No matter what you cut it the service on the Amtrak Acela is very expensive for what it offers. The distance between New York and Washington DC is around 226 miles. The price of a ticket for a Acela train is anywhere from 152 USD to 231 USD. This comes to around 67 cents - 1 dollar per mile, overall very expensive service. This is particularly disconcerting considering the service is not actually high speed for most of the way. For comparison a ticket on the proposed Vegas X Train is 99 USD. The route of the X Train is from Fullerton to Las Vegas a distance of approximately 256 miles. The cost per mile comes to around 39 cents per mile. For further comparison TGV service from Paris to Lyon is around 71 Euros or 96 USD and the distance between Paris and Lyon is around 289 miles. This comes to around 33 cents per mile. Another example is a trip on an ICE train from Frankfurt to Munich, a distance of approximately 244 miles is around 98 Euros or 133 USD. Which comes to around 54 cents per mile. China which is the very extreme of low cost offers HSR from Beijing to Jinan a distance of 272 miles with prices ranging from 124 yuan (20 dollars) to 185 yuan (30 dollars). This comes 7 - 11 cents per mile the very cheapest of them all. For reference all the tickets are one way tickets. Obviously China isn't the Standard to be held to but the Acela is no matter what way you measure more expensive than everything else.
My sources of price info
http://train.qunar.com/stationToStation.htm?fromStation=%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC&toStation=%E6%B5%8E%E5%8D%97
http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak
http://www.thetrainline-europe.com/?gclid=CJX1pfidjLsCFQllfgodcVIALA
http://en.voyages-sncf.com/en/train-ticket/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-and-west/company-plans-rail-service-las-vegas-southern-california-13
Railroad to Freedom
Maybe it is, BNSF, but if people are willing to pay the price, it doesn't matter or it isn't that expensive to them. You may not pay the price but enough others will so that Amtrak can, and should, offer the service.
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.
Easy to answer and already answered by Amtrak I thought.
Amtrak is using price as a way to ration limited seats on the Acela trains. Once it has more seats prices will fall. I thought if you read through their explanation of wanting to add 2 more cars to each trainset (which I think they have changed to all new trainsets) they explained this rationale.
Amtrak realizes there is unfulfilled demand at a lower price point but cannot fullfill it with it's limited capacity or else it will be running all it's trains standing room only and probably turning away hoards of unhappy customers.
I thought this issue came up in an earlier thread where someone (not important whom because that poster is easily upset when you question their analysis) was using a comparison with Megabus. BTW, let me post some surveys here that are a little off topic but help folks understand why comparing to a bus line is probably not a sound analysis when looking at Amtrak. WisDOT did them on the Hiawatha service Chicago-Milwaukee, conducted by Texas A&M I believe. Let me see if I can find them again and link to them. Very informative.
Ah here it is. This is a pretty good and relatively recent short distance corridor study conducted by Texas A&M. I feel it is relevant to this topic as it shows you the motivation for riding the train a short distance on a high frequency corridor. Now granted you can't take this survey and apply it to the Northeast 100% but you can make some generalizations after reading through the survey for other short distance corridors.
http://utcm.tamu.edu/publications/final_reports/Morgan_11-10-75.pdf
Amtrak's marketing is to create a demand for services by increasing cost as availability of of space decreases....the ultimate use of the law of supply and demand in selling a product; one that is argued as the ultimate American free enterprise practice and return.
Overall, Amtrak runs at a deficit. Counting capital costs, even the NE Corridor runs at a definite, even though it may be profitable on an operating costs basis only. Therefore, it is up to Amtrak to try to minimize the deficit. Acela is pricey, but the regular Northeast Direct trains provide reasonable speed and more than adequate comfort and frequency, cost less to travel, and thus there is zero reason to complain about Acela prices. Use Northeast Direct!
Business is not aimed at a democratic audience but select audiences and consumers. Some of them are millionaires and some are not, you just fashion and price your product or service to fit the economic group you are aiming at.
What is your point? ATK is charging what the market will bear which is the correct thing for them to be doing.
Mac
As a "gift" to myself I did splurge and treat myself to a ride on Acela (first class) recently. Even the expensive seats were sold out. I asked the conductor if this was normal and he indicated that every train, every day was sold out until the last train of the evening. I may be no fan of NRPC but I am a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist. More power to them!
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Not all merchandise commerce is conducted at 'The Dollar Store' even though they are the cheapest. Some desire the quality of products and services that are sold at Neiman-Marcus and other high end retailers.
Amtrak passengers are paying the price for value that the service has to them.
Everyone wants high quality products and service for bargin basement prices - but that is not the way the world's economys work. Amtrak is no different.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BNSF,
You are absolutely right. Acela is expensive. I travel on Amtrak NEC trains but I always use their Norteast Regional servcie because Acela is beyond my budget. But many other Amtrak riders disagree with me. Acela is both popular and profitable for Amtrak. Amtrak would like very much to increase the speed of the trains which would make them even more popular and profitable. But while I take a more leisurely trip Acela seems to me something Amtrak is really doing right.
John
Well said, Balt.
Incidentally, I commend you for using a qualifying word with the word "quality." There are uses of the word that do not imply the best--such as if I want to build a board fence, I will not buy quality grade fencing (knotholes, wane on the edges, crook, bow, cup), but will buy Number 2 or better grade (none of the above defects), which is of higher quality than "quality." At least, around here, that is so.
Johnny
Quick anecdote: A couple of years ago I needed to go to Washington so I figured I'd splurge for an Acela reservation. When I got to Penn Station, however, all Acela service had been cancelled due wires down in Maryland. They would exchange the ticket for a Regional Train and refund the difference. Standing at the f.k.a Metropolitan Lounge this was explained to the young lady in front of me in line. Her reply: "I only take Acela." When offered the Regional option, "I don't want to spend all day on a Regional train." I accepted the Regional option (and refund) and the total time was about 25 minutes more than Acela.
There is more to the Acela than speed. It is, simply, a more comfortable experience.
If they were charging too much, the trains would not be full. They should be buying similar modern trains for the entire system.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The only way to increase the passenger capacity of the NEC without enormous infrastructure costs is to increase train speeds, thus allowing more trains to run per hour.with the same distance between them for safety. As time goes by and the new, faster Acela trains come online, the regional trains will likely need to be cut back because of those capacity restraints.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But as to price didn't the group just talk about this. It seems like one of the answers is that the competition, aka business use of automobiles, is priced near the IRS Full mileage rate, at $0.565/mile to which you are allowed to add tolls and parking.
The other answer is that the User's Utility evaluation is done on the value to the traveler of the entire trip time not the difference in trip times, which is only a automobile routing equation shorthand.
Additionally, airfare at this stage length is expensive. Here is Houston to Dallas for an example from 4Q 2012 data.
Here is the entire domestic airfare plot from the same time frame, excluding those nice fees for legroom and baggage.
The approach of speed increases alone would be at odds with other organizations that have taken the path of running up to 16 car consists on their HSR lines. It seems like the lowest cost solution is just to run longer standard consists.
The motorcoach study posted above was interesting in its conclusion "If the rail service did notexist, most Hiawatha Service passengers would travel via personal vehicle, which indicates that the Hiawatha Service is providing congestion relief for the highways parallel to the route".
Motorcoaches don't compete for the same business market in the NEC as intercity rail due to the degree of onboard space (nearly half) and ride comfort. But this also brings out the point that Amtrak could market segmentalize its offerings and pick up those same riders on the same train by just offering small seats at a low non-refundable price with limited access to station or onboard amenties.
I don't think regionals will be cut back. They will run faster too. Catenary and other improvements, particularly near stations, will permit their having faster schedules. Even the thru trains to the South will run faster. They do on occasion now when making up time northbound.
schlimm The only way to increase the passenger capacity of the NEC without enormous infrastructure costs is to increase train speeds, thus allowing more trains to run per hour.with the same distance between them for safety. As time goes by and the new, faster Acela trains come online, the regional trains will likely need to be cut back because of those capacity restraints.
Higher speed won't increase capacity. It doesn't change the headway (in time) between trains.
The way to increase capacity w/o any other changes is to increase the capacity per train, particularly, seating density.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HIgher speeds do increase capacity. If your 50 mph railroad has a capacity of four trains an hour, increasing speeds could yield one or two more trains per hour...it is how rapid transit and many commuter lines operate...and high capacity freight lines, too. You just make sure your track and signaling system can handle it or you change it so that it does.
The Amtrak vision for the NEC discusses capacity. It can be increased in a given period by running trains at higher speeds with the same distance (not time) headway. It also increases the equipment utilization, obviously. And there are finite platform length limits innthe NEC and elsewhere that preclude the simplistic solution of longer trains (20, 30, do I hear 100 car trains anyone?).
henry6 HIgher speeds do increase capacity. If your 50 mph railroad has a capacity of four trains an hour, increasing speeds could yield one or two more trains per hour...it is how rapid transit and many commuter lines operate...and high capacity freight lines, too. You just make sure your track and signaling system can handle it or you change it so that it does.
You are talking about equipment utilization, not line capacity.
Line capacity is a function of minimum headway - which doesn't really change with speed. If you have a line that can maintain 4 min headways, that's 15 trains an hour. If you double the speed, you need to double the spacing between trains because braking distances double. Four mile spacing at 60 mph has to become eight mile spacing at 120 mph or it could become two mile spacing at 30 miles an hour. It's still 4 minute headway = 15 trains an hour.
schlimm The Amtrak vision for the NEC discusses capacity. It can be increased in a given period by running trains at higher speeds with the same distance (not time) headway.
The Amtrak vision for the NEC discusses capacity. It can be increased in a given period by running trains at higher speeds with the same distance (not time) headway.
schlimmAnd there are finite platform length limits innthe NEC and elsewhere that preclude the simplistic solution of longer trains (20, 30, do I hear 100 car trains anyone?).
Headway of 5-10 minutes should be plenty. As it is, there are not enough Acelas and NE Regionals at peak times, perhaps because of insuffiecient equipment?
schlimm Headway of 5-10 minutes should be plenty. As it is, there are not enough Acelas and NE Regionals at peak times, perhaps because of insuffiecient equipment?
The NEC from Newark to NYP is at capacity now during rush hour with 17(?) trains an hour - including NJT. There was a nice article about NYP recently in Trains that led me to believe that platform capacity was pretty much at the limit, too. More folks per train-foot would be the only short term solution...
oltmannd henry6 HIgher speeds do increase capacity. If your 50 mph railroad has a capacity of four trains an hour, increasing speeds could yield one or two more trains per hour...it is how rapid transit and many commuter lines operate...and high capacity freight lines, too. You just make sure your track and signaling system can handle it or you change it so that it does. You are talking about equipment utilization, not line capacity. Line capacity is a function of minimum headway - which doesn't really change with speed. If you have a line that can maintain 4 min headways, that's 15 trains an hour. If you double the speed, you need to double the spacing between trains because braking distances double. Four mile spacing at 60 mph has to become eight mile spacing at 120 mph or it could become two mile spacing at 30 miles an hour. It's still 4 minute headway = 15 trains an hour.
But if you redesign your signals and tracks to allow for higher speed, the headways can be shortened. And if you can then send trains with 10 or 12 minute headways, you've increased capacity. Allowable speed can come about only by improved track and signals and not just saying "go faster".
henry6But if you redesign your signals and tracks to allow for higher speed, the headways can be shortened. And if you can then send trains with 10 or 12 minute headways, you've increased capacity. Allowable speed can come about only by improved track and signals and not just saying "go faster".
You are correct when you say that increasing train frequency increases capacity. This has nothing to do with speed. Increasing speed does not increase frequency.
The limit is safe (and for passenger trains - comfortable) braking rate - which is simple physics.
If you have a line that is at capacity, with signalling optimized for the current speeds, there is nothing you can do to increase capacity, no matter what you do to the signaling.
You have to have braking distance between trains. Braking rate is constant. Distance increases proportional to speed.
Amtrak needs separate, dedicated tracks, not shared with commuter trains (or freight, for that matter) in the NEC. I suppose the bottleneck is the Hudson tunnel. How many tracks is it? Is that why there was a proposed new tunnel that was rejected by Christie?
But you design the whole system to increase capacity: increased speed is the result of track, signal, and locomotion...all three can be designed for braking distances, headways, size of trains, speeds, etc. You cannot go 100 miles an hour with a bicycle or on poor track, or with a manual flag system. It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity...on that 100 mi stretch at 50 MPH it would take a train two hours to go end to end but only one train can run at a time. So at 75 mph it would take 1 hr 20 minutes and at 100 mph one hour. At 75 MPH, therefore, can run a train every 80 minutes and at 100 mph you can run a train every 60 minutes...you have increased capacity with increased speed.
henry6 But you design the whole system to increase capacity: increased speed is the result of track, signal, and locomotion...all three can be designed for braking distances, headways, size of trains, speeds, etc. You cannot go 100 miles an hour with a bicycle or on poor track, or with a manual flag system. It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity...on that 100 mi stretch at 50 MPH it would take a train two hours to go end to end but only one train can run at a time. So at 75 mph it would take 1 hr 20 minutes and at 100 mph one hour. At 75 MPH, therefore, can run a train every 80 minutes and at 100 mph you can run a train every 60 minutes...you have increased capacity with increased speed.
You are still confusing speed and capacity.
A train every 4 minutes is a train every 4 minutes, whether it's going 5 mph or 200 mph. Same capacity.
A train of 500 people arrives every 4 minutes. How many people arrive in a hour? That's the capacity.
henry6It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity.
It's only reasonable if it's true....
Higher speed means you need less equipment because you can turn it more often and it means faster trip times, but it doesn't change capacity one iota.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.