On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service.
The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222.
The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes.
I saved $122 by opting for a business class seat on the regional train. I wonder how many people would choose to pay a $122 premium to save 15 minutes if they were paying it out of their pocket? If the answer, as I suspect, is not many, it should raise a question as to the incremental value of high speed rail vs medium speed rail.
It has been a couple of years since I have ridden the Acela, but the coffee on the regional train seemed to be every bit as good as the coffee on the Acela. The car attendant, as well as the other members of the crew, were pleasant and helpful. My regional train arrived on time into Baltimore and was actually a few minutes early arriving back at Penn Station, New York.
Amtrak's e-ticket system, coupled with what is as good an on-line reservation system as any that I have found, works very well. Moreover, if you lose your ticket, just show the conductor proper identification, and she can look up your reservation on the spot.
This has been my point about HSR here in the US all along...at what cost to save only a few minutes...not is it worth it but who is it worth it to? Very few. Plus we don't have good solid definitions in people minds but rather dream scapes of supersonic races across time and space which is just emotions not pragmatisms. We have to fully understand what HSR is and what it will and will not do. If we can accept...and pay for...a super four track rapid transit system with all stop locals on the outer track and real high speed limiteds on the inner tracks with economical spacing of their stations, we might have a chance in our densely populated and crowded corridors. But speed for speeds sake, because the Japanese or the French do it or that China tries, is not the reason to try to be Buck Rogers on rails.
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.
Sam1On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service.
I'm happy to hear about your pleasant experience, Sam. I haven't been to Baltimore in many years but I do go to Washington occasionally and I have a similar experience. I am a frugal traveler so I ride Northeast Regional trains as you did but I also take the coach.
If you go again may I suggest you but your coffee and whatever you want to go with it in one of several excellent places in New York Penn Station. Au Bon Pain is one that comes to my mind. Carrying it on the train is a little awkward. Amtrak's coffee is good but rolls and Danish are not nearly as good as they are in the station.
For all of that a lot of people do ride the Acela. For a long time I commuted between Newark and Princeton Junction and there were always people at Newark waiting for the Acela. As my Mom used to say some people demand the best no matter what it costs.
John
henry6 But speed for speeds sake, because the Japanese or the French do it or that China tries, is not the reason to try to be Buck Rogers on rails.
But speed for speeds sake, because the Japanese or the French do it or that China tries, is not the reason to try to be Buck Rogers on rails.
Henry: & SAM1 ------- IMHO you are right on. The NEC network is a prime example. There are many population centers that will require some trains to stop but other trains can by-pass if there is 1/2 hr peak to hourly off peak service at by-passed stations. It is a matter of eliminating the slow(er) orders. Trains capable of the planned 160 MPH or even just 125 MPH on present NEC ROW with alterations can -- with one stop in PHL complete the 225 miles WASH - NYP in about 2 hrs flat. Those speeds fit the current capabilities of Acelas. More importantly that would allow Acelas to make more trips in a regular day without decreasing turn times.
Standard NEC trips with the ~ 8 - 10 stops shoud be able to reduce trip times from average 3:25 to ~ 2:30 - 2;:50. Again allowing quicker equipment turns.
Unfortunately the NYP -- BOS route does not have the track profiles to elimate many slow sections. That section is really going to need the inland re route. to reduce times. Probably first complete the Hartford - BOS new route ?
So again IMHO 225 miles is the minimun distance for a non stop 220 MPH train over a dedicated 2 track ROW that could be scheduled in about 1:25 - 1:30. Eenroute figures reflect the necessary padding of any route schedule because of necessary closings of 1 track for maintenance or any other reason. IMO it is much better to arrive early 10 times than be late once.
This maintenance requirements will slow all 2 track HSR routes where ever built ?
If HrSR is ever extended to Richmond then the 334 miles from NYP might be a game changer
Sam1 The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222. The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes. I saved $122 by opting for a business class seat on the regional train. I wonder how many people would choose to pay a $122 premium to save 15 minutes if they were paying it out of their pocket? If the answer, as I suspect, is not many, it should raise a question as to the incremental value of high speed rail vs medium speed rail.
Drawing that argument to its (absurd) extension: Megabus would be happy to haul you from some street corner in NYC to another street corner in Baltimore, spending 3 hours and 10 minutes doing so (at least they claim they can do it in that time) for as low as $10 (at least on the random day I looked at). So why is anyone paying more to take the train or even the plane? After all, for an extra 50 or so minutes on the road, you could save a cool $92!
Of course, Megabus doesn't have business class seats…
CJtrainguy Sam1 The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222. The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes. I saved $122 by opting for a business class seat on the regional train. I wonder how many people would choose to pay a $122 premium to save 15 minutes if they were paying it out of their pocket? If the answer, as I suspect, is not many, it should raise a question as to the incremental value of high speed rail vs medium speed rail. Drawing that argument to its (absurd) extension: Megabus would be happy to haul you from some street corner in NYC to another street corner in Baltimore, spending 3 hours and 10 minutes doing so (at least they claim they can do it in that time) for as low as $10 (at least on the random day I looked at). So why is anyone paying more to take the train or even the plane? After all, for an extra 50 or so minutes on the road, you could save a cool $92! Of course, Megabus doesn't have business class seats…
CJTRANGUY, there are many reasons for the differences and the choices. First I'll point out a fact that bus drivers and travel agents revealed to me: people are more likely to get motion sickness aboard a bus than any other form of transportation. Second, there is probably more reliability in a train schedule than a bus especially in the traffic clogged Corridor area. Third, as you mentioned, bus lacks business class and there are people who want and can afford luxuries and comforts and are willing to pay for them. Fourth, and it goes with three, price isn't everything...the luxury, the timing, the locations, etc. all come into play. If there were only one criteria for getting from A to B, there would not be so many choices. You get what you pay for as long as your willing to pay for what you get.
The point of the fare comparison was to show the difference between Acela and NEC regional fares. And raise a question by implication. Given the slight difference in scheduled times from New York to Baltimore, should the United States invest in high speed rail (220 mph) or moderate speed rail (125 to 160 mph).
The NEC covers its operating costs. However, because of the large infrastructure costs required to support higher speeds, it loses more than $400 million per year after factoring in depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. After depreciation, etc., the NEC loses nearly as much money per passenger mile as the long distance trains.
If the investment in high speed rail could be funded by private interests, as opposed to the taxpayers, then its promoters would have a good case for it. Unfortunately, as per the California High Speed Rail Project, no private investors without hooks in the project have step forth with any money for high speed rail anywhere. So the financial burden falls onto the taxpayers.
Megabus, which is owned by a British company, makes money. One can argue that it does not pay its fair share of the infrastructure that it uses, but that argument is not supported by every expert. In any case, it gets no direct cash subsidies from the federal and/or state governments. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Amtrak.
CJtrainguy So why is anyone paying more to take the train or even the plane? After all, for an extra 50 or so minutes on the road, you could save a cool $92!
While Acela is a lot more expensive than a bus it is also Amtrak's most popular service. Many Acelas run full. The train riding public likes them.
Actually, Acela could run significantly faster on the same tracks with a new constant tension catenary. Amtrak will put it in. Where there is none the catenary reached the end of its useful life years ago. So while Acela does not now offer much in the way of a speed advantage it will in the future.
There are levels of markets where the members of that market are willing to pay the price for what they want or think they are getting. Thus it may surprise those who couldn't afford Acela to understand why and how one can afford and will pay for Acela or business class on Regional. Conversely there are those who ride these trains who don't understand why others won't sacrifice the extra dollars for the comfort or conveniences they enjoy. Marketers know the differences and will play to each to get the most money out of each.
henry6 There are levels of markets where the members of that market are willing to pay the price for what they want or think they are getting.
There are levels of markets where the members of that market are willing to pay the price for what they want or think they are getting.
To expand on Henry's statement. It has been stated by several persons including a Bill Moyers program that the highest level of wealth is now inside the Capitol beltway.
blue streak 1 henry6 There are levels of markets where the members of that market are willing to pay the price for what they want or think they are getting. To expand on Henry's statement. It has been stated by several persons including a Bill Moyers program that the highest level of wealth is now inside the Capitol beltway.
I have seen several other reports that make the same claim. Why? Could it possibly be because of the growth of the federal government and the direct beneficiaries, i.e. lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, etc.who reside in the counties surrounding the nation's capitol?
In FY12 10.87 per cent of Amtrak's passengers rode the Acela. And 29.7 per cent of the NEC passengers rode it.
Is the selection of the Acela a function of the passengers willingness to pay the up-market fares for the Acela?Or is it because many if not most of the Acela passengers are traveling on an expense account? Which means that the cost of the ride ultimately will be passed through to rider's customers, clients, or taxpayers. Which further means that many if not most of the riders are not really paying the premium fare to ride the Acela. Someone else is picking up the tab.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Companies pay for Acela for the same reason they pay for employees to go by plane instead of bus. Time is money. Upgrade to first class? A rested individual is more productive.
oltmanndPeople traveling on the company dime will ride Acela. Most companies will ante up for Acela.
Only the executive team in the Fortune 250 corporation that I worked for were permitted to upgrade to business class. No one was permitted to fly first class. Everyone else was required to fly economy class, on the lowest cost airline, except when traveling to and from Australia.
Travel by train was not common in our company. On a rare occasion an employee might be traveling to a location where use of one of the corridor trains was desirable, i.e. NEC, California, etc. They were expected to travel coach.
Our travel policies, procedures, and practices were aligned with those of a cross section of other Fortune 500 companies. Periodically the travel group surveyed a statistical sample of other companies to be sure that we were following similar practices. Thus, I am not sure that most corporations would ante up for the Acela. Some law firms, investment bankers, government employees, etc. might, especially given that they can fob the cost off on their clients, customers, and taxpayers.
As I noted in my original posting, the scheduled time difference for the Acela and NEC regional train between NYC and Balitmore was 15 minutes. The fare difference between the Acela and NEC regional business class was $120. The difference between the Acela and NEC coach would have been $173. That translates into some pretty expensive minutes. But that's just the fare differences. Add in the fully allocated cost of the Acela and the differences are even greater.
Hopefully the railroad companies that I hold stock do a good job of managing their travel expenses. Allowing employees to book the Acela to save 15 minutes at an incremental cost of $120 to $173 is not effective cost management.
Sam1 As I noted in my original posting, the scheduled time difference for the Acela and NEC regional train between NYC and Balitmore was 15 minutes. The fare difference between the Acela and NEC regional business class was $120. The difference between the Acela and NEC coach would have been $173. That translates into some pretty expensive minutes. But that's just the fare differences. Add in the fully allocated cost of the Acela and the differences are even greater.
I know a number of people who would consider that cost difference a part of doing business and pay for it because they perceive a greater value. Just because you or I don't see it that way, doesn't mean the value isn't there.
There are plenty of rail lines in the world that have been upgraded with new or partially new alignments at significant cost to save on the order of 15 minutes of travel time point to point. Just as there are plenty of examples of freight lines being realigned to cut out a steep hill or a very curvy stretch. Viewed over 10-20-30 years that time saved can make the cost almost no-brainer (except the cost is up front and the benefit comes in increments over years).
Where high speed rail has been introduced, ridership goes up. In a number of corridors, rail readily beats flying and captures the higher market share.
I am thankful that we have the NEC as it is today. I also know that there is lots more potential. Improved tracks, catenary and so on. I ride NJT from New York Penn to New Brunswick and wonder at the leisurely pace of the train. A comparable train in Europe would be moving at a top speed of 100mph, making all the same stops. Fast acceleration and slowing down. Shaves a few minutes off the travel time and makes it all more of a choice compared to driving.
I agree with other posters that the capabilities of NEC aren't exhausted. It is an infrastructure that was largely built for another time. Amtrak's master plan for investment calls for cutting travel time NYP - WAS about in half. Not a 15 minute difference.
I think a good part of the argument comes down to whether one believes that high speed rail is needed and worthwhile. If one does, one will find arguments to support the idea and look for creative (and possibly incremental) ways to bring it about. If one doesn't, then one will decry the 'horrendous" cost of building HSR.
Stepping outside NEC, an HSR alignment from New York to Chicago would be a boon for both end points and the cities along the route. If the HSR followed the current Lake Shore limited route, travel time end-point to end-point could be down to 7-8 hours, depending on the number of stops. An alignment along the I-80 corridor could get all the way down to 5 hours. Those are very attractive travel times and will draw travelers from planes, especially as time on a train is all productive time, whereas time on a plane is only partly productive (gotta put everything away for landing/takeoff, no phone, etc). But we're back to funding and the standby argument that if it was such a good idea, private investment would have built it already. I guess I just don't have that much faith in private investment where the timeframe is usually the next quarterly report, rather how what we build today will perform in 10 years.
Bravo!! A well-stated argument for HSR in selected corridors.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And CJ, it is not the NY-Chi passengers that will make that corridor reallyworthwhile, but NY-Buffalo, Rocohester - Cleveland, Buffalo - Toledo., Cleveland - South Bend, Albany - Elkhart, etc. It is whole bunch of useful short corridors strung together. It could start with service every two hours and then go to hourlly as business developes, and then add an overnight train with suitably priced sleepers, possibly to be run by the new Pullman operation.
daveklepper And CJ, it is not the NY-Chi passengers that will make that corridor reallyworthwhile, but NY-Buffalo, Rocohester - Cleveland, Buffalo - Toledo., Cleveland - South Bend, Albany - Elkhart, etc. It is whole bunch of useful short corridors strung together. It could start with service every two hours and then go to hourlly as business developes, and then add an overnight train with suitably priced sleepers, possibly to be run by the new Pullman operation.
Absolutely.
The distance is perfect for an overnight train. Yes, I have ridden the Lake Shore Limited. The current about 20 hour schedule is significantly longer than the 20th Century schedule of 16 hours. And even that was too long for an overnight jump. Ideal would be a 9-10pm departure and a 7-8am arrival. That would require a total running time of about 10 hours.
As in other countries, HSR can be achieved by strategically building new alignments or upgrading segments. It doesn't have to be the entire line at once. There just needs to be a plan behind it. We are seeing upgrades happen on the NEC. Amtrak is also upgrading its Michigan line from Chicago and the line to St Louis. Better alignment/track cuts a few minutes off the travel time and/or improves on-time performance, both vital for attracting and keeping riders.
On many lines in the US, I'd be quite happy to see passenger trains move at 79mph consistently and not have to go in the hole for freights.
Much is true, but with several provisos.
1. Getting the freight lines to accommodate a real passenger service (not just a few trains) at a much higher average speed is going to be very hard.
2. The concept of an LD train running as segmented and overlapping corridors ignores the factor of schedules. Even if you could have that 21st Century Ltd. departing CHI at 9 and arrive in NYP at 7 or 8, it is not likely you will have many passengers getting on east of Toledo or getting off before Albany. Better to have some additional short corridors between city pairs en route if a market study justifies.
schlimm Much is true, but with several provisos. 1. Getting the freight lines to accommodate a real passenger service (not just a few trains) at a much higher average speed is going to be very hard. 2. The concept of an LD train running as segmented and overlapping corridors ignores the factor of schedules. Even if you could have that 21st Century Ltd. departing CHI at 9 and arrive in NYP at 7 or 8, it is not likely you will have many passengers getting on east of Toledo or getting off before Albany. Better to have some additional short corridors between city pairs en route if a market study justifies.
#1. Agreed. A freight railroad has no particular incentive to have track, signaling, etc to support speeds over 79mph. Many lines aren't even cleared for that speed. There is a reason PRR and NYC had their mainlines 4 tracked on busy segments. That has of course by and large been done away with. At the same time, UP owns the line from Chicago to St Louis that is being upgraded to 110mph. Obviously an agreement was reached there. In Illinois/Iowa, the Iowa Interstate Railroad has indicated that they are interested in the plans and studies for extending passenger service from Chicago first to Quad Cities, then to Iowa City and eventually to Omaha over the old Rock Island main line. That in spite of the fact that the track and signaling will need very significant upgrades to handle 79mph service, let alone anything faster.
#2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am. For that reason, night trains have a more limited audience than day trains. In Europe when high speed lines and trains came around, many night trains were casualties, as people can get from here to there in a day or part of the day trip. The high speed trains combined speed and frequency to attract riders.
But with increased speed on the CHI-NYC line, a train can leave Chicago in the morning and be in New York in the evening. With several trains during the day, all kinds of city pairs along the line become attractive, in addition to the end-point to end-point ones.
Just a note to CJ's of immediately above:
In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight.
The Iowa Interstate has scads of spare capacity and could use the taxpayer-funded upgrade to add freight service it will never see otherwise. Naturally, it is welcoming.
dakotafred Just a note to CJ's of immediately above: In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight. The Iowa Interstate has scads of spare capacity and could use the taxpayer-funded upgrade to add freight service it will never see otherwise. Naturally, it is welcoming.
Correct in both cases. The issue of fitting passenger trains in together with freight is not limited to the US either. European railroads face the same issue. The solution in many cases is to run fast passenger trains over dedicated lines.
CJtrainguy #1. Agreed. A freight railroad has no particular incentive to have track, signaling, etc to support speeds over 79mph. Many lines aren't even cleared for that speed. There is a reason PRR and NYC had their mainlines 4 tracked on busy segments. That has of course by and large been done away with. At the same time, UP owns the line from Chicago to St Louis that is being upgraded to 110mph. Obviously an agreement was reached there. In Illinois/Iowa, the Iowa Interstate Railroad has indicated that they are interested in the plans and studies for extending passenger service from Chicago first to Quad Cities, then to Iowa City and eventually to Omaha over the old Rock Island main line. That in spite of the fact that the track and signaling will need very significant upgrades to handle 79mph service, let alone anything faster. #2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am.
#2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am.
It is one thing to get cooperation from the UP and other rails for fairly lightly used lines. It is quite another to get accommodations for much faster and higher speed trains on the busy old NYC main. Even now, Empire State service suffers.
dakotafred ... In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight. ...
...
Yes, Amtrak some time ago bought the line west of Kalamazoo, and Michigan is buying (with significant fed money) the line east of K'zoo from NS (rather than CSX). Conrail previously moved the thru freight off the line.
Before I retired, I worked for a large corporation in northern New Jersey, and travelled frequently between Newark and D.C. My company actively discouraged employees from flying between Newark and D.C., requiring them to take Amtrak whenever possible.
We were allowed to travel on the Acela trains for several reasons, many noted here already. However, the most significant reason was that the company had a contract with Amtrak that included a volume discount on ticket prices. The first x tickets purchased by the company each month cost $$$, the next y tickets cost $$, the remaining tickets cost $. The Travel Manager told me that during high volume months, he could buy me a ticket on Acela business class for less than I could buy a coach ticket by myself on a regional train.
To discourage department managers from waiting until the end of the month to send their employees to D.C., in order to get the z discount, an average discount was calculated for all of the tickets purchased in each month and applied to each ticket.
It appears that many posters have good ideas. The main item that IMHO is important is a gradual reduction in running times and more on time arrivals at every station of a route ( Probably within 15 Minutes ) How do you achieve these goals. ? I would propose the following items. Since capital funds at present are not very available there has to be very careful upgrades. :
1. Pick those current ROW segments that can be built with a HrSR ( 110 MPH ) track. An example is CHI - STL with 25 ft centers to allow trains to pass work areas without speed restrictions. Another example is what is happening in Michigan. Mi just has to upgrade a single track with passing sidings althoughif it is very sucessful then more double track will be necessary.
2. Concentrate on those segments that are cronically late. ONLY An example is the Empire builder around Fargo. CHI area delays.
3. Start connecting these 110 HeSR segments.. Ex - connecting segments at Battle Creek with a separate track.
4. Once enough segments are complete with better travel times then slowly reduce schedule times on those segments that show some percentage on time ( maybe 90% ) but delays caused by outside forces are not counted ( tresspassers, floods, etc ).
What to do to speed the funds available ?
5. Start now to let the publec know how much time each project on route will save in schedule times with a route flyer First distribute theseflyers to current passengers what each project on a route would save in travel times and also the total time that will be saved on that route. Total time saved on those high useage station pairs So if project X saves 10 minutes, project Y saves 12 minutes. project Z saves 15 miunutes then total savings on route X - Z would be 37 minutes & X - Y 22 min.. This would give an immediate imput from present riders to the powers that be.
Then these flyers will eventually get to potential riders to widen the imput to POLs
The upgrades to the NEC CAT will be one example that can be an example to riders. Once some reduction in schedule times are implemented flyers can tout thse improvements. Maybe a project for NARP ?.
Some routes that are either already done or in progress is:
6. NC DOT from CLT - Raleigh - Selma
7. Additional triple track Richmond - WASH ( some double at Ashland )
8. CAT upgrade Trenton - New Brunswick
9. PHL - Harrisburg 110 MPH eventually 125 MPH
10. Amtrak operated POU - Schenectady double tack, signal, crossing & other upgrades
11. Springfield - Vermont upgrade of old B&M track.
12. Downeaster upgrades
13. Michigan upgrades
14. CHI - STL
15. Orlando Sun Rail
16. CPRR CHI - MKE
17. Wa DOT SEA - PDX
18. Capitol corridor on UP. This route takes most delays due to the Suisan Bay draw bridge interferrence ( 1 - 2 times a day on average. ) Bridge over 1 mile in length and probably will not have its own high bridge until HSR goes OAK - Sacremento. ( route now already 90% + on time ) )
19. Various routes in the LAX area.
What are the route impediments not now under construction ? Certainly others can come up with other problem areas.
21. .Various NEC segments.
22. CSX Wash - Richmond
23. CSX "A" line Richmond jax especially Richmond Florence
24. NS various portions NOL -- ATL
25. NS Greensboro -- ALX
26. Buckham Branch RR
27. Empire route
28. NS Porter -- CHI
29. The biggie -- Empire builder Fargo -- Minot
30. Raton Pass problem.
How to classify the Sunset route in progress double tracking ?
I did not overlook the matter of schedules when considering NY - Chi via the Lake Shore LMTd route. Note that I proposed the overnighter as the last addition to the schedule, where as now it (with far slower travel) is the only train. I was thinking of initially departures from NY and Chicago at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, with the 15 (3PM) departure the last running through to the end point. Th 17 dparture from NY would go as far a Toledo and then be there for the early morning Toledo - Chicago train, and the 19 wouldgo only as far as Cleveland, the 21 only far as Rochester. The daytime corredor business is the business to go after, and only after it is successful would on overnighter be scheduled, possibly basiclly the new Pullman company's train with a few coaches for those who wish to travel overnight economically.
daveklepper I did not overlook the matter of schedules when considering NY - Chi via the Lake Shore LMTd route. Note that I proposed the overnighter as the last addition to the schedule, where as now it (with far slower travel) is the only train. I was thinking of initially departures from NY and Chicago at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, with the 15 (3PM) departure the last running through to the end point. Th 17 dparture from NY would go as far a Toledo and then be there for the early morning Toledo - Chicago train, and the 19 wouldgo only as far as Cleveland, the 21 only far as Rochester. The daytime corredor business is the business to go after, and only after it is successful would on overnighter be scheduled, possibly basiclly the new Pullman company's train with a few coaches for those who wish to travel overnight economically.
The schedule you are suggesting is quite similar to what is in place on many European high speed lines, and working well. I'd just add a 5 or 5:30am departure from CHI and NYP. Really not too early to get started on the travel and certainly not earlier than many flights. Similarly, these trains would arrive at their scheduled terminus by no later than midnight.
The key feature is that late departures from an endpoint don't run all the way, but terminate at some suitable city to become next morning's early train out of there. That way intermediate cities experience a wide variety of travel opportunities throughout the day.
Sam1 On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service. The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222. The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes.
The answer to your question is easy: Amtrak is "segmenting" their market. In other words, try to get customers to pay for a service based on what it is worth to them rather than charging all customers the same flat rate. Car companies do this -- the fat margins on "luxury cars" pay the bills whereas the thin margins on "economy cars" wouldn't keep a car company solvent.
Even electric power companies are doing that -- charging a premium for "green power." It is the same kWHr's delivered with the same reliability, it is just that you can have a clear conscience about using windmill electricity to power your air conditioner.
Except that you are getting "green power" and your neighbor is getting "dirty, coal generated" power is a marketing gimmick in that that coal plant supplies electric network reliability that both you and your neighbor both depend on. If your utility could interrupt your power when the wind isn't blowing, I would start believing in the green aspect, and who knows, with electric cars and energy storage in their battery, such a market may develop.
So, I don't know why people will pay the extra ($120 dollars from your numbers and my calculation) for the Acela. Some business travellers may be subject to travel rules that OK this? There are enough wealthy people who prefer the Acela for the cachet?
I mean, why did you spring for the $37 for Business Class? Is it really that much more comfortable, or could you afford the upgrade and you decided, "What the hey? I earned this treat." I saved my money and I am going to buy a Lincoln, even though it is the same Mazda automobile coming off the same assembly line in Hermasillo, Mexico as the Ford Fusion.
The good thing is that Amtrak appears to be squeezing its customers on the NEC to contribute a maximum amount of revenue -- through market segmentation -- rather than relying on the taxpayer. The bad news is that they have to charge those fares and they kinda, sorta break even on the above-the-rails costs suggests that trains are an inherently expensive way of moving people. If everyone were sensible as you and decided to forgo the 15 minute time saving, Amtrak would cost the government more money. So here is to people who have money . . . and are willing to part with it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.