleepers, lounge, and food service is a blanket answer for corridor or long-distance trains.
I don't believe you understood my point. I was not including the track because it's usually leased access. I was refering to the cost of stations and employees or contractors who are being paid to serve the passengers of one train per day. That is very inefficient.
I guess I should have equated it to a road with a trucking company owned gas station that serves one truck a day, and a company owned restaurant that feeds only one vehicle's occupants a day, etc.
I would include the track in that equation only if Amtrak owned it. I intentionally did not include the direct costs associated with actually moving the train, but only the costs that are incurred whether the train runs or not and therefore are totally assigned to the one train when they should be divided among several trains a day.
I was sitting next to a couple at a dinner engagement who had just returned from a trip to Argentina. They related having a 34 hour trip, allowing for all the trip segments and layovers, getting from Wisconsin to their destination at the foothills of the Andes not far from Chile.
The interesting part of their trip, from the standpoint of long-distance trains, was a 10-hour bus ride required to get from Buenos Aires to their destination. You would think that a 10-hour bus ride, a 10-hour overnight bus ride in what we imagine about a Latin American country would be an adventure to say the least. In reality, it was the most luxurious part of their trip.
It was explained that they had a modern Mercedes double-decker motor coach. Furthermore, the seats were three across (2 seats, an aisle, and 1 seat), and they had the near horizontal recline that was just talked about regarding airline business class on some ocean-crossing carriers. Owing to the double decks, this bus was explained to accomodate about 40 passengers. There were also two (!) attendants on the bus, who offered you everything from drinks, blankets, and served a meal. And the fare on this 600-mile journey was 50 USD. Also, to cover 600 miles in 10 hours, this bus had to "really haul." Of course the trip was at night, avoiding daytime road congestion.
I am not saying, "Oh, the shame, that a country such as Argentina, a country that we regard as a much less wealthier and mighty one than ours, has a luxury express bus service and any attempts to have such a thing here get shot down by greedy special interests." Here in the U.S, that 600 mile hop may be served by a regional jet whereas in Argentina, the labor costs may be such relative to importing a regional jet from Canada or even their neighbor Brasil that the express bus makes more sense. Or, there may be some smart transportation planners in Argentina who thought of the luxury bus and this idea never occurred to anyone in the U.S.. There is a disparity of wealth and influence between countries, but smart ideas could occur in any country.
I guess what I am saying is that we in the advocacy community seem to be really stuck on the 1950s model of baggage car-diner-lounge car-sleeper for long-distance trains. I say the 1950s model, because passenger train travel was in rapid decline, and the streamliner-era level of amenities on the "name trains" was an attempt to bribe passengers from leaving for the other modes. Sure they had dining cars and private-room sleepers before the war, but what we are defending as the package of amenities that an L-D train has to offer is rooted in the streamliner-era.
Would the Argentinian express bus even get a hearing in passenger train advocacy circles, or would the response be "Oh, luxury buses have been tried and failed, and you need a train to get people to ride." Have they been tried? What are we advocating? Are we train advocates? Ground transportation alternative advocates for a mix of trains and express buses with proper comfort level? Advocates of the diner-lounge-sleeper mode and any deviation is unacceptable?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The incremental variable and fixed costs allocated to the passenger train should be only a small part of moderate to heavy rail operations. This should afford the one-train-a-day advantages that are less likely with multiple-train passenger services requiring more fixed-asset capacity improvements.
That is the one thing I have been wondering about the L-D account balances. The roadway model of the L-D train is one where the once-daily train is regarded (by some, but maybe not by a railroad operating department) as incidental to what is essentially a freight line. Yes, Amtrak pays for trackage rights, but my understanding is those payments are a minor slice of the budgets for those trains. The track costs are no longer such a minor slice where Amtrak owns the tracks, agreed. But for the L-D trains, I would argue that the trackage rights are a minor cost of the operation, just as the gas tax you pay to drive on an Interstate is a minor part of what it costs you go that way.
The tradeoff of the L-D byproduct-of-the-freight-operation model is that he who lives by the freight, dies (on hours) by the freight of being stuffed into sidings and so on. But if people are willing to deal with the uncertainty of L-D schedules, Amtrak is getting a pretty good deal on the use of the tracks for only a minor share of the total cost of those tracks. And it has been proposed that if you ride L-D trains, you need to put yourself in the mindset, say of a passenger on a tramp steamship, that you will get there when you get there and to enjoy the amenities of the train and so on.
As this is the case, there are two Amtraks. One Amtrak is a passenger railroad (i.e. the NEC), the other Amtrak is a steel-wheeled bus company, where someone else is providing and maintaining the roadway in exchange for some payment, be it gas tax or trackage rights payments.
The question is why the bus-company Amtrak has weak financials. Some complain that some kind of cross-subsidy is going on (cough, URPA, cough, that article in Trains a couple years back). I don't want to get into a protracted discussion with our local experts on finance and accounting, and I will readily admit that URPA and other making this argument don't offer much factual data, but that argument is out in the wild.
Don Oltmann makes the argument that Amtrak needs to run a tighter ship on train car maintenance. Whether Don is right or Amtrak is doing the best they can, it seems that a passenger railroad car is an expensive article to make mortgage payments on and make the ongoing repairs to keep the FRA inspectors happy. Maybe the problem is one of crew-cycles, in terms of the costs of staffing trains over the long distances that they take crew members away from home base and families and for long periods of time?
Whatever it is, let's say, the Federal government should just pay outright for the trackage-rights payments to operate the trains, let's throw in the major stations, Penn Station NY, Uniion Station in Chicago, to level the highway cross-subsidy playing field. So Amtrak gets its steel highway outright as do those people in Montana get a lightly-travelled highway.
The accounting suggests that the L-D trains are losers on an "above the rails" basis. Why is this not a level playing field that trains should cover their above-the-rails costs, just as Greyhound is expected to cover their above the road costs, plus even a gas-tax contribution towards the road? Are we asking for more than a level playing field? Why? And why are the trains so much more expensive than a bus on an above-the-contact-patch basis? Is it because of the greater levels of amenities (legroom, on-board meals, lounge car for stretching out)? If so, why are we subsidizing a luxury service on rails but not on rubber (see my preceding post)?
In answer to Paul who asked about luxury bus travel in this country. In the late 1950's early 1960's Continental Trailways operated Golden Eagle Service between Los Angeles and Seattle. These buses had reclining seats a stewardess, and meals were served onboard except for breakfast which the bus stopped for. There was an area in the rear of the bus with two tables and seating for eight at a time. The fare was higher than Greyhound but it provided about seven hour faster service. As I recall this was before I-5 was complete so the buses used 99 for the most part. Trains in those days did not even compete for Seattle - LA service as it required a minimum two changes of trains.
When Amtrak first began service in 1970 they operated a Chicago - Denver Denver Zephyr train as well as the San Francisco Zephyr as it was called then. The train to Denver always seemed to operate full whereas the San Francisco Zephyr relied on its Ogden - LA and Ogden - Portland/Seattle connections to fill up. Now the Chicago - Denver and the two connecting trains are gone and it seems like the only part of the California Zephyr trip that is always full is Chicago - Denver and Reno - Oakland.
Maybe its time to look at what has been discontinued by Amtrak and resurrect some of the original routes, or at least take a close look at some of the early Amtrak routes once again.
Al - in - Stockton
Phoebe Vet wrote: I don't believe you understood my point. I was not including the track because it's usually leased access. I was refering to the cost of stations and employees or contractors who are being paid to serve the passengers of one train per day. That is very inefficient.I guess I should have equated it to a road with a trucking company owned gas station that serves one truck a day, and a company owned restaurant that feeds only one vehicle's occupants a day, etc.I would include the track in that equation only if Amtrak owned it. I intentionally did not include the direct costs associated with actually moving the train, but only the costs that are incurred whether the train runs or not and therefore are totally assigned to the one train when they should be divided among several trains a day.
If a passenger train operator (Amtrak) contracts with a freight railroad to run its trains over the freight operator's tracks, it usually pays the freight carrier a rental, which is an operating expense. It flows through to net income or net loss.
If the passenger train operator buys new equipment or upgrades existing equipment, i.e. locomotives and cars, it is a capital expenditure, unless the upgrade of the existing equipment does not extend its useful life. This would be highly unusual. The cost is capitalized and depreciated over the life of the asset.
If the freight train operator upgrades its right of way, i.e. adds passing tracks, new signals, etc., and pays for the improvements, the cost would be capitalized on the books of the freight carrier and reflected in the rental charges to the passenger carrier. If the passenger train operator pays for and owns the upgrades, they would be capitalized on the passenger carrier's books and depreciated over the life of the asset. The same accounting would apply to new support facilities, i.e. stations, parking lots, etc., although another complexity can enter the picture. Frequently, as is the case in Wilmington, Delaware, the station is owned by a city, and the upgrades are made by the city. In this case the passenger carrier usually rents part or all of the facility. The rent is an operating cost and flows through to the bottom line.
If the passenger train operator increases the number of trains from one to three or five per day, the fixed costs per unit of revenue, assuming the increased in the number of trains generates a corresponding increase in revenues, decreases. This is one of the reasons an airline like Southwest is so successful whereas Amtrak, outside of the NEC, Illinois, and California corridors, is a financial disaster made even more so by running a train three days a week. Spreading the fixed costs over more revenue seat miles lowers the attributed fixed cost per mile.
I don't think I am finding an answer to my question about the "steel-wheeled bus."
There are two answers offered to why L-D trains are costly, or at least more costly than L-D bus. One is the question of road-rail "level playing field", that Amtrak has to pay the freight railroads for the tracks and the bus gets to use the road for free. Only not really, the bus pays substantial gas tax to use the road, but the argument is still made. The second is that there are a lot of train stations, high volume ones in Chcago and NY that there may be some question of equitable distribution of expenses between commuter and Amtrak operations. There are low volume ones along the L-D routes that require staffing, maintenance, etc. What does Greyhound do these days for its on-route stops? Do they stop at gas station mini-marts and have the gas station sell tickets?
What I am saying is at least for a thought experiment, lets level the playing field. Lets wave a wand and say that the taxpayer is to pay the trackage rights and even the station costs as a reasonable application of the "teaspoon-in-an-ocean" Amtrak subsidy.
If you do that, you have what I call the steel-wheeled bus. You have some locomotives, a bunch of Superliner or Amfleet and Viewliner cars, and these trains operate on a steel highway on an equal footing with buses on concrete. You would think there is some economy of scale for the train, one engine driver can account for 12 train cars -- it would required the equivalent of 24 bus drivers to cover the equivalent number of buses (a train car has the space of about 2 buses). This economy of scale holds whether you are running daily, 5-times daily, 3-weekly, or even a train charter operation.
I get the impression that the steel-wheeled bus does not compete on cost with the rubber-wheeled bus. What is the difference? Is it that railroad cars are expensive to own, expensive to maintain and buses are much cheaper? Is it that railroad trains require many more on-board attendants, but the bus company makes the driver perform all of the tasks: driving, baggage handling, fare collection, etc.? Is it that trains are expected (by the advocacy community, passengers) to provide on-board amenities whereas the buses do not?
There seems to be something intrinsically expensive about trains, even on an above the rails basis, and it seems those expenses don't improve with increased train frequency. If you ran an L-D train 5-times daily, you still have the same per-train costs of ownership, maintenance, insurance, fuel, crew wages, unless there would be some vast improvement in the "crew cycles" Don Oltmann talked about.
When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.
Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs. Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.
Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost.
...just look at Acela.
Samantha wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.Three to five trains a day could provide a decent service. The key question is whether the service area population is large enough to support them, i.e pay the fares to cover at least the operating costs, with the states picking up the capital costs. Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases.
I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)
Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.
How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
Although I often say this in commuter discussions, it is probably pertinent here to. It must be decided if Amtrak is designed to run trains or provide service. Too often when talking passenger rail we talk in terms, and I believe this is part of Amtrak's political problems, of running a train or even trains without regard to whether the train or trains provide a "service". Defining "service" as running a trian or trains is very short sighted because if the train or trains don't serve passenger needs as to time and direction, or even level of accomodations, then it isn't a service at all. Would a town or route be better served by more than one train a day? Or by daylight service instead of a 3AM stop? What is the reason for the endpoints of a train's route? Is there enough end to end and overlapping patronage to support that train? Would there be an economy to two trains on a one train route or the one train be divided into two trains serving different parts of a route? Lots of thought, research and planning (and not political input) has to be done here.
And again I have to point out that what I am getting from these discussions is the regional differences of perception, need, geography, demographic, et. al., about Amtrak and passenger service. And this leads me, again, into the thoughts of defined regions based on intradependency and need for interdependency under an Amtrak like umbrella. It is more difficult to find track space for Amtrak in the East than in the west; there might even be better opportunities to build, or rebuld, or designate, passenger routes in the west and southtwest where population density and other congestion hasn't depleted the available land. And while I dismiss politics in all this, I do realize the role politics does, and has to, play for the betterment and detriment of the whole thing.
henry6 wrote: Although I often say this in commuter discussions, it is probably pertinent here to. It must be decided if Amtrak is designed to run trains or provide service. Too often when talking passenger rail we talk in terms, and I believe this is part of Amtrak's political problems, of running a train or even trains without regard to whether the train or trains provide a "service". Defining "service" as running a trian or trains is very short sighted because if the train or trains don't serve passenger needs as to time and direction, or even level of accomodations, then it isn't a service at all. Would a town or route be better served by more than one train a day? Or by daylight service instead of a 3AM stop? What is the reason for the endpoints of a train's route? Is there enough end to end and overlapping patronage to support that train? Would there be an economy to two trains on a one train route or the one train be divided into two trains serving different parts of a route? Lots of thought, research and planning (and not political input) has to be done here. And again I have to point out that what I am getting from these discussions is the regional differences of perception, need, geography, demographic, et. al., about Amtrak and passenger service. And this leads me, again, into the thoughts of defined regions based on intradependency and need for interdependency under an Amtrak like umbrella. It is more difficult to find track space for Amtrak in the East than in the west; there might even be better opportunities to build, or rebuld, or designate, passenger routes in the west and southtwest where population density and other congestion hasn't depleted the available land. And while I dismiss politics in all this, I do realize the role politics does, and has to, play for the betterment and detriment of the whole thing.
I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.
I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems.
oltmannd wrote: When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs. Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost....just look at Acela.
There are two kinds of costs when you operate a train. Fixed costs, which you pay whether you ever move a train or not. Fixed costs are the same whether you run one train a day, or 1 train an hour. And direct costs which are incurred by actually running the train. Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc. Direct costs include fuel, track mileage fees. train crews, mileage based maint. etc.
Running an additional train per day increases the direct costs by each trip, but has only a one time increase in fixed cost, which is the purchase of the additional train.
The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train. The only limiting factor is how many passengers will actually use the service.
Obviously, an empty train reduces net income. That is why I suggested a small train for the local. perhaps even a DMU.
oltmannd wrote: I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems.
The "cost/ benefit analysis is but one factor which has to be used to define service not as a seperate item but as a major part of the defining item.
But in the East there is fewer quality rights of way and very congested (in need of more track) freight railroads. Utilizing the lesser rights of way would not necessarily provide passenger rail service in areas' most needed or usable. There is no land space in many parts of the East that can be used for highways, a situation which also limits new rail construction. In fact, the need for more transportation avenues in and out of the New York Metropolitan Area over the next 25 to 50 years is an overwhelming challange for planners at the moment. While they need to move imports out of the harbor area, they also must move exports into the harbor area and still maintain avenues for local freight needs and a way of moving people. Neither the land nor the air can support more highways and there may have to be some "sacrifices" made. And here is where the congestion and air pollution cost/benefit analysis will weigh heavy.
henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems. The "cost/ benefit analysis is but one factor which has to be used to define service not as a seperate item but as a major part of the defining item. But in the East there is fewer quality rights of way and very congested (in need of more track) freight railroads. Utilizing the lesser rights of way would not necessarily provide passenger rail service in areas' most needed or usable. There is no land space in many parts of the East that can be used for highways, a situation which also limits new rail construction. In fact, the need for more transportation avenues in and out of the New York Metropolitan Area over the next 25 to 50 years is an overwhelming challange for planners at the moment. While they need to move imports out of the harbor area, they also must move exports into the harbor area and still maintain avenues for local freight needs and a way of moving people. Neither the land nor the air can support more highways and there may have to be some "sacrifices" made. And here is where the congestion and air pollution cost/benefit analysis will weigh heavy.
New York is problem and Phila, DC and Boston are pretty well, congested, too. But, all you have to do in order to get Buffalo to Chicago done is plop one or two more tracks back on the existing ROW. Tie it into CSX, NS to allow meets. Add some sort of train control to allow 110 mph. and you're done. Adding in Columbus and Indy are almost as simple. Adding in Detroit and Cincinnati, a bit more expensive. Adding in quasi-high speed to Pittsburgh will be tough.
Phoebe Vet wrote:...Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc.... The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train.
...Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc....
The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train.
Most smaller intermediate stations are publically owned and maintained these days by either paid or volunteer janitorial service and snow removal. Some stations still may have an agent; but vey few have a baggage handler in addition to the agent(s).
Most fixed costs are in terminal and in-route train service facilities such as for a service track, water and sanitation.
Fixed costs apportioned to the number of trains, wheelage, or tonnage is generally true until you get into capacity and speed improvements. The improvement costs are still there even if they are absorbed as expenses or federal and state grants; and this may explain some variances between services.
oltmannd wrote:I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.
HarveyK400 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.
oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day. That Carbondale and GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.