But Paul, trains cost so much because there are so few of them. If we had fewer roads or fewer airports, those forms of transportation would cost more too. Passenger rail cost so much because it is a government service of minimal support. If it received the same amount of money per mile of track or number of cars and locomotives or on some other scale other than per passenger mile, then the comparison would be different that what is given us. If we had as many passenger track miles as we do super highways or airways, then we migh get a better idea of what rail can do against them You can't ride a train to so many places where you can drive or even fly, so how can you say it is more expensive? It might only be more expensive because you have to either drive, take a bus, or fly to take a full journey. After that, it is marketing, marketing, marketing....and providins service instead of running trains.
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.
schlimm It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack.
Don't know where this came from. I'd like to be shown where, on this thread or elsewhere, I have cried "politics" or "personal attack."
Conversely, I suppose if I accused Schlimm of making it up as he goes along, that would be a personal attack.
Not what I said. Try re-reading.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper I disagree completely with the above post. because rail transportation is far more effficient for freight than any kind of highway or air transportation, and the only reason the airlines and truckers could compete was because of the massive intervention of government, both in ivestment and regulaation. If integrated transportaton companies had emerged, and the government would not have interfered, we would proabably have integrated power and rail companeis, with elelctrification widespread, with abandonmennt of little used branch lines beause of the wide availableiltiy of intermodal transfer points. We might have had double-sttack trains (with catenary high enough to handle them) on some routes before WWII, s a logical development of what the PRR wanted to do in 1931. Instead Firestone-GM-Texaco owning most of the USA's transit systems thorugh Naitonal City Lines, the power companies would have continiued owning most of the larger ones that were not municipally owned, and in many places where there are now new light rail lines, these would have grown logically from the existing streetcar systems, where heavy trunk routes would have been upgraded, and minor ones converted to buses. Regarding mergers, of course the Hill lines would have emerged long ago, the PRR, N&W, and Southern, and possibly the ACL, with the Seabord, NYC, B&O, and C&O forming the maor competitor in its territory. Probably WP-D&RGW-MP-TP and possibly RI. Of course, all these railroads would probably own trucking companies with most freight, as today, either intermodal or unit trains. The two competing technologies would have been container on flatcar, pioneered by PRR at a major, and trailer on flatcar. But long distance truckiing and air-freight would have been specialty situations for freigiht not adaptable for intermodal or unit train operation. Loose car railroading would be a minor part of the freight business, about parallel with long-distance trucking and air-freight. We would have been better prepared for WWII. and less dependent on mideast oil after!
I disagree completely with the above post. because rail transportation is far more effficient for freight than any kind of highway or air transportation, and the only reason the airlines and truckers could compete was because of the massive intervention of government, both in ivestment and regulaation. If integrated transportaton companies had emerged, and the government would not have interfered, we would proabably have integrated power and rail companeis, with elelctrification widespread, with abandonmennt of little used branch lines beause of the wide availableiltiy of intermodal transfer points. We might have had double-sttack trains (with catenary high enough to handle them) on some routes before WWII, s a logical development of what the PRR wanted to do in 1931. Instead Firestone-GM-Texaco owning most of the USA's transit systems thorugh Naitonal City Lines, the power companies would have continiued owning most of the larger ones that were not municipally owned, and in many places where there are now new light rail lines, these would have grown logically from the existing streetcar systems, where heavy trunk routes would have been upgraded, and minor ones converted to buses. Regarding mergers, of course the Hill lines would have emerged long ago, the PRR, N&W, and Southern, and possibly the ACL, with the Seabord, NYC, B&O, and C&O forming the maor competitor in its territory. Probably WP-D&RGW-MP-TP and possibly RI. Of course, all these railroads would probably own trucking companies with most freight, as today, either intermodal or unit trains. The two competing technologies would have been container on flatcar, pioneered by PRR at a major, and trailer on flatcar. But long distance truckiing and air-freight would have been specialty situations for freigiht not adaptable for intermodal or unit train operation. Loose car railroading would be a minor part of the freight business, about parallel with long-distance trucking and air-freight. We would have been better prepared for WWII. and less dependent on mideast oil after!
Your are preaching to the choir when you say that rail is the most efficient mode, at least in a physical context . Nevertheless, many shippers consider time as part of efficiency, and rail corporations may consider the efficiency of capital to trump the rest. Depending on circumstances, rail may not always come out the winner.
I presume that when you talk of gov't interference with integrated power and rail companies, you are referring to the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This prevented regulated monopoly electric companies from mixing costs and profits with their transit companies. While the divestiture opened the door for Firestone-GM-et al. to buy up unwanted trolley lines, your theory fails to gain traction because the largest example of a traction line, the PE, was owned by the SP rather than a utility, and still suffered the same fate.
As a citizen, I feel it is the governments job to intervene where appropriate, in situations where its citizens have pointed out an obvious injustice. To lay out all these problems of the railroads as caused by our overarching socio-political institution, ie. the government, sounds like trying to find blame a place to stick to.
schlimm Not what I said. Try re-reading.
Done, same result. Try rewriting.
dakotafred schlimm: Not what I said. Try re-reading. Done, same result. Try rewriting.
schlimm: Not what I said. Try re-reading.
Perhaps this is clearer?
It is "interesting" how conservative-leaning folks, such as sam1, greyhounds, the dakotas, to name just a few, express their ideas freely. Yet if they (plural, members of that group, not necessarily YOU specifically) are challenged, that challenge is labeled as "political" or a personal attack (again, not necessarily by you).
Let me address myself to a particular recent comment: I am absolutely to be counted among those who don't give a darn about the cost of Amtrak service, especially the long-distance trains, and just want that money coming in. Guilty as charged.
I'll say this again: No long-distance trains will equal no Amtrak. Period. No Congressman is going to vote any subsidies for a service his state has just lost.
The total amount of money Amtrak gets from the Feds is pathetically inadequate and a mere tiny fraction of the Federal budget. There's always money for everything else. I heard on the news yesterday that the amount of money to fly supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, because the road connection has been blocked at the Pakistan border for a year, is an extra 1 billion dollars per day! Or, to my way of thinking, that's about one year's Amtrak subsidy every two days (forgive me if my figure is wrong; you take my point, I hope).
Don't tell me that it all adds up, don't repeat the Dirksen quote; I'm familiar with all of that. I'm a railfan: I want more trains and especially more passenger trains. If there's that kind of money every day for a war no one wants, and for banks that are too big to fail, I bet we can afford a national passenger rail program in this country.
What sort of "railfan" wants to see Amtrak destroyed?
henry6 But Paul, trains cost so much because there are so few of them. If we had fewer roads or fewer airports, those forms of transportation would cost more too. Passenger rail cost so much because it is a government service of minimal support. If it received the same amount of money per mile of track or number of cars and locomotives or on some other scale other than per passenger mile, then the comparison would be different that what is given us. If we had as many passenger track miles as we do super highways or airways, then we migh get a better idea of what rail can do against them You can't ride a train to so many places where you can drive or even fly, so how can you say it is more expensive? It might only be more expensive because you have to either drive, take a bus, or fly to take a full journey. After that, it is marketing, marketing, marketing....and providins service instead of running trains.
There is no evidence that Amtrak has ANY economies of scale.
I looked to see if economies of scale showed up when Amtrak and Illinois doubled the frequency on a couple of routes several years back. There was none.
Also, Amtrak has had a nice boost in ridership over the past couple of years. Look to see how much of that made it to the bottom line. Not very much - and it should have almost ALL made it there.
Amtrak added over 200 management jobs in the past several years while adding zero trains to the network. The "big cuts" this past year were about 200 jobs. Hmmm.
Perhaps there SHOULD be economies of scale. Amtrak does not seem interested in finding them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
NKP guy Let me address myself to a particular recent comment: I am absolutely to be counted among those who don't give a darn about the cost of Amtrak service, especially the long-distance trains, and just want that money coming in. Guilty as charged. I'll say this again: No long-distance trains will equal no Amtrak. Period. No Congressman is going to vote any subsidies for a service his state has just lost. The total amount of money Amtrak gets from the Feds is pathetically inadequate and a mere tiny fraction of the Federal budget. There's always money for everything else. I heard on the news yesterday that the amount of money to fly supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, because the road connection has been blocked at the Pakistan border for a year, is an extra 1 billion dollars per day! Or, to my way of thinking, that's about one year's Amtrak subsidy every two days (forgive me if my figure is wrong; you take my point, I hope). Don't tell me that it all adds up, don't repeat the Dirksen quote; I'm familiar with all of that. I'm a railfan: I want more trains and especially more passenger trains. If there's that kind of money every day for a war no one wants, and for banks that are too big to fail, I bet we can afford a national passenger rail program in this country. What sort of "railfan" wants to see Amtrak destroyed?
I don't. That's why I want them to do better. They do so little with the money they get they are almost impossible to defend. Yes, it's not much of the Federal budget, but we should give them more so they can do what? But more baggage cars? Hire more managers? Lobby congress more? Buy Popsicles and let them melt in the road?
Don't we want more and better service? Let's start holding them accountable for that! THEN see about them getting more money.
Right on target, Don.
Ever since its "conception", AMTRAK has provided some sort of passenger rail service, with a focus on running trains and hardly any focus on the word "service". It will continue to do so, unless a few substantial things are changed.
Change of mandate: AMTRAK´s congressional mandate should reflect a service orientation, based on current, but also future needs of the US society.
Change of funding: Not based on what´s left in the budget, but what is needed.
Change of management: Railroads are strange animals. You need to have an excellent understanding of railroading to be able to run that business properly. In Germany, German Railways was run for some years by a guy who thought he could run it just like an airline. It´s costing billions of Euros to correct the mistakes he made.
Change in attitude: Trains are not "old-fashioned" choo-choos, but a viable option of modern transport.
Need people to introduce change - I may volunteer
But that would all be too logical. Something similar to that should, but probably won't happen here.
Here is a better plan:
1. Discontinue long distance trains.
2. Open the routes where passenger trains could be commercially viable to competitive bidding and award contracts to the lowest effective cost bidder.
3. Establish performance standards with appropriate incentive payments. Contracts run for five years; renewable for another five years if performance standards are met.
4. Require contractors to have effective organization, management, technology and employee (labor) practices. Keep most Amtrak employees, but make it clear that the game in Dodge has changed.
5. Implement effective customer service training for contract employees. Implement performance based compensation system for all employees.
6. Sell Amtrak's infrastructure to an independent operator that will allow any operator who meets the standards to run trains on it. Infrastructure rents set to capture cost of infrastructure operations and maintenance.
6. Provide federal subsidies for a reasonable transition period, i.e. five years.
7. Phase out small federal subsidies for other modes of transport and encourage the states to do the same.
Each of these steps would need to be fleshed out in a white paper. Moreover, I have just jotted them down off the top of my head. I am sure there are some more features that should be built into the model.
The key to improved performance is competition. Without it there is little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better. Amtrak has tried most of the things that have been suggested in our forums. None of them have worked very well.
Australia, where I lived for five years, went from being one of the most heavily regulated and statist economies in the OECD to one of the most competitive economies in less than 15 years. What has been the result? Today it is one of the shinning stars in the OECD. It is outperforming the United States and most European countries on the key economic indicators, i.e. unemployment, exports, currency valuation, GDP and GNP growth, etc.
What is the probability that we will allow market forces to drive passenger train service in the United States? None! But's its fun to thing about what could have been the outcome if Volpe's plan (Amtrak) to saving the dying intercity passenger trains had been shot down. Which it should have been!
I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction. We either want to drive cars or ride trains is the attitude I get here and from the general population. If that is the case, the close Amtrak and give the money to the big oil companies, auto makers, concrete purveyors, and others who you think would benefit from Amtrak, and passenger service, demise. Why argue anymore? At least the invading Russian Army won't have a means of moving troops and Beech Grove Shops can be used either as a concentration camp or to build tanks with sickle and hammer emblems! Go ahead and fall in behind those who follow that logic since Dole was DOT Sec. and Ron and Nancy Reagan ran the White House. Sam 1's plan is just another in a series of delaying plans rather one of positive action. If whatever traffic, environmental, efficiency, and economic data has been assembled so far isn't enough to act on, then a ten point plan is only to created buracracies and delay decsions. Lets just build up or bail out. Now.
henry6 I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction.
I disagree on the notion that Amtrak's economy scale isn't proven or provable. Commuter trains, buses, and airlines should prove the concept; even the wistful "build it and they will come" points in that direction.
The problem isn't that passenger rail has no economies of scale, it's AMTRAK that has the problem. Amtrak has to be fixed or improved before there will be much forward progress.
Sir Madog Ever since its "conception", AMTRAK has provided some sort of passenger rail service, with a focus on running trains and hardly any focus on the word "service". It will continue to do so, unless a few substantial things are changed. Change of mandate: AMTRAK´s congressional mandate should reflect a service orientation, based on current, but also future needs of the US society. Change of funding: Not based on what´s left in the budget, but what is needed. Change of management: Railroads are strange animals. You need to have an excellent understanding of railroading to be able to run that business properly. In Germany, German Railways was run for some years by a guy who thought he could run it just like an airline. It´s costing billions of Euros to correct the mistakes he made. Change in attitude: Trains are not "old-fashioned" choo-choos, but a viable option of modern transport. Need people to introduce change - I may volunteer
Yes. Expect it, measure it and then reward results.
One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not. Because of this political factor, discontinuance of the Western long-haul trains is about as likely as discontinuance of the Essential Air Service program. If the long-haul trains are dropped (and I agree with the idea that they should be dropped), it's going to be a lot harder to gain support for the various short-haul and corridor services that at least fill a reasonable need.
Why Australia? Because it has private contractors? Why not adapt something more like the German model?
CSSHEGEWISCH One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains.
One of the infamous "modest proposals" was the Inspector General Kenneth Meade report, that got the advocacy community so upset about everything that one couldn't even discuss the proposal. The idea was not to discontinue the long-distance trains. The idea was that over 50 percent of the train was serving maybe 20 percent of the passengers -- the first-class sleeping car passengers.
The automatic assumption is that sleeping car service charges such high fares in relation to coach that it has to be contributing to the bottom line, and the idea that we are subsidizing patrons of a premium service at the level of hundreds of dollars per trip couldn't be right.
So the idea was to remove one of the locomotives, the baggage, crew dorm, the diner, the lounge car, and the sleepers from the long-distance trains -- a long-distance trains would then have a consist of a locomotive and about 4-6 coaches, just like a corridor train. There were numbers presented in the report that it could cut the long-distance train subsidy in half while serving at least 80 percent of the passengers -- most trips on these trains are in coach and most trips don't go the whole distance but instead originate and terminate at intermediate stops.
When this report came out, you could hear the cries of "oh, the Humanity" from our bricks-and-morter advocacy community, and the report was so toxic that one couldn't even speak of it around here without getting the thread locked out.
Among the many criticisms of this proposal as to "why this would never work", the more interesting one was the voiced concern of "having only one locomotive"? I mean c'mon, apart from helper districts I suppose, such name trains as the Broadway Limited and Twentieth Century Limited ran with a single (steam) locomotive (OK, OK, the Pennsy used double-headed K4 locomotives, but they reverted to single T1 locomotives, at least for a while).
I mean, is Amtrak motive power maintenance so haphazard that you can't dispatch a long-distance train with one locomotive unit? Commuter and corridor consists run that way all the time. Do our long-distance trains traverse arid wastelands like the Karoo Desert that back in the day required condensing steam locomotives, that if you had a unit break down you would have passengers stranded without food and water in sweltering heat?
Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops?
I have come to a cynical view that passenger train advocacy is about a community of people who use sleeping car service to take cross-country trips on the long-distance trains. Not all of this is pleasure or vacation travel. I am beginning to realize why "the national network" figured so prominently in our talking points in that a number of our members of the local advocacy group took trains when they had to go someplace, trips that most of the rest of us would just make airline reservations -- if you had enough time on our hands and have arrangements for local transportation at each end, you can indeed get to most places using Amtrak.
I am saying that at the high-water mark in terms of getting a train to Madison, Wisconsin, one of the people, especially, in our local advocacy group was making a big deal of it everywhere he could, from op-ed pieces to thumbtacking a note on the bulletin board when you come in to Copp's Food Store on University Avenue. The Madison train was pointedly not "a commuter train to Milwaukee, it was a gateway to the 1000 destinations (on the Amtrak network)."
We also got our foundation garments all twisted up about Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz putting the Madison station downtown (Mayor Dave went on a fact-finding trip to Spain to see the Talgo in operation and was impressed with the car-less life style that downtown train service allowed -- our people wanted to hang on to their cars thank-you-very-much so they could drive and then park their cars to take their sleeping-car trips to the 1000 destinations, just like you drive and park your car at the Dane County Regional Airport). When we all calmed down, we got together our "list of demands" to take to a meeting with Mayor Dave's aides, which included that the station "had to have a national map showing the Amtrak system."
The way I see it is that if the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago Talgo was about fostering economic development by turning Madison into a kind of longish commuter suburb of Milwaukee and Chicago, that is strong justification for the nearly one-billion dollar investment.
If what the Madison Talgo is about is those 1000 destinations on the Amtrak network, so that a small community of people with sufficient financial resources and time can flit about the country, and the rest of us with neither the financial resources nor the time are stuffed into Canadair Regional Jets (if you are traveling on University or State business, you go by the absolute cheapest way possible, and if teaching assistants are covering your classroom lectures, you don't tack days on to the trip by going to the West Coast on Amtrak). If that is what the Madison Talgo is all about, fuggetaboutit, you are taking the Lamars/Van Galder motor coach from Memorial Union straight to Chicago Union Station, and your complaints about the sparse leg room simply don't merit the nearly billion-dollar expenditure, and I don't care how much money is wasted in Afghanistan.
So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served.
So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm Why Australia? Because it has private contractors? Why not adapt something more like the German model?
Germany is doing more and more contracting out.
True, but the core is still DB (which is actually a joint-stock corporation) and some contractors are actually DB subsidiaries, like DB-Schenker, the freight service.
Local and long-distance passenger trains
412 million tons freight
25,532 per day Freight: 5261 per day
Paul Milenkovic But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains. So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served. So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
Paul: A very interesting account of your frustrations with the advocacy group in Madison (the meetings sound about as silly as many departmental meetings I wasn't able to get out of in the past). But what to do for the future?
The key is competition. Not Australia! I happened to live through the Australian transition from a highly statist commercial environment to a competitive commercial environment, albeit properly regulated. It is a reference point.
As I have stated on other posts, I began my electric utility industry career with a major utility in Dallas. It was a regulated monopoly. It looked like the government, talked like the government, and walked like the government. Without getting into all the details, it was grossly inefficient. Then competition came to the TX electric utility business. And it changed dramatically. Long story short we dropped from more than 18,000 employees to fewer than 10,000 whilst increasing our customer base 25%, and the lights did not flicker once. Competition forces people to work better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better. Those who could not hack a competitive environment were let down gently. But they were let down.
Competition is not a panacea. But it forces people to pay attention to the entities key stakeholders, i.e. customers, employees, shareholders, etc. If they don't, they go out of business. In the case of a government managed enterprise, there is little in the way of a driving force to optimize results.
Lived through the process! Been there! Done it!
Paul Milenkovic CSSHEGEWISCH: One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not. But who is driving the politics? For the average everyday person, Amtrak and long-distance trains aren't even on the radar screen. The politics is you, me, everyone on this forum, and everyone else who rides trains or has an interest in trains. One of the infamous "modest proposals" was the Inspector General Kenneth Meade report, that got the advocacy community so upset about everything that one couldn't even discuss the proposal. The idea was not to discontinue the long-distance trains. The idea was that over 50 percent of the train was serving maybe 20 percent of the passengers -- the first-class sleeping car passengers. The automatic assumption is that sleeping car service charges such high fares in relation to coach that it has to be contributing to the bottom line, and the idea that we are subsidizing patrons of a premium service at the level of hundreds of dollars per trip couldn't be right. So the idea was to remove one of the locomotives, the baggage, crew dorm, the diner, the lounge car, and the sleepers from the long-distance trains -- a long-distance trains would then have a consist of a locomotive and about 4-6 coaches, just like a corridor train. There were numbers presented in the report that it could cut the long-distance train subsidy in half while serving at least 80 percent of the passengers -- most trips on these trains are in coach and most trips don't go the whole distance but instead originate and terminate at intermediate stops. When this report came out, you could hear the cries of "oh, the Humanity" from our bricks-and-morter advocacy community, and the report was so toxic that one couldn't even speak of it around here without getting the thread locked out. Among the many criticisms of this proposal as to "why this would never work", the more interesting one was the voiced concern of "having only one locomotive"? I mean c'mon, apart from helper districts I suppose, such name trains as the Broadway Limited and Twentieth Century Limited ran with a single (steam) locomotive (OK, OK, the Pennsy used double-headed K4 locomotives, but they reverted to single T1 locomotives, at least for a while). I mean, is Amtrak motive power maintenance so haphazard that you can't dispatch a long-distance train with one locomotive unit? Commuter and corridor consists run that way all the time. Do our long-distance trains traverse arid wastelands like the Karoo Desert that back in the day required condensing steam locomotives, that if you had a unit break down you would have passengers stranded without food and water in sweltering heat? Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? I have come to a cynical view that passenger train advocacy is about a community of people who use sleeping car service to take cross-country trips on the long-distance trains. Not all of this is pleasure or vacation travel. I am beginning to realize why "the national network" figured so prominently in our talking points in that a number of our members of the local advocacy group took trains when they had to go someplace, trips that most of the rest of us would just make airline reservations -- if you had enough time on our hands and have arrangements for local transportation at each end, you can indeed get to most places using Amtrak. I am saying that at the high-water mark in terms of getting a train to Madison, Wisconsin, one of the people, especially, in our local advocacy group was making a big deal of it everywhere he could, from op-ed pieces to thumbtacking a note on the bulletin board when you come in to Copp's Food Store on University Avenue. The Madison train was pointedly not "a commuter train to Milwaukee, it was a gateway to the 1000 destinations (on the Amtrak network)." We also got our foundation garments all twisted up about Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz putting the Madison station downtown (Mayor Dave went on a fact-finding trip to Spain to see the Talgo in operation and was impressed with the car-less life style that downtown train service allowed -- our people wanted to hang on to their cars thank-you-very-much so they could drive and then park their cars to take their sleeping-car trips to the 1000 destinations, just like you drive and park your car at the Dane County Regional Airport). When we all calmed down, we got together our "list of demands" to take to a meeting with Mayor Dave's aides, which included that the station "had to have a national map showing the Amtrak system." The way I see it is that if the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago Talgo was about fostering economic development by turning Madison into a kind of longish commuter suburb of Milwaukee and Chicago, that is strong justification for the nearly one-billion dollar investment. If what the Madison Talgo is about is those 1000 destinations on the Amtrak network, so that a small community of people with sufficient financial resources and time can flit about the country, and the rest of us with neither the financial resources nor the time are stuffed into Canadair Regional Jets (if you are traveling on University or State business, you go by the absolute cheapest way possible, and if teaching assistants are covering your classroom lectures, you don't tack days on to the trip by going to the West Coast on Amtrak). If that is what the Madison Talgo is all about, fuggetaboutit, you are taking the Lamars/Van Galder motor coach from Memorial Union straight to Chicago Union Station, and your complaints about the sparse leg room simply don't merit the nearly billion-dollar expenditure, and I don't care how much money is wasted in Afghanistan. So why couldn't the Madison Talgo have been about both markets? Why not in deed, but when push-came-to-shove, when the rubber-met-the road, our advocacy people threw a tantrum, and now there is no Madison Talgo and neither market is being served. So when people say, "Yeah, Amtrak could be improved, but it is constrained by politics," who do you think is writing the local newspaper op-eds and who is e-mailing Congress on this?
CSSHEGEWISCH: One factor that is consistently overlooked or ignored is that Amtrak is a political creature and has to maintain some sort of support in Congress, whether we like it or not.
Nobody in Congress will complain if Amtrak improves service and cuts costs. Well, almost nobody....depending how they do it.
I don't even think you have to whack the route structure, if that's what's politically required. Just flip everything into day trains by segment and have deals with hotels to shuttle passengers to and from the station at the split points.
Off the top of my head:
Empire Builder: Seattle to Glacier, Glacier to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Chicago.
Cal Zephyr: SF to Salt Lake, Salt Lake to Denver, Denver to Chicago
SW Chief: LA to Albuquerque, Albuquerque to KC, KC to Chicago
Sunset:LA to El Paso, El Paso to Houston, Houston to NOLA
Starlight (rename Daylight): Split it at SF
City of NOLA: split at Memphis
Eagle: Day train from Memphis to SA
Crescent: split at Atlanta
Silver Service: Day train to Orlando (Meteor Route only). Day train Atlanta to Miami (replaces Star). Day train Jax - Orlando - Miami
Cardinal: Split at Cincy
Capitol and LSL: no split, just run with early morning departure with arranged lodging at destination.
Auto Train: Leave it alone. It is not part of the network and does well enough as is.
Benefits: Business model greatly simplified. You get completely out of the sleeper and diner business. No commissary, no laundry, no dormatory cars, etc. And, all the maintenance and logistics needed for all of that. You do food on the train from a cafe with tables. Sandwich and microwave fare - delivered to the train by the vendor. You stop serving major population centers in the dead of night and stop there when people are actually awake. You can convert or sell sleeper and diners (tour operators might want to ride your train...). Use the sale proceeds to buy more capacity and support increased frequency where the market is.
Route map looks the same, so politicians are happy. Slightly longer trip for those few travelers with destinations spanning split points - but if they wanted speed, they would fly. Tourist trade improved - all scenery during the day. Trains available to haul tour company equipment. Dead of night is available as a network "reset" period - every day starts out with all trains "on time".
Why doesn't something like this ever get off the starting blocks? I suspect it's easier to beg for money and not rock the boat. There is no reward in the system for Amtrak to do these kinds of things.
Paul Milenkovic ... Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? ...
...
Among my bricks-and-morter colleagues, I made the suggestion that maybe we shouldn't dismiss this proposal out-of-hand. If we could have day trains in the style of the Cascades Talgo up and down the Mountain West, would that be a fair trade for the long-distance trains? How about the counter proposal of keep the level of subsidy where it is at, but provide twice-daily service along the long-distance routes, which functions for most of the passengers as a kind of linear network of corridors connecting intermediate stops? ...
I always liked the idea of connected corridors. Having twice-daily service about 12 hours apart would be great. As a railfan I would take a train during daylight hours to see everything. At night I would get off the train in some convenient city, stay comfortably (and probably for less than a sleeper) in a hotel, and continue my journey on the next train in the morning. Amtrak could offer to attach sleepers for a fee to tour companies that would bear all their own costs.
Split corridors of 2-5 pieces might be the way to make LD more viable, or at least reduce the hemorrhaging, while maintaining the route for political purposes. It has the added advantage of allowing more than one train each direction per day. While two trains a day is hardly service, it's more in that direction. Something overlooked is having a service where a potential traveler has some flexibility on shorter routes about when to depart and the possibility of returning the same day.
Good creative thinking by oltmannd, but I have two objections off the top.
1. I understand that people "in a hurry" are always going to fly. But one or more night-long interruptions would, I think, destroy the usefulness of the route for more through travelers than Don says. (Just elimination of the sleeper loses me, but I realize the bean counters among us would say, "Don't let the door," etc.) How many coach travelers need a hotel bill or two and extra meals on top of the cost of their fare? And how about the guy or gal whose destination is 100 miles the other side of the "split"?
2. We are basically talking buses on rails here, and how many of these new "corridors" actually need additional coach capacity of this straitened kind? On most of them, the planes and real buses run faster and more frequently. And a few, like Glacier-Seattle/Portland and Glacier-Minneapolis, look like non-starters to me.
In short, Don stands suspected of a stealth scheme to scuttle the long-distance passenger train in a politically correct way -- that probably wouldn't work.
dakotafred Good creative thinking by oltmannd, but I have two objections off the top. 1. I understand that people "in a hurry" are always going to fly. But one or more night-long interruptions would, I think, destroy the usefulness of the route for more through travelers than Don says. (Just elimination of the sleeper loses me, but I realize the bean counters among us would say, "Don't let the door," etc.) How many coach travelers need a hotel bill or two and extra meals on top of the cost of their fare? And how about the guy or gal whose destination is 100 miles the other side of the "split"? 2. We are basically talking buses on rails here, and how many of these new "corridors" actually need additional coach capacity of this straitened kind? On most of them, the planes and real buses run faster and more frequently. And a few, like Glacier-Seattle/Portland and Glacier-Minneapolis, look like non-starters to me. In short, Don stands suspected of a stealth scheme to scuttle the long-distance passenger train in a politically correct way -- that probably wouldn't work.
A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip. The few who are on the other side of the gap either enjoy their time in the city they are laying over or drive to that city (or take a connecting bus ala California). Let the market sort it out. The passengers you gain by not stopping at places at 3AM would be more than you would lose.
A trains IS a bus on steel wheels - everywhere it provides useful service, like all of Europe and Japan and the NEC. You got corridors? Trains work. As fast and frequent as you can figure out how to do and pay for.
Amtrak's current level of subsidies on a per passenger mile basis for LD trains are beyond silly. They need to be fixed if we are to ever have any hope of better train service in the US. And, they better hurry up. If the FEC manages to do their Miami to Orlando thing w/o any subsidy, Amtrak won't have a leg to stand on and the plug will be pulled. Then, we'll have the NEC and it's branches, the FEC in Florida, the Amtrak California corridors, the Chicago hub and nothing else.
You want that?
And, these are just things that have popped into my head. Not much study needed.
Why not:
Why not contract out locomotive overhauls? Amtrak doesn't own enough diesels to really need a backshop.
Why not contract out the coach cleaning to Merry Maids or similar?
Why not contract out sleeper operation to Marriott or Norwegian Cruise Lines?
Why not require conductors and trainmen on LD trains to help with "hospitality" ala flight attendants on airplanes?
Why not get your trains into the Expedia et. al. travel sites?
Why not code share with more Continental for a handful of flights?
Why not buy the DB web site and E ticketing and seat reservation system lock, stock and barrel?
oltmannd A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip.
A night in an Amtrak sleeper is $200-500 a night on top of Amtrak's coach fare. A night in the Hampton about a mile from Union Station in Denver is about $160 and includes breakfast. Passenger gets cheaper trip.
Don, again I would remind you: You have already dumped the First Class trade. What's left are coach passengers who never were going to pay that $200-500 -- and, in my opinion, aren't going to spring for a hotel room, either.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.