CMStPnP BaltACD Have we reached to point were the Democrats are the Tax and Spend party and the GOP has become the Cut Taxes and Spend even more party? Despite leaving the treasury in a ever increasing deficit position. I am curious how this all balances out because when the Feds collect a Tarriff it acts like a tax and goes to the Treasury to spend. Likewise when you achieve 3% GDP growth or higher your tax revenues will be higher typically than you projected in your budget resulting in a surplus of taxes paid in. Add that to the tarriffs collected and we might just have a surplus in April 2019 instead of a deficit........which would be humourous, in my opinion.......after a huge forecasted deficit. Add to that even more the discounted tax they are going assess firms bringing their capital back to U.S. shores. No telling what our deficit will be this year and it might even be a surplus.
BaltACD Have we reached to point were the Democrats are the Tax and Spend party and the GOP has become the Cut Taxes and Spend even more party? Despite leaving the treasury in a ever increasing deficit position.
I am curious how this all balances out because when the Feds collect a Tarriff it acts like a tax and goes to the Treasury to spend. Likewise when you achieve 3% GDP growth or higher your tax revenues will be higher typically than you projected in your budget resulting in a surplus of taxes paid in. Add that to the tarriffs collected and we might just have a surplus in April 2019 instead of a deficit........which would be humourous, in my opinion.......after a huge forecasted deficit. Add to that even more the discounted tax they are going assess firms bringing their capital back to U.S. shores. No telling what our deficit will be this year and it might even be a surplus.
Porcine flight paths.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDHave we reached to point were the Democrats are the Tax and Spend party and the GOP has become the Cut Taxes and Spend even more party? Despite leaving the treasury in a ever increasing deficit position.
oltmannd ...Amtrak needs to be sure that everyone has their eyes wide open when they are talking about running without PTC implies and entails.
With respect, though ... that does not involve what running without ATS implies and entails, and the safety aspect specific to the SWC over Raton, which is as I understand it the whole of the PTC issue that practically applies, is only the 80 miles it prospectively shares with the commuter operation.
While I understand how little faith we have in Amtrak engineer training, certainly it is not clearly and presently dangerous to operate trains over that full section of route, so little populated by alternative traffic that can't be predicted, without the whole ridiculous, misguided kludge that is mandated PTC at present.
Let's take this from a different angle.
You are Anderson. You spent your whole life in airlines. Moving people from A to B and trying to make a buck. You spent a lot of time figuring out how to best employ your assets and put butts in seats.
You friend from NS asks you about doing a post retirement gig with Amtrak. You accept.
Then, you get the tour. The NEC you understand. It does basically what your airline does. It has levels of service, yield pricing, the whole deal. You get that.
Then you look at your route map. What's up with that? A line through the middle of Kansas? A line through rural SC?
So, you ask your folk. "Why are we running this train? What does it do?"
And you get you get a mixed bag of answers. "Placeholder", Political support, routes in our contract, too hard to change, "they are holding their own".
Then, you learn about PTC and think that's great. If it weren't for fanatical safety protocols and culture for airplanes and airlines, we wouldn't have anywhere near the safety performance airlines have managed.
Then you have a thunderous wreck in the middle of rural SC. Then you find out that certain Amtrak routes are "PTC exempt". What the heck?!?
Worse yet, that route through Kansas has no permanent funding. "We're running a train through the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, and we have no secure funding and no PTC? Does anyone think this is a smart idea? Certainly, there are better things to do with our trains."
"When I ran Delta, and we had a lousy route, we redeployed our aircraft elsewhere. Why don't we do that with our trains?"
A perfectly good question.
A way-harder-than-it-should-be answer.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
This argument over revenue passengers ignores what are the RPMs for each leg of the train. That is what is the least traveled leg and the most traveled leg ? Is Kansas City <> CHI much greater than ABQ -?
Maybe KCY <> CHI needs 6 coaches ?
RailvtBottom line, if we think the SW CHIEF should be maintained as a through route then Amtrak must continue to serve tracks exempted by the FRA from PTC
Yep....and the bus bridge idea is dumb - for all the reasons you've stated.
But, Amtrak needs to be sure that everyone has their eyes wide open when they are talking about running without PTC implies and entails.
Amtrak is also correct about requiring solid funding for their routes. Enough with the hand-to-mouth, live to play another day, "place holder" thinking!
PJS1The question is not whether we can afford Amtrak. We should support it were the cost/benefit analysis is positive.
The benefit part is often hard to calculate. It depends on how wide you cast the net and what you compare it to.
BaltACDPJS1 The people of Puerto Rico could use some or all of the money that the taxpayers are wasting on the long-distance trains to help rebuild their ravaged island homeland, especially their electrical grid. They are, after all, our fellow citizens. Tell the President - he doesn't think so and where is Puerto Rica - it is Puerto Rico.
Tell the President - he doesn't think so and where is Puerto Rica - it is Puerto Rico.
Just east of Cuber! I have corrected the typo.
The President of the United States, as empowered under the Stafford Act, upon request, declares an area a federal disaster area. President Trump declared Purto Rico a federal distaster area on September 18, 2017, in light of its having been wrecked by Hurricane Maria.
Once the President signs the order, most of the relief money flows to the disaster area victims according to pre-authorized formulas as authorized by Congress. The President does not contol the amounts of money, although he can ask for addition funds.
Purto Rico's electric distribution system, which had been mismanaged, was hit particularly hard. The federal government has not provided the funds necessary to restore it fully.
U.S. electric utiliites have sent crews to Purto Rico to help rebuild the system. In addition, I believe Elon Musk has sent large storage batteries to Purto Rico to help with system restoration. But the monies and individual efforts have not been enough.
I would rather see the $500 million a year spent on little used long-distance trains go to help our fellow citizens on the island.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
RailvtWhen, for example, I rode Train 4 (sold out) from Flagstaff to La Junta, escorting a tour group at the end of June, 2017, we found three coaches in service, when in the past in summer there were commonly four coaches assigned. This was an effective 25% cut in coach capacity. On the same tour we found, incredibly, only two coaches on the similarly sold out CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR west of Denver--a train that always offered 3-4 chair cars in the summer throughout the Superliner era.
Very interesting. Cut capacity, then even though you're sold out, you can claim that there is no increase in ridership over past trips.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
PJS1The people of Puerto Rica could use some or all of the money that the taxpayers are wasting on the long-distance trains to help rebuild their ravaged island homeland, especially their electrical grid. They are, after all, our fellow citizens.
oltmannd The cost/benefit analysis is really a simple value proposition. Can we afford Amtrak? Sure.
The question is not whether we can afford Amtrak. We should support it were the cost/benefit analysis is positive.
Is spending money on long-distance trains the optimum use of limited resources. No, there are more important needs, which is a not so simple value proposition.
The people of Puerto Rico could use some or all of the money that the taxpayers are wasting on the long-distance trains to help rebuild their ravaged island homeland, especially their electrical grid. They are, after all, our fellow citizens.
The recent discussion here of whether there should even be an Amtrak National Network is ultimately tired and unresolvable. I will never concede that we don't need connectivity and long-haul services and those who see no role for trains outside of 250-400 mile routes will never be convinced of my viewpoint. We will have no choice but to agree to disagree.
So having been correctly accused above of cherry-picking statistics (because that's what all data driven arguments do) let's look at the last 14 years of ridership on the SW CHIEF. Oltmannd is correct that recent ridership on Trains 3 & 4 has been basically level FY 2015-2017.
This should come as no surprise, given Amtrak's general preference for fixed consists. Extra cars typically added at peak seasons have in some cases not appreared in the last few years, or run for shorter periods.
When, for example, I rode Train 4 (sold out) from Flagstaff to La Junta, escorting a tour group at the end of June, 2017, we found three coaches in service, when in the past in summer there were commonly four coaches assigned. This was an effective 25% cut in coach capacity. On the same tour we found, incredibly, only two coaches on the similarly sold out CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR west of Denver--a train that always offered 3-4 chair cars in the summer throughout the Superliner era.
But longer term the SW CHIEF has done far better than even the 14% growth over 8 years that I've been referencing.
A quick chart: Ridership on Trains 3 & 4 FY2003-2017
Year RidershipFY17 363,000* (-)FY16 364,748 (-)FY15 367,267 (+)FY14 352,162 (-)FY13 355,815 (+)FY12 355,316 (+)FY11 354,912 (+)FY10 342,403 (+)FY09 318,025 (-)FY08 331,143 (+)FY07 316,668 (+)FY06 300,416 (+)FY05 295,515 (+)FY04 290,003 (+)FY03 273,271
Over the 15 year period ridership grew over 33%, despite no overall increase in train consist and very little route-specific marketing.
This is NOT an empty train running to nowhere.
The forced train/bus/train transfers, combined with the 11-12 hours spent on the bus, will devastate ridership immediately over the through route and to/from the bypassed stations, which will include Albuquerque itself, as it lies within the either PTC exempt or PTC deadline extended Rail Runner district, which Amtrak now says it needs to serve by bus.
The nearest current station west of ABQ actually in PTC teritory will be Gallup, NM, 173 miles to the west, if Amtrak choses to serve only stops which are already possesed of platforms on an established passenger track. If it can get permission to access the BNSF "Transcon" for a short distance, a stop could be established at Belen, NM, 30 miles south of Albuquerque. If Amtrak paid to build new platforms then a stop (bus/train change) at Isleta, NM, 13 miles west of Albuquerque (where the PTC territory resumes) would be possible--but in no case would Albuquerque be directly served if Amtrak sticks to its refusal to run over PTC exempted/extended trackage.
Bottom line, if we think the SW CHIEF should be maintained as a through route then Amtrak must continue to serve tracks exempted by the FRA from PTC and/or given a proper extension to 2020 (as should be the case in the Rail Runner district for the 80 miles Lamy-Albuquerque-Isleta). Otherwise the 550 mile bus-bridge (or the slightly less absurd 348 mile version from La Junta) arrives in all its absurdity--and there will be a shorter version west of Albuquerque (to either Gallup, Belen or Isleta) as well.
And as I noted many comments above, there are numerous other spots around this country where the same problem of PTC exempt or PTC extended track arises.
If, as some of the posters to this list believe, that is as it should be, because the National Network trains are not "profitable" (as if the NEC actually was profitable after taking into account maintenance and investment costs) or serve small towns that somehow deserve to lose their service, or don't carry enough riders, this will not concern you. If you share with me the understanding that we "invest" through tax subsidies in the highways and do the same for rail, then this is a real worry indeed. For my part I propose to fight hard to keep and ultimately expand service.
Carl Fowler
PJS1My point about the national debt is simple: Americans should do a careful cost/benefit analysis for each project that it wants the taxpayers to fund. Is another $3 million or whatever the figure is for a train that carries comparatively few intercity passengers the optimum outlay for a nation that has its highest debt burden since WWII?
The cost/benefit analysis is really a simple value proposition. Can we afford Amtrak? Sure. But it does cost money and that has to come from somewhere. How do Americans value that against other things we have to pay for?
We don't have a particularly large Federal Gov't compared to most other Western Democracies, but that may be a distinctive institution that has put the US at the top of the Western World. There isn't a "right and wrong" here, just values and how to reach solid compromised going forward.
Either way, improving Amtrak is an imperitive if there is going to be a future "national Amtrak". Inflation and recession are coming on the heels of the tax and spend rev-up we're currently seeing. Amtrak is going to be have to be ready to weather a storm.
Railvt You’re right, the 14% growth was over 8 years.
You’re right, the 14% growth was over 8 years.
2-1/2% in the past 5. That's flat.
The States of New Mexico and Colorado found it worthwhile to support the Cumbres and Toltec, so perhaps it is worthwhile for them to support the Rarion Pass route also. Otherwise the train should be rerouted via Amerillo or dropped completely. The through traffic Illinois - California (not necessarily end-points) would vanish with a bus bridge, just vanish. The Eagle-Sunset would be the preferred route.
SD70Dude charlie hebdo PJS1 Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they pass them through to the customers in the price of their goods and/or services. Specious argument. If corporations didn't pay taxes, why do they try so hard to avoid them through getting lopholes added to tax laws or offshoring the income (headquartering in the Caymans, etc. ) or spending millions lobbying (aka bribing) elected government officials to reduce them? Because when taxes are reduced corporations do not lower their prices, and instead the reduction in tax payments ends up as profit. On the other hand, when corporate taxes are raised it would seem perfectly logical to pass that cost down to the consumer, in order to maintain profits at their previous level. Gotta keep those shareholders happy!
Specious argument. If corporations didn't pay taxes, why do they try so hard to avoid them through getting lopholes added to tax laws or offshoring the income (headquartering in the Caymans, etc. ) or spending millions lobbying (aka bribing) elected government officials to reduce them?
Because when taxes are reduced corporations do not lower their prices, and instead the reduction in tax payments ends up as profit.
On the other hand, when corporate taxes are raised it would seem perfectly logical to pass that cost down to the consumer, in order to maintain profits at their previous level.
Gotta keep those shareholders happy!
For the same reason that most people attempt to pay the lowest possible tax. They have an obligation to protect their stakeholders, i.e. customers, employees, creditors, shareholders, etc. Most large corporations compete against foreign entities that have had, until recently, paid a lower effective corporate tax. Approximately 35 to 40 percent of the revenues of the Fortune 500 are generated through overseas sales. If they have a higher effective tax rate than a competitor, they are at a disadvantage.
The notion that only the shareholders benefit from reduced corporate taxes or only customers wear any increases is wrong. It depends on the elasticity of the price demand curve. In a competitive market, with numerous players, as studies have shown, a downward adjustment of corporate taxes eventually flows through to the customers.
Who are the shareholders? Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the shares of American Fortune 500 companies, which constitute roughly 75 percent of the total capitalized value of U.S. businesses, are held by institutional investors, i.e. mutual funds, EFTs, 401k funds, pension funds, sovereign funds, etc. So, if you are an employee or retiree of an organization - private or public - that has a pension fund, or if you invest in a mutual fund or EFT, you are at least an indirect shareholder. This includes retired teachers, professors, government employees, railroad employees, etc.
The literature regarding corporate taxes is voluminous. Give it a go.
Proponents for any interest should do a cost/benefit analysis for each project they want the taxpayers to fund. Is another $3 million or whatever the figure is for a train that carries comparatively few intercity passengers the optimum outlay for a nation that has its highest debt burden since WWII?
RailvtRidership on the SW CHIEF is not declining. Over the past 5 years it grew 14%.
This: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3439/28.pdf
shows ridership is flat.
It also shows that the top two intermediate stations are KC and Albequerque and only 3 of the top 10 OD pairs span KC-Albequerque.
I think the first step to fixing this train is to flip the west end schedule so that it's daylight between LA and Albequerque. That makes it better for tourists wanting to see the scenery and hit the Grand Canyon and Albequerque/Santa Fe (and casinos?). Hitting Flagstaff and Winslow in the dead of night is just stupid.
That means adding about 12-14 hours dwell to the schedule which I'd split between Albequreque and KC. I'd use that time to switch the equipment.
Basically, the Albequerque to KC train would be a six car train. Two sleepers, a sleeper-baggage, a lounge/diner and two coaches. A single P42 can easily get this over Raton.
The extra dwell also put the train on a daylight schedule across most of Kansas.
The KC to Chicago and LA to Albequerque portion of the trains would be turned and serviced at KC and Albequerque - all coaches and perhaps another lounge car on the west end.
The slower overall schedule means more the through portion of the train needs an extra set or two of equipment, but since the through portion of the train is much smaller, the overall amount of equipment should be about the same.
You could probably contract with BNSF both places to handle the turning and mechanical work and local contractors to clean and supply the train.
Have we reached to point were the Democrats are the Tax and Spend party and the GOP has become the Cut Taxes and Spend even more party? Despite leaving the treasury in a ever increasing deficit position.
Actually, we reached that point over thirty years ago. Look at the national debt at the end of the last five or so presidents' terms. You can argue about congress being of the opposite party, but they really don't have much say about anything. The president generally sets the policies, and congress argues and puts on a show before passing what he wants, most of which happens in the first two years when they are of the same party.
NKP guy And this year, to much acclaim by certain types in here, Congress passed a huge tax cut, unneeded and unfunded. The projected deficit and national debt jumped again. Did you hear any outrage from the fiscal conservatives here? I didn't, and I bet you didn't either. So while some "railfans" here vociferously debate the miserable few million dollars of subsidy needed to operate the present skeleton LD train network and traditional, decent dining car service, many pairs of blind eyes are turned to the one trillion dollars extra the tax cut is expected to cost future taxpayers and the federal government this year alone. Somehow that is OK, but a billion or two for Amtrak is beyond the pale, Socialism, a threat to the American Way of Life, or, at the least, responsible fiscal prudence. Remember the anecdote associated with Winston Churchill that ends, "Madam, we've already established what you are. What we are doing now is haggling over the price"? This nation can certainly afford Amtrak and its required subsidies since there is unlimited money for tax cuts for the rich, a big military parade, and so much else.
And this year, to much acclaim by certain types in here, Congress passed a huge tax cut, unneeded and unfunded. The projected deficit and national debt jumped again. Did you hear any outrage from the fiscal conservatives here? I didn't, and I bet you didn't either.
So while some "railfans" here vociferously debate the miserable few million dollars of subsidy needed to operate the present skeleton LD train network and traditional, decent dining car service, many pairs of blind eyes are turned to the one trillion dollars extra the tax cut is expected to cost future taxpayers and the federal government this year alone. Somehow that is OK, but a billion or two for Amtrak is beyond the pale, Socialism, a threat to the American Way of Life, or, at the least, responsible fiscal prudence.
Remember the anecdote associated with Winston Churchill that ends, "Madam, we've already established what you are. What we are doing now is haggling over the price"?
This nation can certainly afford Amtrak and its required subsidies since there is unlimited money for tax cuts for the rich, a big military parade, and so much else.
Well said. A lot of posturing and arguing is going on over peanuts.
I hope one can realize that the largest driver of our national debt is "autopilot" spending on social programs, of which health spending is one of the largest components. One of the largest causes of health spending is "first world" diseases caused by sedentariness. One of the largest causes of sedentariness is the US adoption of street design standards that make it pratically impossible to walk or bike for daily tasks. If national debt is ones concern then this string should be unwound way before anything else as it will eat alive every bit of discretionary funding. There are plenty of groups and people who have realized this and frankly it will take a half-century or more to correct.
To the point, if the Southwest Cheif could be shown to have above-the-rail operations that are fully covered by revenue (same situation as the northeast corridor) would those calling it a waste agree that it should be retained? Remember published operational numbers for the National Network include infrastructure costs.
At one point in 2001 the SWC was pulling in revenue of $93 M ($2018) against today's ~$48 M, with a large boost from the additon of Mail & Express revenue before those operations were "simplified" out of existance. That type of thinking along with adding more reveneue density by using through cars is something Amtrak has rarely followed through on as the national routes are always held to a different standard of trying to cover infrastructure costs with revenue.
charlie hebdo PJS1 Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they pass them through to the customers in the price of their goods and/or services. Specious argument. If corporations didn't pay taxes, why do they try so hard to avoid them through getting lopholes added to tax laws or offshoring the income (headquartering in the Caymans, etc. ) or spending millions lobbying (aka bribing) elected government officials to reduce them?
PJS1 Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they pass them through to the customers in the price of their goods and/or services.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
PJS1Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they pass them through to the customers in the price of their goods and/or services.
PJS1This woud not be a rant, would it?
Certainly not. Rants use lots of exclamation marks and are irrational, devoid of logic. My post shows plenty of calm, well-bred restraint along with some irony and a soupcon of humor. Therefore it's more of a diatribe with some bloviating added for texture.
Shameful. Big fat razzie to you. Glad I have a dog. Woof!
Railvt Well finally we agree on something. Your list of communities should of course be served. But helping one does not mean hurting somewhere else.
Well finally we agree on something. Your list of communities should of course be served. But helping one does not mean hurting somewhere else.
The notion that passenger rail would be viable in the Texas cities shown in my previous post is unrealistic. Amtrak is not a national system. Most people who are not rail buffs would know it if the facts were spelled out to them.
If it were in my power to do so, I would kill the long distance trains with the stroke of a pen. Amtrak has had 47 years to make them viable; it has failed. And it will continue to fail.
If the long distance trains were discontinued, Amtrak could focus on where passenger trains have the potential to be successful, which is relatively short, high density corridors.
charlie hebdo Not me. I hope to see a viable passenger rail service. That means frequent, fast passenger trains serving the most people at distances where rail is competive. That does not mean running very long distance, 40+ hour nostalgia trains that have not made any sense as transportation 50+ years. Ask anyone under 40 if they would choose to ride a train for 20 or more hours to get where they want to go when they can fly in 2-3 hours. Nor does it have anything to do with showing a profit or hauling up deficit numbers when a certain political party is running huge deficits by cutting taxes for those imaginary persons, aka corporations. It's time to move on and start serving the many population centers that have grown tremendously over the last five federal censuses, as mentioned here and elsewhere. Columbus, OH? Las Vegas? Let's have 21st century service and stop trying to recapture the faded glory of the 20th Century Limited.
Not me. I hope to see a viable passenger rail service. That means frequent, fast passenger trains serving the most people at distances where rail is competive. That does not mean running very long distance, 40+ hour nostalgia trains that have not made any sense as transportation 50+ years. Ask anyone under 40 if they would choose to ride a train for 20 or more hours to get where they want to go when they can fly in 2-3 hours. Nor does it have anything to do with showing a profit or hauling up deficit numbers when a certain political party is running huge deficits by cutting taxes for those imaginary persons, aka corporations.
It's time to move on and start serving the many population centers that have grown tremendously over the last five federal censuses, as mentioned here and elsewhere. Columbus, OH? Las Vegas? Let's have 21st century service and stop trying to recapture the faded glory of the 20th Century Limited.
I largely share your perspective.
Why is passenger rail exempt from showing a profit or at least breaking even? Airlines have to show a profit or they go out of business. Witness the airline graveyard. Bus companies have to show a profit or they go out of business. Trailways is an example. So too do steam ship companies, cruise ship operators, barge operators, trucking companies, etc.
Federal and state debt is an issue any time someone wants to raid their treasuries for their pet project. When someone proposes an expansion of Amtrak's services, they should tell us in specific terms how they propose to pay for it. And what will be the financial benefit of the additional service? Or maintenance of an existing service?
Corporations don't pay taxes. In most instances they pass them through to the customers in the price of their goods and/or services.
NKP guySo while some "railfans" here vociferously debate the miserable few million dollars of subsidy needed to operate the present skeleton LD train network and traditional, decent dining car service, many pairs of blind eyes are turned to the one trillion dollars extra the tax cut is expected to cost future taxpayers and the federal government this year alone.
NKP guy PJS1 The combined federal, state, and local government debt is $24.1 trillion. The federal public debt is approximately $15.3 trillion. Total government debt is approximatey 124 percent of GDP; public federal debt is approximately 80 percent of GDP. While I don't doubt your arithmetic, I submit that it's not important, certainly not to the political party that has railed against deficits and the national debt since 1896 and especially against Amtrak since its inception. "Deficits don't matter." Remember? And this year, to much acclaim by certain types in here, Congress passed a huge tax cut, unneeded and unfunded. The projected deficit and national debt jumped again. Did you hear any outrage from the fiscal conservatives here? I didn't, and I bet you didn't either. So while some "railfans" here vociferously debate the miserable few million dollars of subsidy needed to operate the present skeleton LD train network and traditional, decent dining car service, many pairs of blind eyes are turned to the one trillion dollars extra the tax cut is expected to cost future taxpayers and the federal government this year alone. Somehow that is OK, but a billion or two for Amtrak is beyond the pale, Socialism, a threat to the American Way of Life, or, at the least, responsible fiscal prudence. Remember the anecdote associated with Winston Churchill that ends, "Madam, we've already established what you are. What we are doing now is haggling over the price"? This nation can certainly afford Amtrak and its required subsidies since there is unlimited money for tax cuts for the rich, a big military parade, and so much else.
While I don't doubt your arithmetic, I submit that it's not important, certainly not to the political party that has railed against deficits and the national debt since 1896 and especially against Amtrak since its inception.
"Deficits don't matter." Remember?
This woud not be a rant, would it?
blue streak 1 lets see ==== SWC goes down the tubes. Then Amtrak has to allocate all those LD fixed costs that were on the SWC to other trains. Then add approximately 6% to every other remaining LD train. then the next LD train that goes down allocates an additional 6-1/2 % to every remaining LD train. Culmative of 12-1/2 %. 3 discontinued trains 19% and so on. That is the spiral that many of our posters have spoken. Granted the figures are probably not that severe but even Auto Train could not long survive ?
lets see ==== SWC goes down the tubes. Then Amtrak has to allocate all those LD fixed costs that were on the SWC to other trains. Then add approximately 6% to every other remaining LD train. then the next LD train that goes down allocates an additional 6-1/2 % to every remaining LD train. Culmative of 12-1/2 %. 3 discontinued trains 19% and so on. That is the spiral that many of our posters have spoken. Granted the figures are probably not that severe but even Auto Train could not long survive ?
Unless you have access to Amtrak's books, you don't know how the costs that would remain after discontinuance of the SWC or any other train would be allocated over the remaining operations and assets. Neither, as far as I can determine, does anyone else posting to these discussions. Including me!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.