Paul of Covington Well said, C. O. It's been my impression from the start that Amrak was founded on the premise that passenger rail was going to die in a few years anyway, and this was just a way to ease it into the grave.
It's been my impression from the start that Amrak was founded on the premise that passenger rail was going to die in a few years anyway, and this was just a way to ease it into the grave.
Congress's intent was that Amtrak would die within five years. Despite the continuing actions of subsequent Congresses Amtrak is still with us 47 headed to 48 years from it's inception. If in those 47 years Congress had actually acted like there was intent for Amtrak to not only survive but thrive there 'might' have been created a rail passenger system that the USA could have been proud of.
As it is Congress throws a noose around Amtrak's neck - sometimes Congress pulls the noose tight, sometimes they slack it off some; but they never take it off by establishing a sustaining form of funding so that Amtrak can tackle the capital intensive issues they have.
Congress doesn't want to be held responsible for killing Amtrak, they want to hide behind palusable deniability and throw roadblocks in the way, hoping Amtrak will trip over them and die.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I disagree with yhour assertion. While I would like to see more long distance trains, I use them regularly to go from point A to B. Example, I regularly (several times a year) use the SW Chief from my home in NM to go east, west, and south where I connect with either other Amtrak long distance trains or regional trains in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and California. For me, no long distance train equals a total loss of my business as I will either drive, fly direct, or not go at all. I am not alone in this type of use of Amtrak.
Well said, C. O.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
zardozBack from when Amtrak cared:
Just re-read an article written by Rush Loving in the May 1974 issue of Fortune magazine. Amtrak was roughly 3 years old at the time.
Not surprisingly, much of the criticism popular today was just as popular (and evidently relevant) back then as well.
The article was fairly detailed in recounting how Amtrak was put together, for who, and what they believed their priorities were.
Weighing that in context with what has happened ever after, I have to say that the real problem with Amtrak is that it is a Frankenstein's monster of sorts. Put together by card carrying capitalists trying to pursue a socialist agenda, preoccupied with not appearing too "pink". Doomed from the start, they really were afraid to do things right, so they put on a half-hearted charade, to bide some time.
And poor "Frank",... whenever he wants to spend some money, the pursestrings rally with their pitchforks, or if he tries to save a little by cutting back services, the sentimentalists light up their torches . The only thing that's certain is that he's not going to find any love or understanding, from anyone.
And we all know where that ended up.
I think that the only two options that make sense are to either rebuild the system from scratch, utilizing realistic goals and funding, or scrap the system all together.
MidlandMikeWould you travel that way?
MidlandMikeAnother thing is that CHI-KC (the top city pair) already has a slightly better schedule that what you seem to be proposing. For your 7 hour layover, I imagine you envision getting into KC about 11PM and departing about 6AM. Presently the train comes into KC at 10PM, and departs at 7:43AM.
When it's on time. How often can you count on a 7:43 departure for Chicago?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
zardoz BaltACD We are only running check books - who cares what the customers wants or thinks. Leave it to the customer to spoil the plans. Of course, Anderson doesn't want any customers - customers want some service and service costs money. Back from when Amtrak cared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MIkduzGx4
BaltACD We are only running check books - who cares what the customers wants or thinks. Leave it to the customer to spoil the plans. Of course, Anderson doesn't want any customers - customers want some service and service costs money.
Back from when Amtrak cared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0MIkduzGx4
I live in the Baltimore/Washington media area - I can't remember when I have seen an Amtrak commercial trying to sell their services on the NEC or anywhere else in the country. The only ads I can recall seeing are several billboards on I-95 in both directions advertising Auto-Train.
I guess it is easier to kill something if nobody knows it is there.
BaltACDWe are only running check books - who cares what the customers wants or thinks. Leave it to the customer to spoil the plans. Of course, Anderson doesn't want any customers - customers want some service and service costs money.
oltmanndYou package it with the ticket, including the shuttle. HIX/Hampton style breakfast included. Six hours sleep in a stationary bed beats sitting a coach seat all night. Still faster than driving...
Would you travel that way? Remember many people who travel by train have physical challanges or are old, and can not get from bed to a train seat in a half hour. Also this does not address the majority of coach travelers who will not spring for a hotel package.
Another thing is that CHI-KC (the top city pair) already has a slightly better schedule that what you seem to be proposing. For your 7 hour layover, I imagine you envision getting into KC about 11PM and departing about 6AM. Presently the train comes into KC at 10PM, and departs at 7:43AM.
MidlandMike oltmannd MidlandMike The only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station But, they could grab a hotel room for a snooze. Not so terrible.... And half the price of a roomette. In a 7 hour layover, you have to get off the train, find a hotel (not so many hotels near the station any more, so there is travel time) get a few hours sleep, and then back to the station. Plus find dinner and breakfast. Half the price of a roomette, for half a nights sleep.
oltmannd MidlandMike The only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station But, they could grab a hotel room for a snooze. Not so terrible.... And half the price of a roomette.
MidlandMike The only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station
But, they could grab a hotel room for a snooze. Not so terrible.... And half the price of a roomette.
In a 7 hour layover, you have to get off the train, find a hotel (not so many hotels near the station any more, so there is travel time) get a few hours sleep, and then back to the station. Plus find dinner and breakfast. Half the price of a roomette, for half a nights sleep.
You package it with the ticket, including the shuttle. HIX/Hampton style breakfast included. Six hours sleep in a stationary bed beats sitting a coach seat all night.
Still faster than driving...
BaltACD MidlandMike Take an efficiency lesson from the major airlines-- their jets don't sit on the ground at night-- the word is "red-eye". So in your world planes are in the air all the time and are never on the ground for maintenance. So they just load - fly - unload - reload - fly and repeat. Sounds kind of unsafe to me.
MidlandMike Take an efficiency lesson from the major airlines-- their jets don't sit on the ground at night-- the word is "red-eye".
So in your world planes are in the air all the time and are never on the ground for maintenance. So they just load - fly - unload - reload - fly and repeat. Sounds kind of unsafe to me.
Obviously the US airlines have figured it out as they have an impeccable safety record. The context of my remark was that LD trains have better utilization running at night than the suggested parking overnight to eliminate overnight travel. I hate red-eye flights, but sometimes they are the best alternative, especially on long flights eastward.
RailEagle My personal idea is to completely demolish Amtrak’s intercity schedule from the ground up. First I would split the trains into two types: Tourist and A to B. The tourist trains would all run through scenic/tourist areas in the daylight at slower speeds with more luxury accommodations and with some thing like ”Scenic“ at the end of the route name. (Example: Coast Starlight Scenic). Also I think these trains could be privatized at some point, if profitable or eliminated as these focus less on Amtraks directive to provide intercity service. Next would be the A to B routes which would run day and night and skip all the little towns and stop at city’s with 100k plus populations. Also they would be run more like an airline with more bare bones accommodations and the Dining Car would be eliminated. These would have “Express” added to the end of the name. (Example:Coast Starlight Express). These would not likely be privatized as these follow Amtrak’s directive more closely. The NEC and state funded routes would not be affected.
My personal idea is to completely demolish Amtrak’s intercity schedule from the ground up. First I would split the trains into two types: Tourist and A to B. The tourist trains would all run through scenic/tourist areas in the daylight at slower speeds with more luxury accommodations and with some thing like ”Scenic“ at the end of the route name. (Example: Coast Starlight Scenic). Also I think these trains could be privatized at some point, if profitable or eliminated as these focus less on Amtraks directive to provide intercity service. Next would be the A to B routes which would run day and night and skip all the little towns and stop at city’s with 100k plus populations. Also they would be run more like an airline with more bare bones accommodations and the Dining Car would be eliminated. These would have “Express” added to the end of the name. (Example:Coast Starlight Express). These would not likely be privatized as these follow Amtrak’s directive more closely. The NEC and state funded routes would not be affected.
Don't forget, many of those "weed patch" scheduled stops are the closest Amtrak access points for ~nearby~ sizeable towns not lucky enough to be located on Amtrak's pruned routemap.
cx500 The long distance routes serve three sets of customers. The first set of customers are long distance travelers going to or connecting through Chicago. The second set of customers are people going from point A to point B, i.e. Flagstaff to Galesburg. The third set of customers are people going from a major city to an intermediate destination, i.e. Los Angeles to the Grand Canyon. Amtrak's current operation is optimized towards the first set of customers. It serves the second set of customers reasonably well. It doesn't serve the 3rd set of customers well. To serve all the customers in a reasonable way, you need to add service. A Los Angeles - Grand Canyon train and a Chicago - La Junta - Denver train. That way, the 3 groups of customers get better service. charlie hebdo Other posts in the past have shown that the majority of those western LD trains' coach passengers ride between intermediate points. They could be served far better by twice daily day trains between major intermediate cities, as Oltmann suggested for the SWC. Superficially that sounds good, but only if you assume both intermediate points are within that major city pairing. No doubt many are, but what proportion?
The long distance routes serve three sets of customers. The first set of customers are long distance travelers going to or connecting through Chicago.
The second set of customers are people going from point A to point B, i.e. Flagstaff to Galesburg.
The third set of customers are people going from a major city to an intermediate destination, i.e. Los Angeles to the Grand Canyon.
Amtrak's current operation is optimized towards the first set of customers. It serves the second set of customers reasonably well. It doesn't serve the 3rd set of customers well.
To serve all the customers in a reasonable way, you need to add service. A Los Angeles - Grand Canyon train and a Chicago - La Junta - Denver train. That way, the 3 groups of customers get better service.
charlie hebdo Other posts in the past have shown that the majority of those western LD trains' coach passengers ride between intermediate points. They could be served far better by twice daily day trains between major intermediate cities, as Oltmann suggested for the SWC.
Superficially that sounds good, but only if you assume both intermediate points are within that major city pairing. No doubt many are, but what proportion?
MidlandMikeTake an efficiency lesson from the major airlines-- their jets don't sit on the ground at night-- the word is "red-eye".
Most jets DO sit at night. There just aren't that many red-eyes compared to daylight flights. Airlines use overnight to do a "reset" and geteverything set for the next day should weather et.al. SANFU the current day.
Putting some long dwells and/or overnight stops in Amtrak LD schedules would give Amtrak the same ability....
MidlandMikeThe only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station
MidlandMikeFor those making the CHI-LA trip (remember its the second top city pair) its a 3 day trip instead of a 2 day trip.
I doubt you'd lose a single rider because of this. Anyone in a hurry would fly.
Very few "red eyes" (departures after 10:00 pm) from/to major hubs as there were in the 1980s.
Sounds good. Some creative thinking.
MidlandMike oltmannd You don't have to give up anything. Just make LA - Albequerque daylight, 7 hours dwell in Albequerque, mostly daylight to KC, 7 hours dwell in KC, then existing schedule to Chicago. Same for the reverse - making daylight train from Albequerque to LA. Serving Flagstaff and Winslow EB in the dead of night kill any Grand Canyon tourist traffic the train might get... The long dwells allow the train to be switched into a smaller, one unit train between Albequerque to KC (on P42 can get a half dozen cars over Raton, easy.). It also allows a "reset" so that the east and west end portion of the trains run more reliably. And, I'm sure the folks in the middle of Kansas wouldn't complain if the train ran while they were awake. The only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station. For those making the CHI-LA trip (remember its the second top city pair) its a 3 day trip instead of a 2 day trip. CHI-ALB, CHI-Flagstaff, and LA-KC were also popular city pairs. Of course that also hurts equipment utilization, and increases labor costs. Take an efficiency lesson from the major airlines-- their jets don't sit on the ground at night-- the word is "red-eye".
oltmannd You don't have to give up anything. Just make LA - Albequerque daylight, 7 hours dwell in Albequerque, mostly daylight to KC, 7 hours dwell in KC, then existing schedule to Chicago. Same for the reverse - making daylight train from Albequerque to LA. Serving Flagstaff and Winslow EB in the dead of night kill any Grand Canyon tourist traffic the train might get... The long dwells allow the train to be switched into a smaller, one unit train between Albequerque to KC (on P42 can get a half dozen cars over Raton, easy.). It also allows a "reset" so that the east and west end portion of the trains run more reliably. And, I'm sure the folks in the middle of Kansas wouldn't complain if the train ran while they were awake.
The only thing worse than getting off the train in the wee hours of the morning in a small Kansas town, would be to sit up in the darkness for 7 hours while parked at KC Union Station prior to getting off at the small town station. For those making the CHI-LA trip (remember its the second top city pair) its a 3 day trip instead of a 2 day trip. CHI-ALB, CHI-Flagstaff, and LA-KC were also popular city pairs. Of course that also hurts equipment utilization, and increases labor costs. Take an efficiency lesson from the major airlines-- their jets don't sit on the ground at night-- the word is "red-eye".
We are only running check books - who cares what the customers wants or thinks. Leave it to the customer to spoil the plans. Of course, Anderson doesn't want any customers - customers want some service and service costs money.
oltmanndYou don't have to give up anything. Just make LA - Albequerque daylight, 7 hours dwell in Albequerque, mostly daylight to KC, 7 hours dwell in KC, then existing schedule to Chicago. Same for the reverse - making daylight train from Albequerque to LA. Serving Flagstaff and Winslow EB in the dead of night kill any Grand Canyon tourist traffic the train might get... The long dwells allow the train to be switched into a smaller, one unit train between Albequerque to KC (on P42 can get a half dozen cars over Raton, easy.). It also allows a "reset" so that the east and west end portion of the trains run more reliably. And, I'm sure the folks in the middle of Kansas wouldn't complain if the train ran while they were awake.
MidlandMike oltmannd MidlandMike I rode the SWC, and Albequerque to LA is definitely not a day train. Perhaps you meant it to be rescheduled as a day train, but at 17 hours travel time, that is one long day train. Yes. But, now you have a SW tourist market train. You do LA to Grand Canyon, for example, at reasonable hours of the day. (Rule: Run trains where people are when they are awake.) MidlandMike To break up the SWC into 3 distinct trains is an artificial construct, as there is much overlap between all your segments, and some who travel the entire distance. Current riders, there are some, but train is still not even close to full between KC and Albequerque. So, you'd be trading some OD pairs with a some current riders for other OD pairs with many more riders netting a "win" for the train. More riders, more revenue, lower costs. I don't agree with your speculation that segmenting the SWC for shorter daylight runs would net more riders or revenue. Presently on the SWC, Chicago-LA is the second top city pair by ridership, and the top by revenue. https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf If those shoter runs to CHI-KC and LA-Flagstaff would be more heavily patronized, then the states could run added corridor trains without much fear of having to providing big subsidy. Of course if the SWC was discontinued, the states would be totally on the hook to make up any losses on remaining short segments.
oltmannd MidlandMike I rode the SWC, and Albequerque to LA is definitely not a day train. Perhaps you meant it to be rescheduled as a day train, but at 17 hours travel time, that is one long day train. Yes. But, now you have a SW tourist market train. You do LA to Grand Canyon, for example, at reasonable hours of the day. (Rule: Run trains where people are when they are awake.) MidlandMike To break up the SWC into 3 distinct trains is an artificial construct, as there is much overlap between all your segments, and some who travel the entire distance. Current riders, there are some, but train is still not even close to full between KC and Albequerque. So, you'd be trading some OD pairs with a some current riders for other OD pairs with many more riders netting a "win" for the train. More riders, more revenue, lower costs.
MidlandMike I rode the SWC, and Albequerque to LA is definitely not a day train. Perhaps you meant it to be rescheduled as a day train, but at 17 hours travel time, that is one long day train.
Yes. But, now you have a SW tourist market train. You do LA to Grand Canyon, for example, at reasonable hours of the day. (Rule: Run trains where people are when they are awake.)
MidlandMike To break up the SWC into 3 distinct trains is an artificial construct, as there is much overlap between all your segments, and some who travel the entire distance.
Current riders, there are some, but train is still not even close to full between KC and Albequerque. So, you'd be trading some OD pairs with a some current riders for other OD pairs with many more riders netting a "win" for the train. More riders, more revenue, lower costs.
I don't agree with your speculation that segmenting the SWC for shorter daylight runs would net more riders or revenue. Presently on the SWC, Chicago-LA is the second top city pair by ridership, and the top by revenue.
https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf
If those shoter runs to CHI-KC and LA-Flagstaff would be more heavily patronized, then the states could run added corridor trains without much fear of having to providing big subsidy. Of course if the SWC was discontinued, the states would be totally on the hook to make up any losses on remaining short segments.
You don't have to give up anything. Just make LA - Albequerque daylight, 7 hours dwell in Albequerque, mostly daylight to KC, 7 hours dwell in KC, then existing schedule to Chicago. Same for the reverse - making daylight train from Albequerque to LA.
Serving Flagstaff and Winslow EB in the dead of night kill any Grand Canyon tourist traffic the train might get...
The long dwells allow the train to be switched into a smaller, one unit train between Albequerque to KC (on P42 can get a half dozen cars over Raton, easy.). It also allows a "reset" so that the east and west end portion of the trains run more reliably. And, I'm sure the folks in the middle of Kansas wouldn't complain if the train ran while they were awake.
There's a difference between a "cruise train" and a "tourism oriented". I would agree that Amtrak should not be in the business of running subsidized "cruise trains". Having daylight schedules that are timed to attract tourists and actively marketing that would just be part of making Amtrak "better".
BTW, has anyone ever taken a look at Amtrak Tours? I looked at one for some western national parks. The tour was:
-take the train to SLC
-rent a car
-drive to park on your own
-do pre-paid group tour
-drive to next park
-lather, rinse, repeat.
Might as well just drive the whole thing....
charlie hebdoOther posts in the past have shown that the majority of those western LD trains' coach passengers ride between intermediate points. They could be served far better by twice daily day trains between major intermediate cities, as Oltmann suggested for the SWC.
MidlandMikeI rode the SWC, and Albequerque to LA is definitely not a day train. Perhaps you meant it to be rescheduled as a day train, but at 17 hours travel time, that is one long day train.
MidlandMikeTo break up the SWC into 3 distinct trains is an artificial construct, as there is much overlap between all your segments, and some who travel the entire distance.
The SWC has a load factor of 65%. For comparison a close-by corridor, KC-STL has a load factor of 31%, and their two round trips carry a total of half the passengers of the SWC. That corridor hardly sounds like it is better serving its market.
MidlandMike charlie hebdo Cruise trains offered by private operations (often tacked on to an Amtrak LD train such as the CNO) are more expensive then Amtrak LD services because the operating costs must be covered in the fare + a profit made. Less of the public is willing to pay for that when the Amtrak service is subsidized and cheaper. I would guess that your definition of a cruse train passenger would be any one that travels by sleeper (although I know some that traveled by sleeper, traveling by train rather than flying for medical reasons). Even if you count all the sleepers, they are only about 15% of LD passengers. Are you telling me that the mass of coach passengers are sitting up for two days, for a cruise train experience?
charlie hebdo Cruise trains offered by private operations (often tacked on to an Amtrak LD train such as the CNO) are more expensive then Amtrak LD services because the operating costs must be covered in the fare + a profit made. Less of the public is willing to pay for that when the Amtrak service is subsidized and cheaper.
I would guess that your definition of a cruse train passenger would be any one that travels by sleeper (although I know some that traveled by sleeper, traveling by train rather than flying for medical reasons). Even if you count all the sleepers, they are only about 15% of LD passengers. Are you telling me that the mass of coach passengers are sitting up for two days, for a cruise train experience?
Other posts in the past have shown that the majority of those western LD trains' coach passengers ride between intermediate points. They could be served far better by twice daily day trains between major intermediate cities, as Oltmann suggested for the SWC.
charlie hebdoCruise trains offered by private operations (often tacked on to an Amtrak LD train such as the CNO) are more expensive then Amtrak LD services because the operating costs must be covered in the fare + a profit made. Less of the public is willing to pay for that when the Amtrak service is subsidized and cheaper.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.