dakotafred Go ahead, you East Coasters, Illini, Californians, Washingtonians, Oregonians, et al.: Scuttle the LD trains the rest of us ride, then see how much help our congressional reps give you with your systems, which also lose money. Most of your states are broke, as opposed to our states in flyover country; let's see how eager, or able, you are to steam your trains all by yourselves.
Go ahead, you East Coasters, Illini, Californians, Washingtonians, Oregonians, et al.:
Scuttle the LD trains the rest of us ride, then see how much help our congressional reps give you with your systems, which also lose money. Most of your states are broke, as opposed to our states in flyover country; let's see how eager, or able, you are to steam your trains all by yourselves.
Exactly -- there are 19 states between the Mississippi River and the West Coast tier. Discontinue the LD trains and you risk losing votes in the Senate. Combine those with the seven mid South and southern states that would lose service, and you are at more than half of the Senate.
At that point who supplies the funds for new rail equipment, bridges and tunnels? It's more than just Amtrak as your rail transit systems by and large also do not generate sufficient funds to meet their capital needs. By our standards, you already are taxed heavily; are you prepared to raise income, sales and property taxes sufficiently to make up the shortfall?
I suspect the folks at Amtrak can also count votes.
NKPGuy
Ohio could have been well on the way to a real passenger rail system, and still could if you elect a decent governor.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Okay. It's a deal. Where do I sign? We got next to nothing here in GA anyway.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Bravo, dakotafred!
You speak for me. As an Ohioan and a loyal patron of The Lake Shore Limited, I couldn't agree more.
oltmannd Nice blurb in Railroad News. Gist of it is three year plan to get losses to zero though a series of initiatives the involve technology and just plain paying attention to business. Nearly all the losses are on the LD trains (surely, they charge-back first class "free" meals at menu prices...) Technology will reduce paperwork and time spent by on board personnel and allow them to focus on selling. Also will help with inventory mgt, and control. Will review menus more often to keep things fresh. It seems like Amtrak is slowly waking up. Maybe they don't like being such an easy target for the "antis"?
Nice blurb in Railroad News.
Gist of it is three year plan to get losses to zero though a series of initiatives the involve technology and just plain paying attention to business. Nearly all the losses are on the LD trains (surely, they charge-back first class "free" meals at menu prices...)
Technology will reduce paperwork and time spent by on board personnel and allow them to focus on selling. Also will help with inventory mgt, and control. Will review menus more often to keep things fresh.
It seems like Amtrak is slowly waking up. Maybe they don't like being such an easy target for the "antis"?
Don and Sam1:
Don said : [snip]"...Nearly all the losses are on the LD trains (surely, they charge-back first class "free" meals at menu prices...)..." [snip]
AMTRAK has been in business roughly 40 years (give or take). The problem of loss in their food service has got to be some endemic problem in their system. [My Guess] At one point some time back there was a kerfuffle over some apparent employee theft from their food service revenues(?). NOw that seems NOT to be the problem.(?).
Don's statement referencing the "Free" meals provided ( to The people traveling in the rooms, and sleeping facilities) Makes this seem to be an accounting practice (that may or may not be beneficial) to AMTRAK's Business Model. Would seem to be a simple fix to rework the way those "Free" meals are reported. So it would seem that AMTRAK is getting some benefit to the accounting practice. Otherwise it would have been eliminated some time ago?
If AMTRAK canniot make money providing food service to their'Captive Crowd" why not contract food service out to a company that has expertise in either an airline food service environment or to some company that has expertise in institutional food service environment? But then I would guess the 'Mountain to climb' there is various Union agreement and their comitment to the employees compensation fund ( retirements, etc) . Or you revert back a hundred years or more to the practices of the 19th century or other nations when independent food vendors swarmed travelers with foods of potentially questionable quality.
PNWRMNM schlimm Fares on NEC between NYP and PHL = .$.58 - 1.65 per mile. Fare between CHI and Fargo = $ .14 - .24 per mile. So Amtrak is charging a premium in the NEC to subsidize the below cost fares for the EB, a typical LD train (not the worst performer). This is not right. What is not right and why? Mac
schlimm Fares on NEC between NYP and PHL = .$.58 - 1.65 per mile. Fare between CHI and Fargo = $ .14 - .24 per mile. So Amtrak is charging a premium in the NEC to subsidize the below cost fares for the EB, a typical LD train (not the worst performer). This is not right.
What is not right and why?
Mac
Amtrak is charging what the market will bear, which (I guess) is a Good Thing (tm).
People are willing to pay those seemingly exhorbitant fares in the NEC because they find value in them -- the airline competition, in that market, costs even more and is less convenient and in some instances perhaps slower?
People are paying much lower per-mile fares on the Empire Builder because the airline competition achieves a kind of economy of scale on longer trips (there are costs associated with takeoffs and landings -- each powering up the jet engines to takeoff thrust literally machines off some of the critical turbine blade clearances, so the more miles on a jet flight, the cheaper it is per mile).
The thing behind the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and HrSR is that with signal upgrades you could once again run the speeds of the old steam Milwaukee Road Hiawathas and the Pennsy T-1's roaring along the Fort Wayne Division in the Midwest flatlands. Using lighweight Talgo consists with Diesel power, you could get much better acceleration than the heavier steam-powered consists and even better those schedules.
The theory is that in the Midwest and without electrification and with the HrSR model, you could get NEC-like schedules and start charging higher fares without breaking the bank on the line upgrades. That the NEC is able to offer a service of sufficient value to charge those fares points a way forward for passenger trains, but that the fares are that high suggests that passenger trains are inherently a high-cost mode, and yet the Midwest plan was to point the way of doing NEC-levels of service on a budget.
The Ohio and Wisconsin segments of the MWRRI, as everyone knows, ran into trouble with the outcome of elections that weren't really about trains whereas the Illinois and Michigan segments moved forward, but the Illinois runs were beset by "freight train interference" as evidence of poor cooperation from the host railroad for "doing this cheaply" (or at that was Rick Harnish's complaint in newsletters I had seen) whereas the Michigan segment is stuck up against "being held hostage" by CSX slow orders until Amtrak buys up more of the line?
What a country and what a concept. Have the trains provide value to the passengers to justify higher fares to pay for their operations while at the same time utilizing existing right-of-ways that once supported world-class record-breaking passenger speeds? The challenge, as always, is in the execution of such plans.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Don, this is what I find absolutely amazing. You come along, and you didn't propose some kind of dodgy "Amtrak reform", you merely linked to Amtrak drafting a plan to improve the management of onboard food service. This is something that Amtrak wants to do, apply modern management methods to their dining and cafe cars. And the kind folks who are participating in this forum have run this thread up to, what is it, 5 or 6 pages, arguing the merits of this? This isn't Congress mandating something, this isn't the Heritage Foundation with a crazy idea, this is Amtrak's management, out of their dedication to their jobs, wanting to make food service work better according to some metric, and this is controversial? People are arguing about this?
Don, this is what I find absolutely amazing.
You come along, and you didn't propose some kind of dodgy "Amtrak reform", you merely linked to Amtrak drafting a plan to improve the management of onboard food service. This is something that Amtrak wants to do, apply modern management methods to their dining and cafe cars.
And the kind folks who are participating in this forum have run this thread up to, what is it, 5 or 6 pages, arguing the merits of this?
This isn't Congress mandating something, this isn't the Heritage Foundation with a crazy idea, this is Amtrak's management, out of their dedication to their jobs, wanting to make food service work better according to some metric, and this is controversial? People are arguing about this?
Your correct. We have strayed like sheep. So here is the core question with respect to Amtrak's food and beverage service.
Amtrak has had more than 40 years to get it right. It has not done so. But according to Boardman Amtrak will be on top of it in another five years. What makes anyone believe that another five years is going to see the problem fixed when management has not been able to fix it for forty years.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
oltmannd Paul Milenkovic Don, this is what I find absolutely amazing. You come along, and you didn't propose some kind of dodgy "Amtrak reform", you merely linked to Amtrak drafting a plan to improve the management of onboard food service. This is something that Amtrak wants to do, apply modern management methods to their dining and cafe cars. And the kind folks who are participating in this forum have run this thread up to, what is it, 5 or 6 pages, arguing the merits of this? This isn't Congress mandating something, this isn't the Heritage Foundation with a crazy idea, this is Amtrak's management, out of their dedication to their jobs, wanting to make food service work better according to some metric, and this is controversial? People are arguing about this? Down the rabbit hole, we go! There aren't any forum restrictions on animal burrows, apparently.
Down the rabbit hole, we go!
There aren't any forum restrictions on animal burrows, apparently.
Boardman claims that 99 per cent of the food and beverage losses are incurred on the long distance trains. Get rid of the long distance trains, and the problem largely goes away. Get rid of the long distance trains and Amtrak has an operating profit. Therefore, although it is pushing the outside of the topical scope envelope, I think some discussion of the correlation between food and beverage losses and long distance trains is within scope.
schlimmFares on NEC between NYP and PHL = .$.58 - 1.65 per mile. Fare between CHI and Fargo = $ .14 - .24 per mile. So Amtrak is charging a premium in the NEC to subsidize the below cost fares for the EB, a typical LD train (not the worst performer). This is not right.
Fares paid are an indication of the value of the service.
NY - PHL by train = valuable!
Fargo - CHI = not valuable! (relatively speaking..)
There's a couple things going on, I think.
One is the "protect the LD train" crowd gets a bit anxious anytime someone suggests a change to the service. Every change often gets looked at as a veiled attempt to somehow destroy LD trains and all of Amtrak with it. It's even been suggested here that breaking even on food service means getting rid of food service on LD trains even though Amtrak's plans include nothing of the sort. Perhaps some of the anxiety is born from knowing deep down that the LD trains are extremely hard to justify to non railfans?
The second is related and I think it's trying to square up that Amtrak may actually agree with some of their harshest critics on some things. Mica holds his circus about Amtrak losing money on food. Amtrak reacts by coming up with a plan to break even on food. Coincidence? Not likely. Might the critics be right about other things? I think it's more of an indication that Amtrak is slowly waking up - which can't be anything but good. Maybe being forced to wear the clown suit you unknowingly wove for yourself in public is embarrassing? If you don't want to be a "target", then don't paint bulls-eyes on yourself!
If you mind is made up that...
1) Amtrak is doing the best they can with what they have (I used to think this)
2) Amtrak is staffed by "true believers" who run a tight ship and know what a "real" passenger train is. (I used to think this, too!)
3) A map full of lines is a transportation network and more are better. (I like maps!)
...you're going to have a hard time assimilating any information that runs contrary to your beliefs. It's pretty well known that people tend to ignore new, conflicting information, or at the minimum, try to bend it to fit their beliefs. I think that's what's going on here.
schlimm Sam1 In FY12 all three of the NEC service lines (Acela, NE Regional, and NE Special Trains) generated an operating profit ($206.5 million, $72.2 million, and $3.2 million). The Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, and Carolinian State Supported....... trains also generated an operating profit ($8.4 million, $3.0 million, and $.9 million). The Washington-Lynchburg and Washington-Newport News trains are really extended NEC regional trains. Whether the Virginia extensions generated an operating profit is unclear. Even better! More evidence of the value of short corridors - people use them, heavily. And the operating loss of the long distance trains is...? And what percentage is that of Amtrak's overall operating loss?
Sam1 In FY12 all three of the NEC service lines (Acela, NE Regional, and NE Special Trains) generated an operating profit ($206.5 million, $72.2 million, and $3.2 million). The Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, and Carolinian State Supported....... trains also generated an operating profit ($8.4 million, $3.0 million, and $.9 million). The Washington-Lynchburg and Washington-Newport News trains are really extended NEC regional trains. Whether the Virginia extensions generated an operating profit is unclear.
In FY12 all three of the NEC service lines (Acela, NE Regional, and NE Special Trains) generated an operating profit ($206.5 million, $72.2 million, and $3.2 million).
The Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, and Carolinian State Supported....... trains also generated an operating profit ($8.4 million, $3.0 million, and $.9 million). The Washington-Lynchburg and Washington-Newport News trains are really extended NEC regional trains. Whether the Virginia extensions generated an operating profit is unclear.
Blame me, in part, then for expanding the topic to examining LD services.
What the NEC does is provide service in volume, and that makes the difference. The more volume, the cheaper the unit cost, in virtually any field. The problem with passenger trains in North America is that a single daily (or tri-weekly) train will never be able to generate volume. For certain corridors, expanding the service may generate the volumes necessary to look as good as the NEC financials. Frequent departures mean that a train may be available at the time a passenger wishes to travel, and so it becomes a viable option. But to expand requires investment in additional equipment and tracks, which is almost impossible with today's negative attitude. Note that while speed helps, frequency is more important. The best way to save 2 hours on a trip is not having to wait four hours (or until tomorrow) for the next train.
While this obviously best fits the corridor model, we should not lose sight of the fact that many LD trains also serve a corridor function in certain segments of their route. But with only one daily schedule the times are mostly too inconvenient to encourage use. Or the seats are already filled with longer distance travelers.
John
schlimmAmtraker seems to think HSR and HrSR are too expensive for us,
I'm not sure they think much about it at all.
henry6Need 5000 seats....ok...but you need 5000 usable and saleable seats.
But, you don't let the Mechanical department make that determination! (Exactly who do you think was the primary author of Amtrak's fleet plan?)
The "old school" of railroading is one where the Mechanical Dept. "owns" the equipment, so they'll have something to work on, I suppose. If you are lucky, they'll let the operating dept use it once and a while. Marketing's job is to figure out how to price the service the operating dept decides to provide. Sales gets to advertise it. It's classic "Tail wagging the dog".
henry6The seat capacity is also not just determined by the 5000 actual seats but also by how many times the car is used per day,..thus a 80 seat car on four trains a day is actual 320 seat capacity....more if the seat is turned over, used more than once per trip...
Geez, no kidding!
Need 5000 seats....ok...but you need 5000 usable and saleable seats. Tie down some Adirondack chairs on a flat car or upholstered turn back seat with head rests and antimacassars and leg rests and cup holders, two by two with tinted picture windows? Tilt back for sleeping or ridged?
The seat capacity is also not just determined by the 5000 actual seats but also by how many times the car is used per day,..thus a 80 seat car on four trains a day is actual 320 seat capacity....more if the seat is turned over, used more than once per trip...
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.
oltmannd My feeling is the US citizens and Congress would not blanch at billions to build some HSR routes (or even HrSR routes) as long as they weren't on the hook for long term operating subsidies. This may not be the optimum case - e.g. you might be better off spending a fraction on construction of HrSR and feed it an operating subsidy than multiples on HSR to avoid the operating subsidy. The two, pivotal events right now are the California HSR project and "All Aboard Florida". Any measure of success on these could lead to more of the same.
My feeling is the US citizens and Congress would not blanch at billions to build some HSR routes (or even HrSR routes) as long as they weren't on the hook for long term operating subsidies.
This may not be the optimum case - e.g. you might be better off spending a fraction on construction of HrSR and feed it an operating subsidy than multiples on HSR to avoid the operating subsidy.
The two, pivotal events right now are the California HSR project and "All Aboard Florida". Any measure of success on these could lead to more of the same.
1. Distance between major nodes is a major factor in terms of needed speed.
2. Incremental approaches are also useful, as you and others have noted.
3. A middle ground between 225 and 110 mph (175?) might make more sense and be cheaper.
4. Amtraker seems to think HSR and HrSR are too expensive for us, yet so many other industialized nations seem to be able to afford. I would ask why it is that folks like him who apparently like Amtrak don't want HSR here? After all, the only portion of Amtrak that covers above rail expenses is the Acela service, actually showing a surplus.
henry6Buy an automobile for basic transportation. All you need is a frame, a cab for a seat, a steering wheel and a motor. A comfortable and adjustable seat, heat and air conditioning, wipers, radio are all beyond basic. What will you buy?
Or is the analogy for Amtrak's equipment capital plan? "Amfleet is getting old. I don't want to think about catching up on all the deferred maintenance and mods in the fleet. That makes me tired just thinking about it. We'd like some new coaches. What should we get?" Instead of "Marketing tells us we will have 5% growth a year on these routes. We need 5000 new seats in coaches to support that growth. What is the lowest cost of ownership path to acquire that capacity?"
AMTRAKKER What level of government spending was required in these countries to build and then sustain this level of service? Would you accept an initial outlay to Amtrak to build a similar service , then an ongoing Amtrak subsidy that was proportionate to these countries if Amtrak provided high speed service?
What level of government spending was required in these countries to build and then sustain this level of service?
Would you accept an initial outlay to Amtrak to build a similar service , then an ongoing Amtrak subsidy that was proportionate to these countries if Amtrak provided high speed service?
What will I buy? With my money? Or, some of my money and some from my "supporters"? Or, with somebody else's money?
Gotta finish the question properly in order for the analogy to work.
And that is why a cost analysis is needed. You won't increase revenue to the break-even point by continuing to underprice the product because the costs are not fixed and extra passengers will not add sufficient marginal revenue to cover even above the rails costs. The labor component is not competitive and too often sub-standard.
I guess I am Oltmannd's #3. The primary problem with current LD operations is that a revenue capacity of about twice what is provided today is needed for each train to reach a financial efficiency point where short-term variable costs (including food service) and some capital are covered. You don't get there by eliminating opportunities to attract more markets to the same train schedule by reducing amenities.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.