henry6 Incentives??? You mean saying "you can't do this, you can't do that, don't do this, don't do that, and here is no money so you can't" is an incentive? John, and everyone else, Amtrak is not a business based on business models, it is a Lionel trainset based on politics, and is operated or not operated at the behest of Congress and not by businessmen nor public demands. Management...all of them, good or bad...have to spend most of their time attending to the whims of Congress rather than the operation of a railroad or business. Change Amtrak legislation, make it more like the Post Office or make it like seminal Conrail, but don't make it a toy for politicians to ruin. And, yes, there have been many "savings" carved out of the carcass over the years...rather than taking political swipes at Amtrak at this time, read the history of Amtrak, how it came about, why, by whom, the succession of presidents and boards, where it is today verses where it was 41 years ago.
Incentives??? You mean saying "you can't do this, you can't do that, don't do this, don't do that, and here is no money so you can't" is an incentive? John, and everyone else, Amtrak is not a business based on business models, it is a Lionel trainset based on politics, and is operated or not operated at the behest of Congress and not by businessmen nor public demands. Management...all of them, good or bad...have to spend most of their time attending to the whims of Congress rather than the operation of a railroad or business. Change Amtrak legislation, make it more like the Post Office or make it like seminal Conrail, but don't make it a toy for politicians to ruin.
And, yes, there have been many "savings" carved out of the carcass over the years...rather than taking political swipes at Amtrak at this time, read the history of Amtrak, how it came about, why, by whom, the succession of presidents and boards, where it is today verses where it was 41 years ago.
Amtrak is a business attracting revenues and minimizing expenses in a complex competitive and political environment. I cannot dismiss the role politics plays; but Amtrak has economic bounds that affords a "business" target for those politicians and critics wanting its reduction or elimination. Amtrak's longevity is owed to a favorable balance of costs and services.
I too have wondered about decisions made that seem to rely too much on what was done in the past and not on current or anticipating future needs and priorities. Fleet renewal and expansion investment first in costly long-distance services rather than more economical medium-distance corridor services seems questionable and deserves a rational explaination.
John,
By 1970 the railroads had been in the passenger business for over 130 years and by that time had most things worked out. As did the freight railroads ATK was able to lengthen some operating crew districts.
Think about it seriously. What options for change are there. If you are going to have a dining car then you need cooks, a steward, and waiters to do it. Since you have relatively few seats it would be wise to overstaff with waiters to speed up seat turnover. Dining car staff and sleeper attendents work the entire rote, Chicago to Seattle and return. Do you think there is anything to be gained by changing them out periodically as has to be done with operating crews?
How about equipment maintenance? You may be able to improve here and there around the edges but a passenger car requires a lot of maintenance and always will. Remember the last technological breakthrough was stainless steel in the 1930's.
I am no fan of ATK, but they are working within a small box of possibilities.
Mac
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.
oltmanndAmtrak has had little incentive to investigate ways to change 50 year old traditions.
Really?! Congress and various Presidential administrations slashing Amtrak's budget and sometimes calling for its demise hasn't given it incentive to change and find new ways of doing things?! Amtrak hasn't made any significant changes from private railroad days, found any cost savings?
oltmannd ...Hospitality is not one of Amtrak's core competencies that is unique to Amtrak. Why not hospitality industry experts in to do what is really hospitality work?
...Hospitality is not one of Amtrak's core competencies that is unique to Amtrak. Why not hospitality industry experts in to do what is really hospitality work?
Why doesn't hospitality experience be a senior staff requirement within the organization? Or sending senior staff to training and to confer with hospitality leaders? This must be encouraged by the CEO.
oltmannd ecoli: oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified. It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator. Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train. The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-) Wouldn't happen that way because of the fundamental difference between why people fly and a why people ride sleepers on trains. One is about getting from A to B. Period. The other is about the trip. It's why cruise ships aren't like airlines.
ecoli: oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified. It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator. Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train. The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-)
oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified.
It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator.
Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train.
The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-)
Wouldn't happen that way because of the fundamental difference between why people fly and a why people ride sleepers on trains. One is about getting from A to B. Period. The other is about the trip. It's why cruise ships aren't like airlines.
Ok, how about a more serious example: concessions in the US National Parks which are run by private firms who bid for them. They are infamous for charging more and delivering less than businesses located a few miles outside the park boundaries. Whenever you buy a sandwich or a bag of chips or a night of camping from Xanterra, Delaware North, or Aramark, you can be sure you'll feel you've been robbed. When I stopped by the Crane Flat store in Yosemite this summer, the fruit bin hadn't been restocked, the coffee stations had an "out of order" sign, and a sandwich cost $9.
When--as in the case of cruise ships--the marketplace delivers good service at good value, the magic isn't in the fact that it's non-governmental. The magic is in the fact that customers can easily take their business elsewhere if they're not happy. The fewer choices the customer has, the less magic.
I would guess that most Amtrak passengers have at least once wanted to cry out in frustration, "the heck with you, I'm taking my business elsewhere next time." But of course passengers who want to travel by train have no choice other than Amtrak. If privatization means the passenger has no choice other than a monopoly concessioner, whether that's Xanterra, Princess, or Hilton, the outcome is unlikely to be happy. If you can figure out a way to give the passenger a choice of at least two private providers on each route, your chance of success is greater.
My message is that while privatization can work, it's tricky to arrange the ground rules so that it does--quite the opposite of the "it has to be better" generalizations in this forum.
Vet,
In ATK context Hours of Service law applied only to operating crew; engineer, fireman, conductor, and brakemen.
I'm not really taking a side in this discussion, but I bet that Holiday inn doesn't pay anywhere near the the salary and benefits to their housekeeping staff that Amtrak pays to their car attendant.
I would ask someone in the railroad industry to advise us whether crew hours of work limits would apply to a person who is actually a housekeeper with no duties in the safe operation of the train.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
HarveyK400 Phoebe Vet: Deregulation also resulted in the collapse of several major players in the airline industry with the resulting loss of a lot of high paying jobs. This is a cautionary tale for railroads generally and Amtrak labor. Good-paying jobs are being squeezed by competition within industries like airlines and trucking; and ultimately this extends into other modes and their ability to compete. Airlines and trucking receive a degree of public support for air traffic control and roads and railroads have gotten to a point where they can reinvest in infrastructure upkeep and improvement from revenue; but ultimately there is a competitive price and service point between modes. Railroad wages will be squeezed along with those in other modes. Sleeping car services face the same combinations of competition. A train is a special environment where labor is brought along to keep the train moving and avoid long schedule-killing stops. The advent of auto travel brought an end to meal (and overnight motel) stops where a train, if not faster, could save time and be more time competitive. Air travel changed that, reducing long-distance rail travel to its little niche. I do not see privatization of dining and sleeping car services as a panacea for long-distance services. Part of the problem is offering wages that will attract a stable workforce that will not flee to a better job with the result of higher training costs with more frequent turnover, Amtrak or private. Another may be evaluating current duties and productivity - what does a car attendant do, for instance, beside turn down or put up beds - and this is time-sensitive within relatively narrow hours, make coffee in the morning, and assist passengers as needed? Would a buffet, typical of the cruise ship, be less labor-intensive than table service; but would more food be wasted in the process?
Phoebe Vet: Deregulation also resulted in the collapse of several major players in the airline industry with the resulting loss of a lot of high paying jobs.
Deregulation also resulted in the collapse of several major players in the airline industry with the resulting loss of a lot of high paying jobs.
This is a cautionary tale for railroads generally and Amtrak labor. Good-paying jobs are being squeezed by competition within industries like airlines and trucking; and ultimately this extends into other modes and their ability to compete. Airlines and trucking receive a degree of public support for air traffic control and roads and railroads have gotten to a point where they can reinvest in infrastructure upkeep and improvement from revenue; but ultimately there is a competitive price and service point between modes. Railroad wages will be squeezed along with those in other modes. Sleeping car services face the same combinations of competition.
A train is a special environment where labor is brought along to keep the train moving and avoid long schedule-killing stops. The advent of auto travel brought an end to meal (and overnight motel) stops where a train, if not faster, could save time and be more time competitive. Air travel changed that, reducing long-distance rail travel to its little niche.
I do not see privatization of dining and sleeping car services as a panacea for long-distance services. Part of the problem is offering wages that will attract a stable workforce that will not flee to a better job with the result of higher training costs with more frequent turnover, Amtrak or private. Another may be evaluating current duties and productivity - what does a car attendant do, for instance, beside turn down or put up beds - and this is time-sensitive within relatively narrow hours, make coffee in the morning, and assist passengers as needed? Would a buffet, typical of the cruise ship, be less labor-intensive than table service; but would more food be wasted in the process?
It would be no panacea, but it might take some of the heat out of the arguments used against Amtrak in general.
Evaluating the role and duties of the employees should be a natural part of any competitive business. Amtrak has had little incentive to investigate ways to change 50 year old traditions. Hospitality is not one of Amtrak's core competencies that is unique to Amtrak. Why not hospitality industry experts in to do what is really hospitality work?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet Deregulation also resulted in the collapse of several major players in the airline industry with the resulting loss of a lot of high paying jobs.
What can be said is that Amtrak and the United States Postal Service have a common problem, a common enemy, a common aid: Congress. Until the fickleness, contridictions, conditional fiats, ignorance, and egos of politics are removed there will be very little understanding, progress, resolve, or service from either. But if that is all cleared up, what will we have to argue, discuss, blame, and complain about?
jclass Anyone able to find out what typical 1970's era airfares (before deregulation) would be today (adjusted for inflation)? Would be interesting to compare with today's airfares+fees.
Anyone able to find out what typical 1970's era airfares (before deregulation) would be today (adjusted for inflation)? Would be interesting to compare with today's airfares+fees.
Looks like fares have gone down about 60% and passenger count up about 350%. Found on Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it does have a reference) Note that it's total revenue - which would be fares + fees.
In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Ted Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
What does the industry's history tell us? Was this effort worthwhile? Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry. Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up. So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"[2]
ecoli oltmannd: ...No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified. It goes out for bid. I'd guess that cruise ship lines and hoteliers might be interested since they already a have the corp competencies for this kind of business and it would be incremental business that would fit into their existing product line. No need to run a commissary, laundry, occupy dorm space in sleepers, etc. So, they calculate to make a good return, they'd need a subsidy of $2M per year from Amtrak. They win. Amtrak pays them the $2M in monthly installments and now we have a service-sensitive operator. Alternatively, maybe one of the airlines would be interested. With no specification of staffing levels, fares, or menu, they could underbid the cruise ship lines and hoteliers. Then they could make their profit by charging an extra fee if the passenger wants bedding and a blanket; or wants to bring luggage onto the train; or wants to take a shower. They could offer boxed-lunch meals at fine-dining prices once you're captive on the airplane--oops, I mean the train. The belief that privatization improves service is so pervasive, but the evidence for that belief is so inconclusive. :-)
PNWRMNM How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free? Mac
How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free?
The killer for these trains is very high operating costs, primarily high labor. Possibly a private operator could reduce labor costs that ATK can not, for a variety of reasons.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
SP4460
You seem to be trying to make 2+2=6. Your begining assumption seems to be that these services loose money, which I also beleive is true.
How does changing management either reduce costs or increase revenues? The big cost is the capital cost of the equipment, the cost of maintaining all those moving parts, and the costs of cleaning the cars. Do you really think a mythical new operator will be able to buy cars cheaper than ATK? That it can maintain them cheaper than ATK? That ATK will haul them around free? That a new operator will have a lower cost of capital than a US Government grant?
For the new operator to do any better on the revenue side they will have to increase the price. Do you think ATK is today not charging all the market will bear?
These services loose money because they cost more to provide than people are willing to pay for them. Changing the operator will not change that fact. ATK taking over from the railroads did not change it. Having Hilton Hotels manage the service will not change it.
"One thing missing is that privatization of sleeping & dining would take these costs off the books for Amtrak while generating revenue in car-mile and other charges, leaving money for elsewhere. However, the same question needs to be answered whether a market would exist at substantially higher fares."
I dont see why fares would have to go up by that much. Remodeling car interiors would not cost much, and its a one time per 10 or so years. It would pay for it self over time. Plus its not like it be hard to make it nice, and to keep it reasonable.
Plus by freeing up all of there cost on sleepers and diners, they could concentrate more on there coach service adding cars and just improving them.
One thing missing is that privatization of sleeping & dining would take these costs off the books for Amtrak while generating revenue in car-mile and other charges, leaving money for elsewhere. However, the same question needs to be answered whether a market would exist at substantially higher fares.
As for long-distance coach, a high percentage of travel seems to be between intermediate points even with higher fares rates for shorter distances.
And I believe pre and post WWII Pulman would supply cars for trainsets in railroad's colors. Sometimes railroad name on the board, sometimes Pullman, etc.
In the post-WW2 period, it was not unusual for lightweight sleepers to have the railroad name centered on the letterboard with the name "Pullman" in smaller lettering next to the door.
SP assigned only numbers to its postwar lightweight sleeping cars and they were listed in Pullman Company manuals as such. Most other lightweight Pullman sleeping cars and parlor cars had names and numbers, with numbers not always applied to the car itself.
Without looking at a Passenger Car Register, I would say that the 2100 and 2200 series cars were 14 roomettes & 4 double bedrooms, and 11 double bedrooms. The Crescent sleeper-lounges and the observation cars may also have been in one series or the other.
I recall seeing the Southern sleepers with "Southern" on the letterboard, and "Pullman" over the doors.
Johnny
Deggesty In 1947, the Pullman Company, which was the division of Pullman that operated first class service was separated from the parent company, and was sold to a consortium of fifty-seven railroads. It continued to operate under the name "the Pullman Company," with headquarters at 165 North Canal Street in Chicago. From time to time, one railroad or another began operating the sleeping car service on its own lines, and on 1 January 1969 all roads which still had first class service began to operate the cars themselves. I have stubs of Pullman tickets dating into November of 1968, and stubs of railroad first class accomodations dating from April of 1969 (no first class travel for me in between). For a short time, Pullman continued to provide supplies to the railroads; I do not remember just how long this practice lasted.
In 1947, the Pullman Company, which was the division of Pullman that operated first class service was separated from the parent company, and was sold to a consortium of fifty-seven railroads. It continued to operate under the name "the Pullman Company," with headquarters at 165 North Canal Street in Chicago.
From time to time, one railroad or another began operating the sleeping car service on its own lines, and on 1 January 1969 all roads which still had first class service began to operate the cars themselves. I have stubs of Pullman tickets dating into November of 1968, and stubs of railroad first class accomodations dating from April of 1969 (no first class travel for me in between). For a short time, Pullman continued to provide supplies to the railroads; I do not remember just how long this practice lasted.
Deggesty: You have it right:
The pictures I have seen post WW-2 show cars labeled Pullman with only a car name; As one RR ( SOU ) took over it painted over the Pullman and added a car number on the right ends of the car looking at the car. Sometimes if Pullman not painted over the ends would have SOU and a car number under SOU. Still kept the car name pullman had assigned.
SOU #s 2000 - 2020 10 rmts-6 bedrooms pullman standard light weights.
2100 & 2200 series unknown.
2400 series -- Heavyweight section sleepers
Some RRs just painted over Pullman with Norfolk and Western and did not have a car number just the car name.
Quoting Sam1: "Thanks for the insight. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the company that was jointly owned by the 40 odd railroads folded in the early to mid 60s and those railroads that still hoisted sleeping cars took over their operation. Is this not correct? Also, what was the name of the company that was owned by the railroads and operating the sleeping cars post 1940?"
By the mid 60s the 40 or so railroads were trying to get out of the passenger business or were being forced out by loss of mail contracts, the Eisenhower Highway System, and municipal owned airports. IT was a loss of business more than a lack of service. There was no name to the company but a mutual consortium operation with the cars owned by the individual railroads and assigned to routes by them rather than by Pullman. Pre 1960 was a different world than we know today and few understand it all. Even us old farts who lived it.
Dakguy201 Sam1: {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip} That is not quite how it happened. In 1940 the Feds brought an antitrust suit against Pullman in federal court in Philadephia. As a result of that action, the court ordered Pullman to get out of either the car construction business or the car ownership and operation business. The upshot was that ownership and operation was sold to a new company jointly owned by 40-odd railroads.
Sam1: {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip}
{snip}
As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially.
That is not quite how it happened. In 1940 the Feds brought an antitrust suit against Pullman in federal court in Philadephia. As a result of that action, the court ordered Pullman to get out of either the car construction business or the car ownership and operation business. The upshot was that ownership and operation was sold to a new company jointly owned by 40-odd railroads.
Thanks for the insight. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, the company that was jointly owned by the 40 odd railroads folded in the early to mid 60s and those railroads that still hoisted sleeping cars took over their operation. Is this not correct? Also, what was the name of the company that was owned by the railroads and operating the sleeping cars post 1940?
Sam1 {snip} As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. {snip}
Sam1 Even if Amtrak were authorized to privatize some or all of its long distance train services, e.g. sleepers, on-board food service, etc., there are likely to be few takers. The probability of earning a decent return on the investment is very low. As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. So why should we believe that the economics of long distance trains or any segment of them has changed since the inception of Amtrak, which was a political response to a failed business model? The Great Southern Railway, which is a private consortium, operates three of Australia's long distance trains, i.e. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and The Overland. I have ridden all three of them. They are first class. GSR gets a substantial subsidy from the Australian government to help cover the costs of the services and provide a reasonable return for the operators. They may also own the equipment; I am not sure. The last time that I checked the Indian Pacific runs two days a week between Sydney and Perth during the high season and only one day a week during the off season. The same is true for The Gahn, which runs from Adelaide to Darwin. The Overland runs three days a week between Adelaide and Melbourne. The Overland is a coach only train featuring business class and coach class. When I rode the train two years ago it had a dinning car. The Inspector General's 2005 Analysis of Long Distance Services showed that sleeping car passengers required a substantially higher subsidy than that required for coach passengers. Whether this is still the case is unknown. Amtrak appears to have increased the sleeping car accommodations charges substantially, but its costs undoubtedly have increased as well. I suspect that the subsidy required to transport a sleeping car passenger is still higher than the subsidy required to haul a coach passenger. Not to worry, the patricians can say that they deserve the higher subsidy because they pay more in taxes than the plebes roughing it in the coaches. The best answer for the long distance train problem is to discontinue them. Unfortunately, given the political inertia associated with them, they will probably be around for the foreseeable future. They are like entitlements. Talk about getting rid of them produces a flurry of emotionalism that has little to do with rational decision making. And Amtrak will probably continue to run them because only a government entity has the money, our taxpayer dollars, to keep them going.
Even if Amtrak were authorized to privatize some or all of its long distance train services, e.g. sleepers, on-board food service, etc., there are likely to be few takers. The probability of earning a decent return on the investment is very low.
As I remember it Pullman bailed out of the sleeping car business because it was losing its shirt. And the railroads got out of the passenger business because it was killing them financially. So why should we believe that the economics of long distance trains or any segment of them has changed since the inception of Amtrak, which was a political response to a failed business model?
The Great Southern Railway, which is a private consortium, operates three of Australia's long distance trains, i.e. The Indian Pacific, The Gahn, and The Overland. I have ridden all three of them. They are first class. GSR gets a substantial subsidy from the Australian government to help cover the costs of the services and provide a reasonable return for the operators. They may also own the equipment; I am not sure.
The last time that I checked the Indian Pacific runs two days a week between Sydney and Perth during the high season and only one day a week during the off season. The same is true for The Gahn, which runs from Adelaide to Darwin. The Overland runs three days a week between Adelaide and Melbourne. The Overland is a coach only train featuring business class and coach class. When I rode the train two years ago it had a dinning car.
The Inspector General's 2005 Analysis of Long Distance Services showed that sleeping car passengers required a substantially higher subsidy than that required for coach passengers. Whether this is still the case is unknown. Amtrak appears to have increased the sleeping car accommodations charges substantially, but its costs undoubtedly have increased as well. I suspect that the subsidy required to transport a sleeping car passenger is still higher than the subsidy required to haul a coach passenger. Not to worry, the patricians can say that they deserve the higher subsidy because they pay more in taxes than the plebes roughing it in the coaches.
The best answer for the long distance train problem is to discontinue them. Unfortunately, given the political inertia associated with them, they will probably be around for the foreseeable future. They are like entitlements. Talk about getting rid of them produces a flurry of emotionalism that has little to do with rational decision making. And Amtrak will probably continue to run them because only a government entity has the money, our taxpayer dollars, to keep them going.
Lets say, on a given route, Amtrak loses $5M per year on the sleepers and diner and they decide to bid out the service.
Service level: Must operate a 2 sleepers and one diner every day. Cost - $2/car mile. Can operated up to 2 additional sleepers at $5/car mile. Must give 5 days notice on consist size over minimum.
Operation: Contractor sets and collects fares. Integration with Amtrak res. system free of charge. Operator responsible for all housekeeping.
No staffing levels specified. No min or max fares specified. No menu for diner specified.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.