Don,
Thank you for providing Kenneth Meade's 2004 report about the proposals to end sleeping car service, food service and checked baggage service on Amtrak's long distance trains. It does provide the data I asked about. I don't know if David Gunn's response is available to round out the picture. It would appear that some members of Congress found Gunn persuasive as no action was taken to require Amtrak to end these services in the years since the report was prepared.
Best regards, John
Here is the IG report http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul,
I was simply trying to address the question of numbers of sleeping car passengers and amounts they contributed to Amtrak. I took the published statistics at face value.
I don't begin to have the information to answer the questions you raise. I attempted to find the IG's report you refer to but could not do so. However, I did find a report of it in the Washington Post. According to the article Inspector General Kenneth Meade was criticizing Amtrak for investing in sleeping cars rather than replacing infrastructure such as deteriorating bridges. Then President David Gunn responded to the report. He agreed Amtrak was not making the capital improvements it needed to because Congress had not appropriated the funds Amtrak needed. He pointed out that members of Congress expected sleeping car service for trains traveling through their states so Amtrak was not really free to discontinue it. For the same reason Amtrak was not free to abandon routes of sections of routes. Also, were Amtrak to convert its long distance all service trains to corridor service coach only trains as Meade suggested they would not realize savings because of costs involved in contractual agreements.
Interestingly, Amtrak did about this time replace a bridge over the Thames River in New London CT. Senator John McCain noted that and praised Amtrak for it. He had been a critic of Amtrak.
The big issue of costs is the added revenue balanced against the cost of an additional engine, the baggage car and one of the two dining cars. I don't know this cost breakdown or where to find it. You may.
Following this forum for the last couple of days I have not seen anyone mention the Budd Slumbercoach. Here was the car that could sleep forty passengers in reasonable comfort and each room provided its own washbasin and toilet facilities. Remember these cars were introduced in 1956 and many railroads were still buying or converting other cars into 44 seat leg rest coaches. The 10-6 sleeper had a capacity of 22 and the Slumbercoach nearly twice as many. I have traveled the North Coast Limited, Mainstreeter and Denver Zephyr all in Slumbercoaches and though I was much younger found them to be quite comfortable. If Amtrak had kept the Slumbercoaches and converted there toilet facilities I am sure they would still be in service.
CN rebuilt many cars to Daynighters and these also were quite comfortable. Personally I do not care for the new eastern long distance sleeping cars as they seem noisier than the Budd products of years ago. We were too quick to scrap the old and bring out the new. And Amtraks bottom line would sure be in better shape than it is now.
Al - in - Stockton
DeggestyOpen sections were popular for many years--because that was the type of accomodation that Pullman provided.
Johnny,
Thanks for all of the information. You have a lot more experience with sleeping cars than I do. But it does seems to me that the open section cars (and perhaps the enclosed section cars) did carry more people than other kinds of sleeping cars and there costs were relatively modest. That makes me wonder if they really ought to have a place on long distance trains today.
Best regards,
John
John WR henry6But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers wel Henry, One thing I have noticed is that Amtrak doesn't provide open sleeping cars. They were popular for many years and VIA Rail still uses them but Amtrak does not. In Europe you can get a couchette--the European version of an open sleeper--for very little. I wonder why Amtrak does not use them and if it should. With best regards, John
henry6But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers wel
Henry,
One thing I have noticed is that Amtrak doesn't provide open sleeping cars. They were popular for many years and VIA Rail still uses them but Amtrak does not. In Europe you can get a couchette--the European version of an open sleeper--for very little. I wonder why Amtrak does not use them and if it should.
With best regards, John
There were two variations on the open section: the private section and the enclosed section. The enclosed section had a wall between the berth and the aisle (and I am sure that the porter despised having to make such up), and the private section also had a washroom that was for the use of the occupants of that section--but the occupants had to go into the aisle to reach the washroom. The first City of Portland had enclosed sections. Cars with private sections were operated on the Crescent Limited.
Having ridden (and slept) in all types of sleeper accomodations (except the upper berth in a Slumbercoach double room) in this country and in Canada, I really prefer having toilet facilities in my room (though if you had to get up in the night in a roomette, you had to be quick with getting the berth up and out of the way).
Johnny
John WR Amtrak publishes a fact sheet about its long distance service. You can see it here: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf According to the fact sheet 15 per cent of passengers ride in sleeping cars but they produce 36 per cent of the revenue on those trains. The 85 per cent of people who ride in coaches produce the remaining 64 per cent of the revenue. No doubt there are extra expenses for sleeping car passengers. However, I suspect that the added revenue makes up for those extra expenses and adds a significant amount besides.
Amtrak publishes a fact sheet about its long distance service. You can see it here:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/374/876/Long%20Distance%20Trains.pdf
According to the fact sheet 15 per cent of passengers ride in sleeping cars but they produce 36 per cent of the revenue on those trains. The 85 per cent of people who ride in coaches produce the remaining 64 per cent of the revenue. No doubt there are extra expenses for sleeping car passengers. However, I suspect that the added revenue makes up for those extra expenses and adds a significant amount besides.
OK, I read the Amtrak Fact Sheet you linked to.
Sleeping cars carry 15 percent of passengers, but those passengers ride, according to Amtrak, twice as far on average. So by "passengers", Amtrak means what they say, that is, passenger boardings instead of passenger miles, because the rest of what they say doesn't make sense otherwise. This means sleeping car passenger account for 26 percent of passenger miles? And coach passengers account for 74 percent of passenger miles? And this means the revenue per passenger miles in sleeper is about 1.6 times that of coach?
I think this lays to rest the suspicion that there is a higher revenue yield on sleeping car passengers, that is, taking into the much lower passenger capacity of sleeping cars and the added crew costs.
As to "most riders" and even most passenger miles taking place in coach and the long-distance train being a defacto "intercity train" taking trips under 600 miles, of course, was the whole point of the infamous I.G. Kenneth Meade report. And the point of that report is that if you ditched the sleeping cars, you could do away with the baggage car, crew dorm, diner, lounge car, and second locomotive, turning the long-distance train into a corridor-train consist. And saving a lot of money. Or maybe freeing up a large number of train cars that could be reconfigured to provide a second daily train along many of the long-distance routes?
Amtrak's fact sheet rebutts the I.G. Meade Report suggestion, saying that even the day-tripping coach passengers are on the train for a long day and that you have to feed them something. Yes, but do you have to feed those passengers using two entire cars in the consist with their capital and maintenance expense -- a diner and also a lounge car that serves drinks and snacks?
That gets back to another consideration, that is, if trains are a slow mode of transportation, can you keep passengers in their seats all day or for an overnight, serving them food from carts, without giving the passengers a destination to "get up out of their seat and stretch their legs", namely two full train cars in the consist for that function. The seating density on long-distance coach, at least from the standpoint of legroom, is comparable to business class on trans-Pacific jets, where with some rare exceptions, passengers are served meals at their seats from carts. One acception I encountered was a coast-to-coast "red-eye" on United where they served a late night sandwich buffet, taking up no more room than a row of seats, if that. You had to stand in line for that sandwich, but the standing in line was a change in posture from being in the seat for however many hours.
And if you cut back on amenities, saying providing a grade of service comparable to business class on trans-Pacific jets, in pursuit of reduced cost (or providing more train service with the money you have), are people going to desert the train. Amtrak seems to think that a major role of the long-distance trains is as a "life-line" to the small communities along the line, who according to Amtrak don't have alternative choices.
One more thing. This Fact Sheet has a lot in it that is aimed at critics and particular criticisms leveled at Amtrak, including their use of limited capital resources to purchase new dining cars. The claim is that the new dining cars will "will produce additional cost efficiencies while enhancing customer service."
So tell me, what are the possible cost efficiences in a brand new dining car that offset the capital cost of its purchase (as opposed to a rebuild). Is there some new dining car technology in terms of kitchen or tables and seating that cannot be incorporated into a Heritage dining car? Or is it all about getting 125 MPH dining cars on the Silver Service trains so they don't choke traffic on the NEC?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimmMy view, which is to reduce the number of LD trains and convert them to coaches, is based on the idea that we need modern services rather than continuing these outmoded Nostalgia.Expresses.
Schlimm,
Do you consider all sleeping cars to be "Nostalgia Expresses?"
Railspike,
Actually, most riders do not stay on for the whole trip; most people ride 600 miles or less. This means that a long distance train is also in intercity train over the route it serves. If you look at the time tables for these trains you will see that they stop at many stations.
With best regards,
Honest service, usable service, integrity and reliability are generalities? Without a blueprint with details, we can only talk in generalities. But I call my points precepts, facts, needs, not generalities.
And I do click the damned thing ...every time I get a new page from Trains:...It is being over done, guys, enough ale
rady!...
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.
Vague, almost meaningless generalities. The specific issue was new sleeper cars or rebuilt ones. My view, which is to reduce the number of LD trains and convert them to coaches, is based on the idea that we need modern services rather than continuing these outmoded Nostalgia.Expresses.BTW, just click the X on the right of the banner at the bottom of the page, or do you need a porter?.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I'm sure there is a nice little niche market for the "Nostalgia Express" but it has nothing to do with developing a modern passenger rail network.
I'm sure there is a nice little niche market for the "Nostalgia Express" but it has nothing to do with developing a modern passenger rail network.
You've got me all wrong....I don't believe in living in the past but visiting it and learning from it. A quality service or product, designed and presented with intelligence, sincerity, and integrity and reliability matters no matter what. That's not nostalgia, that's knowledge, intelligence, integrity, and honesty.. It is not the "nice little niche market" but the whole enchilada of doing something honestly and with purpose.
...will somebody get rid of that damned Facebook banner at the bottom of this and all pages!
schlimmRunning trains on 70 year old routes utilizing a panoply of outmoded types of equipment (baggage cars, diners, parlor cars, sleepers, lounge cars, etc.) at slow speeds (50-70 mph) may have been good service back then, but it is not today and is not what the public wants.
Or, at least, they are not willing to pay what it costs to run.
henry6Rebuilding vs. new is determined by what you have as the end product. When you have something brand new you have new technology, etc. and a given lifespan, and a depreciation span. When rebuilding or refurbishing, you still have an old shell which may not have the same life expectancy despite updated technology and depreciation. The question that has to be asked and answered when deciding is where will you be at a given time in the future? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How much will you have spent in maintenance and how much will a new piece cost then? Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years. All is not done in today's money.
This is strictly engineering economics. If you rebuild a passenger car to "like new", it is "like new". You save buying all that stainless steel, all that welding, all that casting, and a bunch of machining. The final product will have the same expected economic life as new. There are generally no fatigue life issues in the carbody and all the steel castings can be "reset" in an oven.
Updated technology can tip the balance to new, but, tell me, what new technology is there for a 125 mph coach? A Viewliner sleeper? A Superliner? Perhaps door actuators. Toilets. Brake valves. Electronic trainline. Fine. Those can be retrofitted. Trucks? Nope. New Viewliners are coming with the same as the old. Could you make them lighter? That could be a winner.
Capacity can drive it, too. You can make a case for 120 seat coaches replacing old 80 seat coaches the same way RRs replaced 5 SD40s with 3 AC locomotives.
But, you can't just toss around words like, "they are old", "they are fully depreciated". Those are just words. The devil is in the engineering detail. The state of the art is pretty static.
Running trains on 70 year old routes utilizing a panoply of outmoded types of equipment (baggage cars, diners, parlor cars, sleepers, lounge cars, etc.) at slow speeds (50-70 mph) may have been good service back then, but it is not today and is not what the public wants.
I will agree with you Schlimm..."service" is nostalgia in this country, whether rail passenger service, restaurant dining, retail buying, and many other activities, programs, products, and services in the US. But that doesn't make it good or right.
For the large bulk of the public, modern passenger rail service means exactly what Paul said: offering fast, frequent, convenient trains utilizing high-capacity coaches between major population centers up to 400 miles apart in corridors with a minimum of useless frills. Insisting that "service" means running "Nostalgia Expresses" is a non-starter.
Your answer is in your last question. Increasing the level of service is the goal, not running more trains. More trains have to have at least the same level of amenities and offerings. Frequency of service is a major factor in ridership...even shorter trains but more often would help. So a second train Minniapolis to Chicago may mean that there need be fewer cars but full cars...I keep saying running passenger rail is not just running trains but also providing a frequency and equipment that will attract usage.
henry6 Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years.
Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years.
The interesting thing is how the planned Amtrak equipment purchases are not in the least bit a technological advance -- do you refurbish 1960's vintage DC-9 airliners or do you build the exact same aircraft new? So, according to at least one person close to the railroad business, the answer to your question is indeed yes, rebuilding is a cost saving. Next question?
It is fine to rant against "bean counters" and "accountants", but ultimately, every human activity, whether private or government-supported, runs up against money constraints.
It is fine to believe that "decontenting" the long-distance trains is going to gut ridership. But answer me this. WisARP has long lobbied for a "second Chicago-St Paul" train to the Empire Builder. You know, so that train travel over that route is more of a "service" in having a choice of daily trains.
So tell me, is that second Chicago-St Paul train, if it happens, going to have multiple locomotives, baggage car, crew dorm, diner, lounge, sleeping cars? Or is it going to have one locomotive and a string of high-capacity coaches?
If America gets serious about using trains for all the usual reasons -- fuel economy, congestion and pollution mitigation, allowing people an alternative to nerve-wracking and accident-ridden automobile rides -- are we ever going to put in a second Empire Builder train? Or is the additional service going to be in the form of day-train "corridors" pieced together from segments of that route?
So again, if the goal is increasing the level of Amtrak service, why is consideration given to purchasing sleeping cars?
oltmannd daveklepperBut whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely. Generally, rebuilding in kind will be cheaper than buy the same thing new. What pushes the balance toward new is when there in new technology that results in operating cost savings or performance enhancement that can't easily be accommodated in a rebuild. Something like lighter weight construction, tilt, bolsterless truck design, articulation, etc. The other thing that pushes the balance toward new would be increased capacity. Superliners and Viewliners have more beds than 10-6 sleepers for example. For example, you could make a pretty good case for some new corridor coaches along the lines of NJT's bi-levels, but new single level coaches to replace Amfleet is a bit absurd.
daveklepperBut whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely.
For example, you could make a pretty good case for some new corridor coaches along the lines of NJT's bi-levels, but new single level coaches to replace Amfleet is a bit absurd.
Rebuilding vs. new is determined by what you have as the end product. When you have something brand new you have new technology, etc. and a given lifespan, and a depreciation span. When rebuilding or refurbishing, you still have an old shell which may not have the same life expectancy despite updated technology and depreciation. The question that has to be asked and answered when deciding is where will you be at a given time in the future? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? How much will you have spent in maintenance and how much will a new piece cost then? Are you really saving by rebuilding when you might get 10 more years instead of buying new and getting 25 or more years. All is not done in today's money.
oltmannd daveklepperBecause in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase. Not so sure this is true. In fact, there is an IG (?) report out there somewhere that states the opposite. If you pull the sleepers and the diner, you can drop one locomotive, as well. (You can also optimize the schedule to cater to coach passengers at the same time)
daveklepperBecause in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase.
Not so sure this is true. In fact, there is an IG (?) report out there somewhere that states the opposite. If you pull the sleepers and the diner, you can drop one locomotive, as well. (You can also optimize the schedule to cater to coach passengers at the same time)
But if you drop the sleepers and the diner and the locomotive, how many passengers will still ride? The next drop is the train itself...this kind of thinking is self defeating.
schlimm Some folks' idea of service seems rooted in yesteryear. But most folks today want a passenger rail service that is competitive on a time and frequency basis with flying or driving. A focus on running a series of trains as once existed 60 years ago on the same old routes with sleepers and diners and baggage cars and parlors and lounge cars is what I mean by running the "NOSTALGIA EXPRESS." Again, my question is why I should help subsidize the sleeper passenger and his food while i ride in the coach? It isn't a silly argument, political or otherwise. It is basic fairness.
Some folks' idea of service seems rooted in yesteryear. But most folks today want a passenger rail service that is competitive on a time and frequency basis with flying or driving. A focus on running a series of trains as once existed 60 years ago on the same old routes with sleepers and diners and baggage cars and parlors and lounge cars is what I mean by running the "NOSTALGIA EXPRESS." Again, my question is why I should help subsidize the sleeper passenger and his food while i ride in the coach? It isn't a silly argument, political or otherwise. It is basic fairness.
I don't follow you here. Do you mean that as old fart my caring about service and quality is antiquated? Now I know why today's business and society is in such bad shape! B.S.!! All you are dismissing and against here are what defines service and leads to success. I'd understand you if you are a bean counter CPA or investment gambler wanting all for yourself, but if you don't understand what brings customers in and keeps them in, you don't know business. If you order a sandwich in a restaurant and they bring you two pieces of bread with a slice of mean between them you'd be outraged. The sandwich needs butter or mayonaise or mustard or lettuce or tomato with maybe a slice of pickle or a handful of potato chips to make it appealing, appetizing, and pleasing so that you'll eat it and come back for more. But what you're saying is why should I subsidize your chips and mayonaise. This is not how business is done to survive.
Because in some cases he/she is subsidizing your coach ride. Sleepers are exclusively on long distance trains. Once you agree to subsidize long distance trains, you'll find that removal of the sleepers (and diners) will remove substantial ridership, and losses will increase. But whether it is more cost effective to buy new rather than rehabilitate old is another matter completely.
Right. When freight railroads provided passenger service it was because their charters said so, the traffic was there, the PR value was important, the loses were covered by freight, and many other positive reasons. But when bean counters came in and wanted to take everything to the bottom line or else throw it away, branch lines were abandoned, passenger services eliminated, and intermediate terminals closed or subjected to lesser services. Amtrak was devised to eliminate the passenger train by taking the service away from freight railroads so they didn't have to shoulder the blame nor provide the services at a loss. It was figured that the public would go away within a few years and the passenger train would die a natural death with no one noticing, no mourners. This was the wisdom of the highway lobby as well as the freight railroads bottom line mentality. And it came back to bite them in the assets. People...the public...wanted passenger service, not just trains. And as highways became congested and beat up, as air service was cut back to cigar ships instead of full planes to many smaller airports, as fuel prices went up (not because of quality or better product but because investment gamblers, speculaters they called themselves, commodities brokers, too), and air quality and land use became important, people wanted more passenger rail service. Instead of going for the passenger market head on, we remained using Amtrak as a crutch...freight rails can say no because the government has Amtrak to protect them. Unless the government, the public, and the owners and operators of the tracks can start addressing the needs and importance of passenger rail services, we will not have it....but only lots of silly political arguments instead.
schlimmSome straight, pragmatic talk. Nothing wrong with everybody on one train contributing to the cost of a food car, if needed, because all can use it. But why should coach passengers be forced to subsidize those folks who choose to ride in a sleeper? Or why should folks who ride on corridor trains that come close to breaking even on operating expenses (and they may pay a premium, as on the Acela service) subsidize long distance train passengers?
The argument for cross-subsidy would be valid to the extent there is a "network effect" - one class of service feeds the other. This would have been very true in the 1940s. I suspect it's pretty tiny now, except in Chicago, but there the argument gets flipped on it's head. We "need" the very expensive LD trains to feed the short haul trains? I think the "network effect" is between modes rail/road/air. Each is in a niche these days. None is a one-size-fits-all network like RRs used to be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.