John WR oltmanndThat's a $50 a passenger subsidy. Pretty steep. And, bus service is available everywhere on the route except Huntingdon. Don, If we are going to say that to subsidize Amtrak travel is unacceptable then we will immediately stop every single Amtrak train except the Acelas. And without the Northeast Regional Service the Acelas will lose money to so we will stop them and there will be no more Amtrak. If there is no more Amtrak there is nothing to discuss. John
oltmanndThat's a $50 a passenger subsidy. Pretty steep. And, bus service is available everywhere on the route except Huntingdon.
Don,
If we are going to say that to subsidize Amtrak travel is unacceptable then we will immediately stop every single Amtrak train except the Acelas. And without the Northeast Regional Service the Acelas will lose money to so we will stop them and there will be no more Amtrak. If there is no more Amtrak there is nothing to discuss.
John
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
MidlandMike bill613a ... The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey The Pennsylvanian is run like a compromise between a corridor train running in daytime, but with the schedule skewed to provide a "reasonable" connection time (3-4 hrs) to the long distance Capitol Ltd. I have waited longer than 4 hrs to make a reasonably priced airline connection. If the Penn was rescheduled to make tight connections to the present Capitol Ltd, you would loose many of those 400 people who don't want to arrive at Pittsburgh at midnight or leave at 5AM, all for a handful of people connecting from the Cap Ltd. How would you schedule the 2 trains? The main adjustments would be to the CAPITOL having it depart WB at 1PM getting into Pittsburgh at roughly 8:30PM and adjusting the PENNSYLVANIAN's WB departure by 30-60 minutes. EB the CAPITOL would arrive at 7AM and depart after dropping off the NY cars. The arrival and departure times out of Chicago would be determined by the schedule needed for the "dog leg" reroute via Fort Wayne. If this restructuring is done it would be similar to the LSL schedule east of Buffalo which sees all the major markets with decent train times both ways.
bill613a ... The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey
...
The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey
The Pennsylvanian is run like a compromise between a corridor train running in daytime, but with the schedule skewed to provide a "reasonable" connection time (3-4 hrs) to the long distance Capitol Ltd. I have waited longer than 4 hrs to make a reasonably priced airline connection. If the Penn was rescheduled to make tight connections to the present Capitol Ltd, you would loose many of those 400 people who don't want to arrive at Pittsburgh at midnight or leave at 5AM, all for a handful of people connecting from the Cap Ltd. How would you schedule the 2 trains?
I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying the $7 M could be better spent on rail service, either by PA or by Amtrak.
Amtrak's goal should be to get the most "bang for the buck". Only then can they silence most of the critics and be able to secure some long term capital.
The Pennsylvanian is a "line on the map". There are some of us who get overly concerned about how many lines get drawn on the map to the exclusion of all else. I know that I like to look at Amtrak's map and think about all the places I can go, but I know that preserving lines may be counterproductive.
A good compromise solution would be to make the Capitol a single level train and run it through Harrisburg and Philly and shift the schedule an hour so that it hits Pittsburgh about 6 AM eastbound Westbound, you'd have to move the departure from DC up about 2 hours to keep the Pittsburgh time about the same. Yes, it would add a couple hours of running time, but it would run through denser market. Riders of LD trains aren't very time sensitive.
Cumberland, Connelsville, Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg have about 30K boardings and alightings a year - about 40 per train. The last two have MARC train service, so they can still get the train out of DC. The largest stop, Cumberland, is only an hour by car (and Bud Shusters I-99) to Altoona, so most of them could hop on the train there (there's about 15 per train - maybe Cumberland could fund a small shuttle bus like Roanoke does for the Lynchburg train). The route through PA would gain you more than you'd lose and wouldn't cost a thing to implement.
To balance the equipment, make the LSL a Superliner train to Boston. For Chicago to NY service - do "across the platform" at Albany-Rensselaer and Philly. Or, if having to service sleepers in DC is a problem, have the train go to NY (you could call it the "Broadway Limited"!) and do across the platform at Philly for the DC passengers. (You'd essentially be moving the Capitol's equipment to the LSL and the LSL's equipment to the Capitol's route.)
And, this is just me with about 15 minutes of thinking Imagine the solutions that could arise if it was several people's full time job to come up with ideas....or if the whole company had their brains engaged in improvements.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
bill613a The ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
According to official figures from the Amtrak state fact sheets, Pittsburgh, which hosts the Pennsylvanian and Capital Ltd. had only 129,372 "boardings + alightings" for the entire 2012 year. If you assumed each train accounted for half the total (likely the CL has more than the Pennsylvanian) that would be 5390/month or about 90 passengers each way per day on the Pennsylvanian. Thus, it seems unlikely that very many of that 55,410 (for three months) use the Pennsylvanian to or from Pittsburgh.
The reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania.
schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania.
After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
schlimmSpeak for yourself. you seem to be saying all or nothing. But it isn't that the folks who post are saying no to subsidies, period. It is examining services route by route and determining which ones have higher subsidies, figuring out why, modifying the price structure or reducing the costs (sleepers, diners, baggage cars), or possibly elimination if the ridership is low.
Schlimm,
I do speak for myself. I accept Amtrak not because I think it is the best way to run our rail passenger service but because since it was provided by the Nixon Administration it has been the only way. And I will support it until a better way is here. Not just ideas about a better way although the ideas in themselves may be very good but until we actually do have a batter way. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
If, as you propose, we do away with sleeping cars, dining cars and baggage cars I believe the number of riders will drop and the service will further erode probably to the point of the "elimination" you call for. I don't suggest that you want "elimination" but I still fear that it could happen.
bill613aThe ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
Bill,
I added up my figures from Amtrak's monthly reports. The total for July, August and September is exactly what you report, 55,410. However I don't see how it is possible to derive the number of people riding between Harrisburg and PIttsburgh from that information.
Also, if you look at the numbers you will see that they vary widely. In December, 2010 56,530 people rode the Pennsylvanian. In Februrary there were only 13,578, fewer than one quarter of the December number. The mean number of riders per month is 22,526 so July, August and September are relatively low ridership months.
As I understand you, you argue Amtrak should run trains in the best way possible to serve the maximum number of people. You also make some specific suggestions about how Amtrak could better serve people than it is now. I have no quarrel with your position and in a better situation that would be a much better way to operate Amtrak. But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take.
The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
schlimmThus, it seems unlikely that very many of that 55,410 (for three months) use the Pennsylvanian to or from Pittsburgh.
The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know how many Pittsburgh boardings and alightings are to or from the Pennsylvanian, how many are to or from the Capitol Limited and how many are changing between those two trains. I cannot see any reason for assigning one half of the total number to each train although I don't have any idea of what the number is. Short of a Freedom of Information Request I don't know how to find out.
Also, to the extent that people are changing trains that is not reflected is assigning have of the boardings and alightings to each train.
OvermodAfter all the Babeling on this topic
Overmod,
I went to some effort to actually gather the statistics I reported in my above posts because I like to stay as close as possible to the actual facts of the situation. I regret you regard my effort as "Babeling."
John: It's really quite simple as posted above from the Amtrak site:
PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. "Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania."
Hence, it is a done deal. Amtrak studied and does not want to continue this service. You continue to insist that there is a market for this train, for reasons unclear, when all the evidence suggests the ridership is very small west of Harrisburg. If it is really needed the political process in Western PA will exert pressure on the state legislature.
Your statistics were not the 'Babeling' -- what I objected to was all the discussion about Amtrak this and Amtrak that and how the public had to be served by Amtrak subsidy -- when the actual reasons for Amtrak taking the Pennsylvanian off have little to do with passenger numbers.
In essence, it's a political mandate, for Pennsylvania to pay for Pennsylvania service. We shall see how that works out with the Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg service. (Remember, it was not long ago that we were hearing about improvement projects to lower this trip time as part of a HSR-like 'bridge' between NY/PHI and western points like Chicago... I didn't exactly take this seriously at the time, but...
I am aware of PRIIA but there seems to be little about it to discuss. I am unaware that I "continue to insist there is a market" for the Pennsylvanian or even that I suggest there may be a market. However, I do believe that we should have accurate information to the extent such information is available.
Thank you for pointing out that you were not referring to the statistics I gathered.
Well, my prediction is that The Pennsylvanian is finished as of October 1. I don't want that to be the case at all but I really don't see what can be done about it since the State of PA isn't showing any inclination to take over the train. On that date certain Amtrak trains WILL be making their last runs. Case closed. again, that'snot what I want at all but our present political environment, coupled with fiscal problems at the state lever in certain states, simplw won't allow for these trains to continue. It simply CAN'T happen. I'd give anything for events to prove me wrong but unfortunately, events have immunized me to being wrong.
Cal,
Distinguishing between what we want to happen and what we expect will happen is important. But it is good to know that if, as we expect, the Pennsylvanian is put down on October 1 you will not be among the celebrants.
John WR But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take. The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take.
And, neither does Amtrak.. In fact, they don't act like it's a problem.
You and I know that they are not responsible for all of their woes, but, there a quite a few under their control that they could work on. They just don't seem to notice...or choose to ignore.
A good example is how Amtrak lost the commuter contracts that they wanted to hold. There were some good columns written in Trains about it. Nobody in Congress steered the contracts away. It was high cost and lethargic local management.
Another example is ordering baggage cars when you are posting record ridership. Nobody in Congress told them to order them.
Overmod schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania. After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
It's a policy issue. Should intra-state, intercity trains have a federal operating subsidy? Congress says "no". They used to say "yes." The argument turns on whether these trains are part of a network or not. That is, do connections to other trains have much meaning beyond the lines on the map intersecting?
In the case of this train, the answer is "a little bit". So, maybe the policy is not such a bad one. Pennsylvania can judge the value vs. cost for this service pretty accurately.
I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones.
John WR Don, I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate. As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones. John
Does it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
If your whole focus is just to run yesterday's trains tomorrow, no more, no less. Then replacing the most obsolete equipment, operationally constrained equipment makes sense. The Mechanical Dept will tell you what they need most - and they obviously did. Amtrak ordered baggage cars, diners, dorms and a few sleepers. The growth was in the coach travel!
John WR I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
They REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide.
John WR oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth? Don, I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide. John
oltmanndThey REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
What you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
I worked for the Federal Government for many years. In my agency, anyway, subordinates were held accountable not for producing results but for obeying orders. Furthermore, there was such a lack of transparency that often subordinates (like me) didn't even know which result was desired. The system lumbers on (often due to built in redundancy) but it is not the best way to do it.
I can't speak about Amtrak where I have no experience. But I think you have spoken about this kind of problem in government.
But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all.
John WR But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all. John
I believe strongly in a modern passenger rail system which by necessity needs to be financed (for infrastructure and some operations as they are initiated) by the government. But sometimes the things the government, in the form of Amtrak, does in a not very good way (running unnecessary LD trains, for example) might be wiser to stop doing. Likely it will be be better if they won't be done at all.
schlimmJohn: Oltman's questions weren't especially complicated, but you say you aren't qualified to "decide" when you are only asked for your opinion, since none of us are deciding anything on here. However, you seem to have no hesitation in continuing to make the case for retention of a specific train, the Pennsylvanian, on two threads. What's the story?
Actually, Schlimm, as I was typing the answer to Don I was thinking about the very question you ask. Thank you for bringing the issue up.
For better or for worse the Nixon Administration and the Congress created Amtrak to operate our passenger rail system. To the extent that we have trained competent people to do that they are at Amtrak. I think we should rely on Amtrak and its people unless and until we have something better. Just as I am reluctant to second guess Amtrak I would also be reluctant to second guess my local Chief of Police when he make recommendations about speed limits and stop lights.
In the case of the Pennsylvanian, the train was put into operation many years ago based on an agreement between Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and, since it was put in place, it has operated without being questioned. At the time it was put in place the whole train ran in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and one part of it ran within Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. That was known and accepted and within the guidelines established. Now all of a sudden and with no change in the facts Congress decides to change the guidelines. I see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
I hope that answers your question.
The PRIIA was passed in 2008. That act of Congress required reviews and based on that, the Pennsylvanian among other trains was required to be a state-subsidized train. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to not provide its share of funding. Therefore, the train will be discontinued. hardly an impulsive act and its origins were not with Amtrak.
John WRWhat you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
There agenda apparently was: "Don't bother me!"
John WRBut just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way.
Agree! But, that's no reason to keep doing things badly, is it? You get what you provide incentive for. Change the rules, get different results! Not ALL the rules of the game are imposed on Amtrak from outside. There are quite a few they could change on their own, internally.
John WRI see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
From a 2008 law to 2013 implementation. Such an impulse!
Do you remember all the "train-offs" that occurred during the Carter admin that were done in a matter of months? This time, they have 5 years warning...
Did you know the original 403B trains were supposed to start with a subsidy boost, but then supposed to cover their operating costs and/or the subsidy moved to the state. Somewhere in the 1980s some of the 403B trains got "enshrined" in the national network. (on impulse?)
Did you know the Pennsylvanian runs with four or five 60 seat Amtfleet II coaches? Perhaps they could go with an 80 seat arrangement and cut off a couple cars and knock a bit off that $7M .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.