I think the solution of the Southwest Chief is pretty easy one. Feds buy the track via Raton and pay to upgrade it. Purchase rights or time on the track from Raton into Denver Union Station. Then consolidate the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief into a single train Chicago to Denver, run a seperate day train Chicago to Denver over the same route, so basically two trains each day over the route. Lease the remaining capacity for freight carriers to use for expansion or detour use. Abandon the Sunset Limited completely.
Split the Empire Builder at Salt Lake City to run via Pocatello, ID to Portland and Seattle.
Split the Chief at Denver to run back South to Raton and onto LA. Also send the California Zephyr on it's regular route West of Denver.
Heck you could even run three trains between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver if one was not enough to keep the train length short enough.
Seems to me this partial consolidation of 4 trains into one between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver would largely save the subsidy of 4 seperate trains and pay for the trackwork and up keep on the Raton Pass line without additional taxpayer funds.
I would also cancel the Cardinal and add a second daily frequency to the Capitol Limited.
Consolidate all the Western Commissaries to Denver and close the rest, West of Chicago.
Why?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Too much Christmas Sherry?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Too much Jack Daniels?
Johnny
The largest advantage that intercity rail has is reduced access costs to the user at intermediate stations.
So the poster seems to be admitting that there is economy in a longer train consist as there are significant fixed costs that only vary by trainmile (about $20/trainmile), hence the combination proposal one would assume. The US already has an exceptionally sparse route network.
So why not just spend the "capital" money proposed to purchase enough equipment to expand the consists, and keep the reduced access costs at all the current intermediate stations?
This reminds me of the Union Pacific's City of everywhere.
Milwaukee Road's idea is good for efficiency between end points, bad for its abandonment of so many intermediate cities that contribute most of the passengers.
So -- no train consolidation for you, Milwaukee!
Amtrak had a City of Everywhere which had, at various times, three points of splitting/combining. The eastern endpoint was Chicago, the western endpoints were Seattle, Oakland/Emeryville, and Los Angeles. Originally, one train operated westward to Ogden, where it was split; when the Rio Grande gave up on the Rio Grande Zephyr Salt Lake City became the split/combine point; the final arrangement had the Pioneer running between Denver and Seattle through Wyoming (with a bus connection between Salt Lake City and Ogden), and the Desert Wind and California Zephyr continuing together between Denver and Salt Lake City. The Seattle and Los Angeles sections were abolished in 1997, and there has been no serious effort to reinstate them since.
I do not know how many local passengers there were between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, or how many there were between Salt Lake City and Portland/Seattle.
The OP wants the three train split west of Denver, but also talks of three trains east of Denver, so I am not sure where there will be any consolidation savings. It just makes Denver the hub of a western hub-and-spoke system. Hub-and-spoke works for airlines because of the short travel times, and because they don't have any faster competition. However, train travelers might not want to spend an extra half day to get to their destination. ATK would also have to pay multi-millions to increase capacity on the Denver-Pueblo joint line. And as has been mentioned, the routes have been tried and failed (Pioneer and Desert Wind).
The main purpose of the Empire Builder is not to provide transportation between the Chicago area and Seattle/Portland, but to serve the intermediate communities, and ridership figures will support that statement. I am certain this true of the EB, and others can way in on the other long distance trains you mention.
Right on dave, long distances trains serve the intermediate passenger as much as they serve the end point passenger. Amtrak can not give up on serving local communities. You can not compare it to air lines operations, since airlines are primarily serving end points with feeder routes feeding a hub.
Also its not a good comparison to the up cities to everywhere concept since it was union pacific last ditch effort to reduce cost until Amtrak or the ICC could relief it of it passenger service obligations. Let's hope Amtrak is not at this point.
Also re. U.P.'s "City of Everywhere":
This "final solution" really represented only a marginal loss of service and certainly dropped no cities.
That's because, prior to consolidation, #105/111 (the City of Portland/Denver) left Chicago only 3 hours ahead of #103 (the City of LA/SF). By the time #105 reached Cheyenne -- minus the Denver cars, dropped at North Platte -- #103 was in its hip pocket, only one-half hour behind.
These two trains, and #9/101 (the City of Kansas City, off the Denver line, now the City of SF), left Cheyenne 15 minutes apart -- one, two, three -- and called on Wyoming towns down the line at about the same interval.
After consolidation, residents of Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming still had the same essential service to the three West Coast destinations as before -- just fewer train whistles.
If service to the intermediate points is to be the role of the Western long-distance trains, consolidation as suggested by the OP is not the answer. Perhaps what should be done is re-schedule the trains to better serve the intermediate points and adjust the service amenities to suit this goal.
I agree with CSSHEGEWISH. I believe most of the LD trains still operate close to the historical 1950’s schedule, timed to convenient arrival and departure at the endpoints. Without taking the extensive time required to review the passenger statistics for each LD train, due to population growth/shifts since the 1950’s and the availability of much faster and relatively low cost air transport between LD endpoints, it seems that a new evaluation of the schedule of each LD train would be appropriate to determine if more passengers would be served (revenue generation) at the intermediate stations if the schedules were altered to better serve the medium-sized cities along each LD route rather than the endpoints.
thegreatpumpkin I agree with CSSHEGEWISH. I believe most of the LD trains still operate close to the historical 1950’s schedule, timed to convenient arrival and departure at the endpoints. Without taking the extensive time required to review the passenger statistics for each LD train, due to population growth/shifts since the 1950’s and the availability of much faster and relatively low cost air transport between LD endpoints, it seems that a new evaluation of the schedule of each LD train would be appropriate to determine if more passengers would be served (revenue generation) at the intermediate stations if the schedules were altered to better serve the medium-sized cities along each LD route rather than the endpoints.
The schedule of the Sunset Limited was altered to call at better times for several intermediate cities between NO and LAX.
However, because of the changes, the train now arrives in LA at 5:35 a.m. Having ridden it last year, I am not kean about getting off a train in the very early morning.
What really irked me is the sleeping car attendant rousted me out of bed at 5:30 a.m. and insisted that I get off the train by 6:00 a.m., although the schedule says or said that sleeping car passengers could occupy their space until 6:30 a.m.
I have some comparative numbers (2014 - 2013) for stations served exclusively by the Sunset Limited. I believe the schedule was changed in early 2014 or late 2013, but I am not sure. If someone can tell me when the schedule change was effective, I will post the comparative passenger boarding and detraining numbers for several of the key stops where the schedule was changed to improve the times served, i.e. Houston, El Paso, Tuscon, etc.
In the Pullman Company days and even on the NYC (which operated
it's own sleepers after 1958) one could occupy the car until a
decent hour like 730am. Any Amtrak porter that would rouse me
out of bed at 530am would get a VERY bad time from me and NO
tip.
Sam, the Fall-Winter 2011-12 public TT is the last one with the 8:30 am arrival and 3:30 pm departure at Los Angeles. The May 7, 2012, TT has the early, early arrival and late departure.
Deggesty Sam, the Fall-Winter 2011-12 public TT is the last one with the 8:30 am arrival and 3:30 pm departure at Los Angeles. The May 7, 2012, TT has the early, early arrival and late departure.
Time flys when you are having fun. I would have sworn that the changes to the Sunset's timetable were made last year.
I did find passenger activities for 2011 and 2013 at several intermediate stations served by the Sunset Limited. They include boarding and detraining numbers. It appears that they are before and after the schedule changes.
Mariacopa had 10,804 passengers in 2011 vs. 12,995 in 2013; Tuscon had 23,896 in 2011 vs. 25,921 in 2013; Yuma had 4,011 in 2011 vs. 3,891 in 2013; Beaumont had 2,401 in 2011 vs. 3,458 in 2013; El Paso had 11,470 in 2011 vs. 13,393 in 2013; Houston had 19,637 in 2011 vs. 21,167 in 2013; and Alpine had 4,322 in 2011 vs. 4,921 in 2013. Except for Yuma, every station showed an increase in passenger activity.
Ignoring the problem of isolating the cause and effect variables, i.e. change in passenger activity due to improving economic conditions, it appears that the change in the Sunset's schedule had a positive impact on passenger activity at the intermediate stations along the Sunset's route as shown.
I only included those stations that are served exclusively by the Sunset Limited, and I did not include the ones that were served in the wee hours and are still served in the wee hours.
Yes, wee hours are wee hours. It can take a determined, or desperate, traveler to start or end his trip about three in the morning.
Sam1 Mariacopa had 10,804 passengers in 2011 vs. 12,995 in 2013; Tuscon had 23,896 in 2011 vs. 25,921 in 2013; Yuma had 4,011 in 2011 vs. 3,891 in 2013; Beaumont had 2,401 in 2011 vs. 3,458 in 2013; El Paso had 11,470 in 2011 vs. 13,393 in 2013; Houston had 19,637 in 2011 vs. 21,167 in 2013; and Alpine had 4,322 in 2011 vs. 4,921 in 2013. Except for Yuma, every station showed an increase in passenger activity.
Wow, those numbers are bad -- low -- especially since we're talking Arizona and Texas. Even for three days a week each way. Houston, 4th largest city in the U.S., is ridiculous.
dakotafred Wow, those numbers are bad -- low -- especially since we're talking Arizona and Texas. Even for three days a week each way. Houston, 4th largest city in the U.S., is ridiculous.
Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans there is the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the PRIIA improvement reports.
This is also why the consolidation plan is a poor alternative to just running trains with longer consists at least daily.
NRPC reports more than $600 million in corporate overhead (G&A #600), just think about how silly it is to talk of efficiencies to be gained by further operating route consolidations throughout the nation...
V.Payne Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans you have the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the improvement reports.
Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans you have the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the improvement reports.
Yes, if you can't do daily, forget it.
A trip I took this fall turned on availability of the least train I rode, the Sunset. It was stupid. I had to start with a reservation on the Sunset, then work backwards and forwards.
I secured all my reservations six months ahead of time or it wouldn't have worked. People who have to plan on shorter notice, or are committed to certain dates, will look elsewhere.
A McIntosh This reminds me of the Union Pacific's City of everywhere.
+1
Doing this defeats one of the main arguments for keeping the LD trains - providing service to rural places. If you do this, you start begging the question of why have the western LD trains at all.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Re twice daily frequencies:
The existence of significant delays to Amtrak trains has multiple effects that negatively affect the bottom line. Frequent delays prevent a large population of passengers from having a guaranteed arrival time, and if the delay causes them to suffer inconvenience, miss family events, or incur financial loss, they will very likely never be a repeat rider. Also, without the existence of a reliable arrival time, those other travelers who are well aware of the frequent Amtrak delays will never go by rail but will choose another mode for their trip. And finally, anyone thus aware who needs to make a connection in Chicago will also not ride. Even yours truly, a railfan of over 60 years standing, will absolutely never book a long-distance rail trip that involves a connection in Chicago, since a connection missed by an hour means a 23-hour wait for the next departure.
The network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub. Then a missed connection would entail no more than an 11-hour wait - - unpleasant, but more tolerable than a full day and night. This arrangement would of course double the operational costs but might triple the revenue, by gaining many trips now not taken, via individuals such as myself. And yes, I do know that Amtrak has a problem with insufficient rolling stock. But right now the single frequency per day (even fewer in some cases such as The Cardinal) just discourages any kind of useful network effect in Chicago that would generate more riders and reduce losses of the long-distance trains as a group.
And now I open the door for the lurking naysayers.
Re splitting and comsolidation of trains:
This works fine on the outbound (pre-split) leg but can have severe difficulties on the inbound (assembly) leg. If one of the arriving "children" is delayed then all of the siblings are delayed, waiting for it to arrive. Depending upon the severity of the delay, then comes the decision to abandon the straggler and proceed with the inbound trip, in which case the straggler's passengers are stuck until the next day. Or, see post above re the advantage of twice-daily frequency. In the olden days splitting worked fine since there were multiple trains per day, in the event one arm of the split encountered delay
LehighLadThe network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub.
LehighLadAnd now I open the door for the lurking naysayers.
Good. Because I'm going to "naysay". The incremental cost has to be less than the incremental benefit. To get an idea of the incremental cost, look at what UP wanted to allow a daily Sunset. It's a lot more than just scrounging up more equipment and hiring staff. Maybe Amtrak could have negotiated them down some, but it still wasn't chump change. Doubling the freqency more than doubles the trouble of getting the train over the road and the cost of improvements to handle a second train for the routes we're talking about would likely be very high.
What of the benefits? Highway congestion reduced? not much. Smog? Not really. Avoided highway construction? No. Transportation as social justice for rural areas. Some select rural areas - not most. Would a second train improve the social justice equation? Not much. Could a second train cover it's above the rails incremental costs? Probably not.
The LD trains are a surviving vestige of the "best of the best" from the streamliner era, running on businessman's schedules, also left from that era. They provide political cover for Amtrak, but as transportation, they are irrelevant.
V.PayneNRPC reports more than $600 million in corporate overhead (G&A #600)
Just what are they getting for all that G&A? I'm sure everyone is very busy, but are they actually DOING anything useful?
"Could a second train cover it's above the rails incremental costs? Probably not."
I am not trying to be snarky, but I have let contracts (I am a licensed engineer) for one of the last Interstate routes being built, I-269. They do not pay for themselves from direct user revenue on the highway, but are instead funded by assembling a pot-of-money from taxes on the use of local roads, which are almost entirely paid for by local general funds, and now Federal general fund transfers direct to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).
This financial leveraging is the reason the Highway Trust Fund is dilligently fought for by groups like the ATA, why they spend so much to lobby, and why there is so much disinformation generated. The determination of the historical deficit by NPV analysis is discussed in this paper using FHWA historical data applied at different interest rates.
How would it not be reasonable to at least spend the same amount on inter-regional mobility on Amtrak per person mile (or say just 90%) in the same leveraged manner when rail is safer and allows for travel for individuals not up to driving long distances? In paticular expanding the route network or doubling frequencies would lead to greater revenue density per trainmile, hence better cost recovery rates as operating any train has a fixed cost of at least $20/trainmile.
Why the need to ask would a train recover its incremental costs from direct users when the interstates did not and are increasingly not doing so at about double the rate in the past?
We could make it very simple. Run one cross country train Washington to Oakland. Collector north south trains meeting the cross country train at Washington, St Louis, and Oakland.
7 Total long distance trains. Covers most big cities. If you want to keep off line cities connected, limit it to cities that can make coach daylight connection. Kind of severe, but should cut cost.
What the heck, set up some collector trains to meet the Canadian on the northern border.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.