It was noted on the first page of this thread...
"While the sleeper revenue declined by $0.964 Million, or about $47 per passenger, note that the overall coach revenue declined by $2.822 Million as well (perhaps with a portion of the coach revenue for sleeper passengers baked into the coach numbers)."
The numbers for coach revenue decline are actually 3/4ths of the total revenue decline as presented in the route reports, but I believe coach revenue also includes the coach fare of sleeper passengers, so I tried to be conservative with 2/3rds to not inflate the point of the arguement that more coach revenue was lost than sleeper revenue. Also, if you think about it they should be selling extra roomette rooms with fewer crews, so the sleeper revenue per room is less per room than just the ratio of revenue.
If you want to squeeze into a bus, go ahead. As for me, I'll take a train any day!
So I should clarify after looking back at my notes that the source was the same report that the first post referenced, the Amtrak Monthly Performance Reports, but for September FY16. We have variously talked about the August and September reports in this thread.
The Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for August 2016, which covers 11 of the 12 months of the fiscal year and aligns closer to the drop of the diner provides this information:
Total Revenue decline is in Section C-3, Page 43 of the PDF, FY15 to FY16, summarized as $3.4 M
Sleeper Revenue decline is in Section A-3.5, Page 22 of the PDF, FY15 to FY16 is $7.556 M - $6.699 M = $0.857 M ($0.9 M)
(1-0.9/3.4) = 74% of the revenue decline is from coach class.
In the Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for September 2016 the following revenue values were reported for the full fiscal year, but this timeframe does not reflect the change point as accurately as the fiscal year does not align with the drop of the diner.
Total Revenue decline is in Section C-3, Page 43 of the PDF, FY15 to FY16, summarized as $3.7 M
Sleeper Revenue decline is in Section A-3.5, Page 22 of the PDF, FY15 to FY16 is $8.089 M - $7.125 M = $0.964 M ($1.0 M)
(1-1.0/3.7) = 73% of the revenue decline is from coach class.
So the sleeper revenue (I believe the accommodation charge only) was around 1/4th of the revenue drop, coach revenue drops made up the difference, some of that “coach” revenue is I believe the coach ticket one buys for sleeper class. However, conceptually there should be (2-4) more roomettes for sale so the coach revenue should be higher from sleeper passengers, but one could argue that trip length is lower.
So conservatively one could say at least 2/3rds or the revenue drop occurring around the time of the diner removal is from coach class if not 3/4ths.
Thanks!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
They will never get it. Its not about Amtrak or their operating loss per passenger mile. Its about what kind of country we want to have with what kind of transporation facilities. I dont care if they lose 4 cents or 44 cents. We need the system to be healthy. What happens when air traffic is grounded by whatever threat or computer glitch? Amtrak could have save lives during Katrina but bush was too stupid to use it.
XOTOWER They will never get it. Its not about Amtrak or their operating loss per passenger mile. Its about what kind of country we want to have with what kind of transporation facilities. I dont care if they lose 4 cents or 44 cents. We need the system to be healthy. What happens when air traffic is grounded by whatever threat or computer glitch? Amtrak could have save lives during Katrina but bush was too stupid to use it.
Johnny
That is when a real leader would have rolled those trains in there. Why kow-tow to an arrogant Mayor acting like an arrpogant Mayor.
XOTOWERThat is when a real leader would have rolled those trains in there. Why kow-tow to an arrogant Mayor acting like an arrpogant Mayor.
Time to learn how political entities work in the real world.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
V.Payne ...... The entire direct Food and Beverage cost of the Silver Star food service (diner and café) is $5.5 Million per Amtrak OIG (Page 4). So cutting a portion of the staff cannot exceed that amount. It would appear my cost estimate is roughly correct, though I could tell that the OIG reported labor numbers have some management costs baked into them that likely did not disappear with the cut, so cost recovery would decline logically. It has been said time and again, that the Total Cost numbers have no use in evaluating actual changes in service. They are allocations based upon dependent variables, and are in no way audited for accuracy. Further, Amtrak has stated they cannot provide Variable Cost route measurements in the monthly or even yearly reports, so why would they be able to do so now when Congress has required them by law to provide the results? Recall that even with the current relatively poor labor utilization arrangement on long distance trains, nearly all of the OBS labor is being covered with revenue, the big issue is dividing up $59.8 million in nearly fixed commissary costs, which are strangely disproportionally assigned to long distance trains, though the commissaries are shared with all trains and managed by Aramark. This all gets down to the reality that decreases in food service quality hurt ridership, up to 13%, based upon evidence when tried before in the early 1980’s. Degrading the service will not result in net savings.
......
The entire direct Food and Beverage cost of the Silver Star food service (diner and café) is $5.5 Million per Amtrak OIG (Page 4). So cutting a portion of the staff cannot exceed that amount. It would appear my cost estimate is roughly correct, though I could tell that the OIG reported labor numbers have some management costs baked into them that likely did not disappear with the cut, so cost recovery would decline logically.
It has been said time and again, that the Total Cost numbers have no use in evaluating actual changes in service. They are allocations based upon dependent variables, and are in no way audited for accuracy. Further, Amtrak has stated they cannot provide Variable Cost route measurements in the monthly or even yearly reports, so why would they be able to do so now when Congress has required them by law to provide the results?
Recall that even with the current relatively poor labor utilization arrangement on long distance trains, nearly all of the OBS labor is being covered with revenue, the big issue is dividing up $59.8 million in nearly fixed commissary costs, which are strangely disproportionally assigned to long distance trains, though the commissaries are shared with all trains and managed by Aramark.
This all gets down to the reality that decreases in food service quality hurt ridership, up to 13%, based upon evidence when tried before in the early 1980’s. Degrading the service will not result in net savings.
Fortunately in Table 1 we see that Operations didn't mess too much with the Acela and we see that the NEC made a little money on food and beverage. How did they do this? If we read further and subscript 8, we find that they made a convention to set the price equal to food prices in upscale hotels. In state sponsored routes, the states paid for food losses, except in a couple states, (subscript a), and there was a little loss. Notice that the Food and Beverage Revenue is a little over twice as much as Commissary Costs for NEC and state sponsored routes due to added revenue,(which should have subscripts explaining this).
On the long distance routes the Food and Beverage Revenue to Commissary Cost is about even because actual revenue from the meals is used. Thus almost all of the Food and Beverage Loss occurs on the long distance routes due to the revenue conventions used.
What would happen if Marketing was given control over sleeper food and beverage? They would be responsible for the travel experience expected by the sleeper passengers and written about by many here, and could increase the food quality to that of the Acela and price that accordingly. I can imagine a different menu without prices for these passengers, which would double the revenue for the 50% or more who eat in the diner. Marketing would have to figure out how to provide these exquisite meals and hold costs down or counter by raising prices somewhat. Milwaukee has suggested how to accomplish delicious food in another thread. Just by using the same convention as used by the Acela, the 2012 food and beverage loss for the long distance routes of 71.5 million could have been lowered to about 35 million.
High commissary costs and labor costs are still difficult to overcome, but cutting out the diner is not way to go. Business class and adding more sleepers when required would help. I have noticed that there are sleeper sell-outs even in the middle of the week and weeks ahead (non holiday). A radical solution would be to make everything business class and use the Acela food convention to make the long distance food loss disappear. Increasing the price to cover the food cost may be difficult.
Jim200High commissary costs and labor costs are still difficult to overcome, but cutting out the diner is not way to go. Business class and adding more sleepers when required would help. I have noticed that there are sleeper sell-outs even in the middle of the week and weeks ahead (non holiday). A radical solution would be to make everything business class and use the Acela food convention to make the long distance food loss disappear. Increasing the price to cover the food cost may be difficult.
Very thoughtful and fact-filled post! You do realize Acela's food service does not use a traditional dining car? They use at-seat for 1st class and a cafe car for others (it becomes cashless on Jan. 16). The consultants and providers are different as well, possibly unrelated to Amtrak's commissary.
https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337915316
First class menus
Cafe menu
schlimm Jim200 Very thoughtful and fact-filled post! You do realize Acela's food service does not use a traditional dining car? They use at-seat for 1st class and a cafe car for others (it becomes cashless on Jan. 16). The consultants and providers are different as well, possibly unrelated to Amtrak's commissary. https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337915316 First class menus Cafe menu
Jim200
BaltACD schlimm Jim200 Very thoughtful and fact-filled post! You do realize Acela's food service does not use a traditional dining car? They use at-seat for 1st class and a cafe car for others (it becomes cashless on Jan. 16). The consultants and providers are different as well, possibly unrelated to Amtrak's commissary. https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337915316 First class menus Cafe menu
cudjoebobI'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment?
Believe it might work very well. It appears to be a very tourist orientated run with off and ons big all the way from Palm Beach to MIAMI> The train south bound capable of carrying cruis ship passengers to various south Florida locations and departing late enough to carry away cruise ship passengers. Many non USA passenger potential.
Now just find the equipment and funding. Equipment ? Maybe the idle ElCapitain cars ? Locos ????
EDIT if could go down FEC from Palm beach to MIA Brightline station even better for cruise passengers. Or even better let Brightline operate the service. Once Brightline goes to Orlando airport then maybe Amtrak take it to Tampa ?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Not surprising to me... Florida is the 4th largest state and has been ripe for corridor service for a long time. Amtrak and Florida should have tried to develop service years ago. Now All Aboard Florida is doing it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
D.Carleton cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment? Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train
cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment?
Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train
Tried hard, didn't they. One round trip. 34 years ago. 10 Million residents then. 20 million residents now.
If Amtrak could get enough LD coaches once the V-2 sleepers ( V-2 diners in service ) are in service the Palmetto could then be extended back to Tampa and Miami becoming a day train TPA - MIA ( Lv TPA 0700 - 0800 ) serving the cruise trade ? Could leave MIA late afternoon catching all cruise trade passengers. A long station stop at TPA could provide the necessary schedule recovery time especially southbound.
blue streak 1 If Amtrak could get enough LD coaches once the V-2 sleepers ( V-2 diners in service ) are in service the Palmetto could then be extended back to Tampa and Miami becoming a day train TPA - MIA ( Lv TPA 0700 - 0800 ) serving the cruise trade ? Could leave MIA late afternoon catching all cruise trade passengers. A long station stop at TPA could provide the necessary schedule recovery time especially southbound.
It's a corridor. Run a service dedicated to it, with multiple trains per day, not some tack on to an LD train.
schlimm blue streak 1 If Amtrak could get enough LD coaches once the V-2 sleepers ( V-2 diners in service ) are in service the Palmetto could then be extended back to Tampa and Miami becoming a day train TPA - MIA ( Lv TPA 0700 - 0800 ) serving the cruise trade ? Could leave MIA late afternoon catching all cruise trade passengers. A long station stop at TPA could provide the necessary schedule recovery time especially southbound. It's a corridor. Run a service dedicated to it, with multiple trains per day, not some tack on to an LD train.
Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
schlimmIt's a corridor. Run a service dedicated to it, with multiple trains per day, not some tack on to an LD train.
What he appears to be asking is whether a 'tack on' to existing (or 'tweakable') LD trains could serve much, or most, of the available actual demand for the service.
That might reduce both the anticipated length and the anticipated frequency of the "rest" of the multiple trains and more frequent service, perhaps even to the point where individual motor cars or shorter/lighter equipment could be used rather than consists all sized to peak demand.
oltmannd D.Carleton cudjoebob I'm surprised by the high numbers between the city pairs from TPA to MIA on the Silver Star. Could that mean that a Pacific Surfliner push-pull type operation, leaving TPA in the morning, returning to TPA in the evening, after a short layover in MIA, be a successful experiment? Been there, done that, sorta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Palm_(train)#Intrastate_train Tried hard, didn't they. One round trip. 34 years ago. 10 Million residents then. 20 million residents now.
Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it. When formulating the rule, Congress had to draw the line somewhere, and 750 miles makes as much sense as anything else. However, Boston to Washington is 457 miles and Boston to Richmond 566. Is the Corridor so special that it should be the exception? I can make the case that it is based upon its importance, but I'm very uncomfortable with that given the infrastructure replacement costs that are going to have to be made in the next few years.
Considering Amtrak makes the most money off the NEC (and probably doesn't exist today without it), I have no problem with it being special or the exception.
The issue to me is what should be the federal government's funding responsibility and what should be state/local governments' responsibility? I would say the federal government should fund a basic national rail system that connects as many major metropolitan areas in the country as possible efficiently. That includes some LD routes and some short distance routes. To me, I'd rather Congress spend my tax money on a train from Dallas to Houston than a train from Chicago to Seattle. I don't see the Cardinal (Byrd Crap) or the Empire Builder any more national significance than the Carolinian or Pennsylvanian. How many people live in and/or want to visit West Virginia? Not many. You can go from Florida up north but you can't go west of Florida or even from Florida to Atlanta? Try booking a trip from Texas to Florida now.
If I were in charge of Amtrak, I'd send West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and all of the other boon dock states a bill for their trains and tell them pay for it or lose it so I can use those trains/equipment for better uses. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers and kept Byrd Crap. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Floridian, National Limited, and the Lone Star and kept Byrd Crap. To me it's nepotism (the guy in charge gets his train). There should be trains where more people will ride them.
Philly Amtrak Fan Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it. Considering Amtrak makes the most money off the NEC (and probably doesn't exist today without it), I have no problem with it being special or the exception. The issue to me is what should be the federal government's funding responsibility and what should be state/local governments' responsibility? I would say the federal government should fund a basic national rail system that connects as many major metropolitan areas in the country as possible efficiently. That includes some LD routes and some short distance routes. To me, I'd rather Congress spend my tax money on a train from Dallas to Houston than a train from Chicago to Seattle. I don't see the Cardinal (Byrd Crap) or the Empire Builder any more national significance than the Carolinian or Pennsylvanian. How many people live in and/or want to visit West Virginia? Not many. You can go from Florida up north but you can't go west of Florida or even from Florida to Atlanta? Try booking a trip from Texas to Florida now. If I were in charge of Amtrak, I'd send West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and all of the other boon dock states a bill for their trains and tell them pay for it or lose it so I can use those trains/equipment for better uses. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers and kept Byrd Crap. It's a joke to me that they canceled the Floridian, National Limited, and the Lone Star and kept Byrd Crap. To me it's nepotism (the guy in charge gets his train). There should be trains where more people will ride them.
Dakguy201 Philly Amtrak Fan Can't do it with the 750 mile rule in place unless Florida pays for it.
It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works.
I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
BaltACDIt has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
Hopefully he/she will come from a populous state/city.
Philly Amtrak Fan BaltACD It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction. Hopefully he/she will come from a populous state/city.
BaltACD It has taken you a long time to learn how politics works. I am just wondering who the next 'Amtrak Benefactor' in Congress will be and what he will get for his benefaction.
Don't forget, Harley O. Staggers who created and championed rail deregulation with the Staggers Act that is credited with making the freight railroads viable businesses again was also from West Virginia, just like your hated Byrd.
Populous states, for the most part, think they are 'beyond needing railroads'; as such the only time railroads enter the discussion is when metropolitan area commuters have issues with their services and become the squeeking wheel that gets the monetary oil.
The NEC should be redefined as Bangor, or at least Portland - Newport News, and the N. Sta. - S. Sta. tunnel part of the improvement program.
Corridors of lengths varying with the sustainable speed are the only sort of practical use for passenger trains as a major means of transportation. And it follows that they only make sense in populous corridors, with major metro areas as endpoints and intermediate nodes.
BaltACDDon't forget, Harley O. Staggers who created and championed rail deregulation with the Staggers Act that is credited with making the freight railroads viable businesses again was also from West Virginia, just like your hated Byrd.
Something I have not forgotten is that Staggers had a vanity-train far more extreme than "Byrd Crap". I still resent this as being one of the major misuses - I would use 'abuses' but that's just my bias in the matter - of advanced technology, and very probably a significant reason for the market failure of the UA Turbotrain.
I think the focus on states (and corridors as strict state matters) is a bit wrongheaded in the first place. We went through similar issues with the whole 'good roads' movement (and the early evolution both of the US Highway system and various styles of high-speed vs. limited-access road) all the way up through the Defense Highway developments in the '50s.
What states are willing to pay for is dependent largely on political perception and by extension, spin. Why should the State pay for something that could be established with Federal money (or deficits), much of the benefit from which is "interstate commerce" and may even result in adverse economic consequences to the state in question. A direct parallel is in all the local objection to "HSR" where the nearest accessible station is far away, but the Chinese-wall, noise, and danger are immediate and permanent.
Commuter service has been recognized since the '50s as being money-losing but utterly necessary for major metropolitan areas. In my opinion, most of the regional corridors are not much of an improvement on that model, with the load being somewhat less peaky and hence the equipment utilization and 'off-peak' costs being net lower. Those, as schlimm says, are legitimately apportionable to the regions they serve, perhaps even proportionally allocatable to the sectors of society that distinctively benefit from them. But they don't provide the economies or potential advantages of more national scope. I think schlimm's argument, in part, is that those economies and advantages don't outweigh the costs to "society" (as represented by a Federal government) to provide them.
If there is, in fact, little or no perceived advantage from having 'national' through service as opposed to what can be achieved with interconnecting regionals, then the argument that the relatively small number of LD train riders are being excessively subsidized by Government losses is increasingly difficult to refute. In that case it is possible that Amtrak would become 'Balkanized' (in Kneiling's sense) into a bunch of squabbling where-you-stand-is-where-you-sit regional operating agencies and one overall procurement and perhaps design-standards entity. Look for the economies of scale and manpower reductions to be minimal, and the wrong people and departments to be terminated. Look also for the populous states to continue shucking anything that doesn't clearly benefit either the bottom line or the squeakiest wheels that concern them.
I had a 'transformative experience' contacting Kay Bailey Hutchison when she was the head of one of the powerful National committees. I was told in no uncertain terms that she was interested only in input or discussion from her own local voting constituents. As long as you have that mindset making any sort of long-term transportation prioritization, don't expect to see much effective national-scale answer.
I do have a request: we're starting to solve all the possible issues with Amtrak in this, as well as so many of the previous, threads. I'd like to redirect attention in this particular one to the specific topic of eliminating 'included' diner service on specific LD trains as they presently exist, with or without reduction of services or outright elimination of the classical 'diner' service itself. Yes, the discussion over on the 'economics' and accounting side is a pile of smoking horsemeat, but I think there are still useful discussions to be made about the subject.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.