Pragmatism is that all are paying for the survival of the service. It sounds like socialism but is how much of American enterprises operated, expanded, and survived until bottom feeders, er, bottom liners, got hold of the books. Railroads are not alone, as I indicated. Count the number of products no longer available, not ones which have substitutes, but ones that are gone...Postum is a good example but I am sure there are others which are gone and even their substitutes don't stand up. And even if you run a train with only coaches because sleeping cars and diners don't pay, how long will you have coach passengers who need to sleep or eat? Entertainment providers..i.e. cable companies and satellite dishes...give you hundreds of channels to choose from, some extra pay, some forced on you, but you still only watch as many as four different channels a week on average...who's paying for the rest? So, the Corridor passenger has to help pay for the upkeep of the whole system the way things are now...but was the way it always was in railroading...freight supported passenger service on the books of Class ones...CPA's and investment bankers said get rid of passenger services and take all the money, forget about service and what your charters say you are to provide. Thus we have today's business plans: money to the bottom line no matter what it costs in quality, quantity, or integrity.
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.
Some 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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Running passenger trains is a service. If it is a long train ride you provide meal service. If it is overnight you provide for sleeping in some form of comfort. And you charge what you can for the services. BUT unlike today's bottom line CPA's you get as much as you can from each service so that you get as much as you can toward your bottom line and not demand that one service pays only for itself but can pass some it its income off to services which don't come up to full pay back. So, maybe you can charge more for a seat with the concept of adding to the cost of pulling a sleeper or diner. If you don't provide service, you don't get customers, and you might just as well go make pizzas downtown. We have lost so much in this country since the philosophy of each segment has to pay for itself or it goes without paying attention to how much it adds to the quality and attractiveness of a product or service. NO, I don't suggest going back to what the telephone companies were doing of making up prices for service not knowing the real cost of providing, thus long distance calls were priced well beyond their costs while other services were practically given away because no one was paying attention. But a rationalization of services, income, and pricing can serve both the provider and the customers well.
Some interesting points.1. Replacing Viewliners. Seems to me they aren't so ancient as to need anything more than refurbishing. The overnight CNL sleeper trains from Germany to other countries use a mixture of some new cars and rebuilt cars from the 60's and 70's.
2. The poster points out that the sleeper passengers make a larger revenue contribution on LD trains, but fails to mention the higher operating costs (labor). Is it necessary to have attendants for each car? Why?
http://www.seat61.com/citynightline.htm#.URpF6h1FnAM
3. I think Don makes an excellent point in his last sentence. If Amtrak can focus on services and routes that can break even on operating costs, it reduces its dependence on Congress to infrastructure and equipment.
4. A comparison of labor costs for Amtrak compared to those of the freight railroads and commuter lines would be valuable.
RailSpike I continually see sleeper space "SOLD OUT" on most LD trains throughout the year, not considering the holiday periods which sell out well in advance.
Then, Amtrak is not charging enough.
RailSpikeI realize Amtrak needs to replace old, tired single-level cars.
No. When railcars get "old and tired" you rebuild them. It's always cheaper since you are not starting from scratch. What would drive replacement would be new technology or higher capacity. Viewliners are not technologically obsolete, so just rebuild.
RailSpikeI must be missing something. I thought Amtrak was trying desperately to increase the bottom line. Or does this make too much sense?
Trying to improve the bottom line of the LD trains makes sense, but the place to attack it is on the cost side. Trying to buy new equipment to fill peak demand is a losing proposition. You can't keep the equipment busy enough to generate enough net revenue to pay the cost to buy the equipment - the utilization would be too low.
The real question is "where can the existing equipment be deployed to the best effect?" Where do people live? Where do they want to go? How does that match available routes? Can I provide service that stacks up against the highway? Provide frequent service on those corridors and win the game.
No more having to listen to Congressman whine about the subsidy equal to airfare or a limo - or $15 hamburgers. It's much easier to get your capital funded if you don't come hat in hand every year for a operating subsidy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sleeping cars provide rather limited capacity compared to coaches. Sleepers may generate 44% of the revenue, but what percentage of the costs do they generate?
Also, sleeping cars as a whole are a wasted asset for Amtrak, which should re-orient itself to the short to medium haul market where passenger trains still fill a real transportation need.
If I correctly recall the article I recently read, it stated that 17% of the average Amtrak LD passenger loads are sleeper customers. However, these riders comprise 44% of the train's revenue. I continually see sleeper space "SOLD OUT" on most LD trains throughout the year, not considering the holiday periods which sell out well in advance.
I realize Amtrak needs to replace old, tired single-level cars. However, from strictly a business point of view, would one not attempt to provide more capacity for the highest revenue-producing space first, be they single-level or Superliners?
I must be missing something. I thought Amtrak was trying desperately to increase the bottom line. Or does this make too much sense?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.