# Could Only Some of the LD Trains Be Cut Instead of All of Them?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 19, 2017)

The news of the latest Trump budget has brought fear on some people at this board and a "we've been here before" from others. At the post about the Trump budget the suggestions were to contact Congress because it's clear that no budget will be passed without Congressional approval. I'm going to discuss the "compromise" option that another round of Amtrak cuts will happen as opposed to no cuts or a complete shutdown of the LD system. Normally people start with an extreme option before compromise and negotiation begin. Back in 1979 Brock Adams suggested cutting many more cuts than they actually did. If his report were implemented fully, the Crescent, the Inter-American (now the Texas Eagle) would've been killed (in addition to the Lone Star,meaning no service from Texas northward) and the Southwest Limited (now Southwest Chief) and California Zephyr would've been combined into a single train which probably would've been much slower than the Southwest Limited/Chief. I am more likely to believe that the final result of the budget negotiations will be the compromise to cut some trains as opposed to cutting all of them.

I'm sure most if not all of you would prefer none of the LD trains to be canceled. NARP has suggested "National or Nothing". Sometimes when you demand all or nothing you wind up with nothing. It sounds like most of you on this group don't know the meaning of the word compromise. I certainly don't want to see all of the Amtrak NEC trains canceled (granted I'm right along the line). And to me if Amtrak cuts half of the LD routes then that's still better than none at all. It probably won't happen either. If Congress truly cuts off Amtrak funding, they do make enough in ticket revenue to cover 94% of their operating costs. So Amtrak certainly would be able to afford some of the LD routes and if Congress doesn't give them a dime they have no right to demand any of the routes be kept so Amtrak will choose the routes that benefit them the most financially (which is what I want). Money from the government comes with strings attached, that they call the shots. We've seen that in the past. To me there's nothing wrong with wanting to keep all of the routes. But I am not going to go with the "all or nothing" mentality.

Amtrak/Congress has done cuts or pruning of the LD system several times in its history. Back in the mid 90's, the internet was just in its infacy (remember Mozilla/Netscape?) And back then, I wasn't on this board. Back in 1979 I was a kid and during A-Day I wasn't born. So if they are considering another round of cuts I feel I should voice my opinion on which trains to cut and which to keep so they don't cancel the "wrong ones". IMO you can still have your "national" LD system with fewer than 15 routes. Certainly you should be able to go coast to coast and connecting north and south and east and west in some fashion. I feel New York/Washington DC, Florida, Texas, California, and Chicago need to be covered for sure. I am not a fan of the fact that there is no east-west connection between Florida and New Orleans but it almost sounds like any additions now would be a pipe dream. So imagine the LD system as a house of cards and you have to figure which cards you can remove without the whole house coming down (or Jenga if you're more familiar with that).

I think most of you other than the newbies can figure out the trains I want to cut and in this post I will not single out any specific trains. My philosophy is to serve the most number of people in this country as possible. It is not about who needs Amtrak more than others but who can contribute the most to Amtrak's financial well being. If you have only so many train miles, I'd rather those train miles serve 60% of America than 50%. The phrase "mass transit" has the word mass in it. Transportation systems often depend on population/ridership. If you have a larger population base you have a higher potential ridership/revenue. To me, it's about going from Point A to Point B, where do people live and where do people want to go to? Some people (including Wick Moorman himself) are more concerned about rural areas losing their train service. I don't feel rural areas deserve rail travel more than anyone else just because they don't have other transportation options. Amtrak should not be a charity. To me, it's also bad areas like Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus have no trains. What if in the next round of cuts Houston loses their service? What if there's no service at all to Florida? How would someone afraid of flying get there? Spend a day or two on a bus or take a really long drive? I would absolutely hate to never see my friends and family in California or even Chicago again. So yes, I do consider some routes more important than others. In most dream future HSR maps (America 2050 among others), the emphasis is on the largest cities and states and urban as opposed to rural.

If most of you had access to the internet back in 1979 or 1994 you'd be saying they shouldn't cut any trains. While some (especially me) complain about the LD system you'd have to admit that it's still better than none at all. I think if cuts have to be made (and if you can find a way for none of them to be cut, more power to you) then they need to cut the trains that will cause the least amount of collateral damage and not cut a route that would leave a giant hole in the Amtrak system or freeze out a major city like they did Vegas or Nashville or significantly downgrade service to a major city.

Then the question comes if cuts are made which ones are cut and who decides it? I think we all know what the answer to that is, Congress. Honestly, I don't believe many Congressmen/women really care about Amtrak nationally, they're looking out for their areas. So it's going to come down to who fights more and if too many people fight it could come down to who has more power than others (and we've seen it before). The sad thing is chances are representatives/senators in rural states will fight for Amtrak more than states with large populations and we'll have a mostly rural system with no access to Florida or Texas or interstate service to California and Amtrak ridership will plummet. I've said many times this pipe dream of Amtrak "serving everyone" will never happen. As much as you tell me not to cannibalize/pit one area/train over another, inevitably Amtrak will have to choose (unless you'd prefer them to just shut down Amtrak altogether). I want the routes that are saved to be the ones that serve the most number of people/passengers and contribute the most to Amtrak as opposed to who has the most power in Congress.


----------



## fair28 (Mar 19, 2017)

Great analysis philly....costs need to be cut somewhere and sadly Amtrak is a favorite as well as NPR and nea. I don't want train service cut either but it's going to happen unless ridership outside of the nec picks up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 19, 2017)

fair28 said:


> Great analysis philly....costs need to be cut somewhere and sadly Amtrak is a favorite as well as NPR and nea. I don't want train service cut either but it's going to happen unless ridership outside of the nec picks up.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I disagree with your analysis of the situation, I don't think any service will be lost because there haven't been any cuts during the republican presidencies.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 19, 2017)

At this point, even if we assume the administration's budget in regards to Amtrak were to be enacted by Congress without change, we don't know how the cut to Amtrak long distance funding would be worded. It was phrased, not as a X% cut to Amtrak, but as an elimination of federal funds for long distance service - to me, that sort of suggests there would be some sort of prohibition on spending any federal funds to support long distance trains, which means cutting one or more LD train to try to save the other LD trains wouldn't really be an option.

Again though, we don't yet know exactly how the cut to Amtrak funding would be structured, nor do we even know whether there will be any cut to begin with. And until we know more about what specifically is proposed it is hard to figure out an alternate approach to propose as a sort of compromise.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 19, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> fair28 said:
> 
> 
> > Great analysis philly....costs need to be cut somewhere and sadly Amtrak is a favorite as well as NPR and nea. I don't want train service cut either but it's going to happen unless ridership outside of the nec picks up.
> ...


I would disagree with both. I don't think it's an accurate reading of the situation to say that non-NEC trains may see cutbacks because they lack ridership. Nor do I think that it's reasonable to believe that somehow Amtrak is safe from cuts because of the political party of the president.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 19, 2017)

Once you have already cut the national network to the very bone, leaving only core trunk routes and - arguably - even some of those currently suspended or missing, you really cannot cut _anything_ else without compromising the viability (financial and practical) of those services which remain - and that includes the state and Northeast Corridors.

It might possibly be argued some of the previous cuts removed 'weak links' from the system, such as the end of service to St. Petersburg and termination of _The River Cities, _but those options are long exhausted. Amtrak's network must stand or fall together: "if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand" (Mark 3:24); As said here many times, you cannot pit one train or route against another; Such is a recipe for failure.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 19, 2017)

One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.

Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.

A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.

A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.

I'm not going to bargain away Amtrak's future by sitting down with the haters and saying, "O.K., let's cut some LD trains. Here's two that only run 3 days a week; nobody will miss them. Now, how many more routes do you want to chop?"

No, the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak -- not less.

More trains, more places served, more network effects, more riders, more revenue -- and almost the same fixed overhead.

Granted, the LD routes as a group will probably never make an operating 'profit', tho 94% farebox recovery already is a fine performance. But it's easy to foresee continuing ridership growth, rising revenue, better service, and diminishing losses.

The fixed overhead -- the reservations system and IT department, Beech Grove and Bear Creek, many administrative expenses, etc. -- remains about the same with 14 LD trains or 28 or 21. So it's better if these core costs could be divided over a larger number of train miles/passengers/whatever measure. This change would reduce overhead costs for every existing LD train and allow more of them to show an operating surplus.

The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Mar 19, 2017)

I agree.


----------



## JayPea (Mar 19, 2017)

I agree too, but apparently it's better to have 60leven dozen routes between Philadelphia and Chicago and let the citizens of Montana and North Dakota go pound sand while eating cake.


----------



## west point (Mar 19, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.
> 
> A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.
> 
> ...


How many business have shrunk to be profitable ? Most shrunk them selves into bankruptcy. This poster believes as many others do that if all LD trains never had to be sold out the LD routes would show an operating profit. If enough equipment for longer train lengths then the diners might show at least break even. With enough equipment then present routes could run extra sections during high seasons.


----------



## daybeers (Mar 19, 2017)

I feel like like trains should add more capacity before adding more frequencies. The freight railroads probably won't be too enthused to further disrupt their schedules for more Amtrak service. Freight schedules are already disrupted a few hours on each side of an Amtrak train (I don't remember the exact number).


----------



## west point (Mar 19, 2017)

daybeers said:


> I feel like like trains should add more capacity before adding more frequencies. The freight railroads probably won't be too enthused to further disrupt their schedules for more Amtrak service. Freight schedules are already disrupted a few hours on each side of an Amtrak train (I don't remember the exact number).


Yes that is considered the way to go. Certainly trains south of WASH can be as long as 18 cars which certainly would help make any train closer or exceed break even. An occasional extra section would also help to break even. But will certain haters ever allow funds to get sufficient rolling stock ? You answer the question ?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 19, 2017)

Q

Sorry for the pocket post.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 20, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> fair28 said:
> 
> 
> > Great analysis philly....costs need to be cut somewhere and sadly Amtrak is a favorite as well as NPR and nea. I don't want train service cut either but it's going to happen unless ridership outside of the nec picks up.
> ...


Not quite true: The Three Rivers was cut in 2004, and the Silver Palm/Palmetto and Sunset East were each cut back in the same broad timeframe as well (though in both cases the culprit was arguably an equipment shortage and not budget-cutting...the Three Rivers ran the last Heritage sleeper, while the Palmetto wound up without a sleeping car despite running overnight and so got cut back from MIA to JAX and then SAV). Both of these seem to be cases of "don't run an overnight train without sleepers". There's also the Sunset East...but again, that not only wasn't a policy decision, it seems to have been done pretty close to unilaterally on the part of Amtrak's management in some respects (insofar as the train wasn't restored in a timely manner, not insofar as it was cut).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 20, 2017)

JayPea said:


> I agree too, but apparently it's better to have 60leven dozen routes between Philadelphia and Chicago and let the citizens of Montana and North Dakota go pound sand while eating cake.


My list of 14, or 7, new LD trains certainly would include a restored Broadway Ltd/Three Rivers route NYC-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Chicago.

And I would definitely nominate the Sacajawea (nee North Shore Hiawatha) CHI-St Paul-St Cloud-Fargo-Bismark-Billings-Livingston-Missoula-Spokane-Pasco-Seattle. The PRIAA study predicted it would be second only to the Empire Builder in farebox recovery!

That's enuff for now. We have plenty fantasy threads to day dream about new routes. This is the cut/anti-cut thread.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 20, 2017)

west point said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like like trains should add more capacity before adding more frequencies. The freight railroads probably won't be too enthused to further disrupt their schedules for more Amtrak service. Freight schedules are already disrupted a few hours on each side of an Amtrak train (I don't remember the exact number).
> ...


On the disruptions, it sort-of depends on a few things (particularly if the railroad in question is even bothering with a schedule).

As to extra equipment, it depends on what equipment you're looking at: Sleepers? Coaches? Intermediate accommodations? As a few examples, should the N-S equipment be delivered, that'll free up some Horizons and Amfleets. Nothing says that some Amfleet Is couldn't be re-fitted with LD seating (call them Amfleet 1.5s?) or, on the basis of the legendary "Ampad" cars, refitted with Superliner room modules (roomettes being easier to work in than bedrooms, of course). There's also buying a system similar to what Queensland has for its lie-flat seating. Doing so would not be free, but it would likely cost less than all-new cars.

Additionally, it is not implausible for Amtrak to look at a new Northeast Regional car order and then "cascade" equipment outwards. Such an order would probably be able to be made in a manner not unlike the Acela IIs.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 20, 2017)

Amtrak is not Solomon's baby. Throughout its history there have been cuts and there have also been new services. Not everything that is must eternally remain so.

However, the present Amtrak system outside of the NEC and california is already very minimalistic. I think we need to fight to keep all of it and even add some. Further retrenchment is not the solution.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Mar 20, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Amtrak is not Solomon's baby. Throughout its history there have been cuts and there have also been new services. Not everything that is must eternally remain so.
> 
> However, the present Amtrak system outside of the NEC and california is already very minimalistic. I think we need to fight to keep all of it and even add some. Further retrenchment is not the solution.


You are very correct. But anytime that passenger train service is totally eliminated from a route, the infrastructure dies with the train and it is almost impossible to restore it. The private railroads are pleased to get rid of any passenger train infrastructure due to added expense including taxes. Look at the Gulf Coast where Amtrak just suspended service. The cost of rebuilding the passenger infrastructure is holding back restoration of service. Any Long Distance train that is discontinued will never come back!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 20, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Amtrak is not Solomon's baby. Throughout its history there have been cuts and there have also been new services.


To my knowledge,the only post 1979 national trains that still exist today are the Auto Train and the Capitol Limited which for practical purposes replaced the Broadway and to me that was a downgrade in service (OK I'm biased).

Let's be honest, if there are a significant # of Congressmen who agree with the "Trump"/Heritage budget the chances of an actual significant increase in funding and the ability to expand service are slim and none. While Amtrak has survived since 1971 there have been many cuts. If the budget cutters get their way there has to be at least some cuts upcoming.

When did I become Mr. Cold Water?


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 20, 2017)

No amount of cutting is going to bring back the Broadway Limited. And even if we cut the trains you desire the equipment shortages everywhere I could see several places for the cars to find a new home.

The thing about train offs if you negotiate which ones get cut you are setting a very bad precedent. Which will allow the entire network to die a slow and agonizing death.

And the trains in other places serve as an essential form of public transit to places that have no intercity Bus or airports. Philly is lucky it has a great airport, multiple bus carriers and a plethora of Amtrak connections.

And I hate to say it to you the next two new services you will see will be in the Deep South. Both of which were listed in the 2000/2001 trip plan. Only one never started.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 20, 2017)

May I suggest some of you look up the word "budget" in the dictionary?

I'm not against Amtrak expansion, I'm really not. If Amtrak restarts the Broadway they can have as many new and current trains as you want as long as our taxes don't significantly increase. I don't disagree "the best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak" or that cuts are bad for Amtrak. You don't have to convince me to expand Amtrak, you have to convince Congress and/or the general public, many of which have no nearby Amtrak service. Just because we like to travel coast to coast on trains doesn't mean most people do (and a lot of people in this country can't now if they wanted to). My stance has always been the Broadway Limited was a "better" train than some of those that exist today and shouldn't have been cut while others were spared and all adds/cuts I propose are dependent on budget. Get more money you can add as much as you want without sacrificing any current train. But you have to consider the possibility Amtrak's budget gets cut and if you don't push another train under the bus (no pun intended) it could be your train(s) that gets cut. I have no problem with proposals to add service (I've done my share) but there are other threads that exist for that purpose (or start a new thread).


----------



## A Voice (Mar 20, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If Amtrak restarts the Broadway they can have as many new and current trains as you want as long as our taxes don't significantly increase. I don't disagree "the best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak" or that cuts are bad for Amtrak.


So, you'll only support Amtrak - particularly the long-distance services - if they restore _your_ chosen train? *Again*, that's an untenable position. You want to know how to make virtually certain the _Broadway Limited_ never returns? Don't support other potential new trains for other markets and regions of the country, even when it is a route or train you'll likely never use (but your taxes pay for). On the other hand, the single most effective way to get a New York/Philadelphia to Chicago train back in the future, even if not at first, involves getting Amtrak into an even marginal growth strategy which benefits everyone. Neither of the new long-distance routes currently in the offing is the _Broadway Limited, _but extension of a train west of Pittsburgh isn't really a major expansion. Once the car supply loosens up a bit, through service to Chicago becomes more practical (note that the _Capitol_ and _Broadway Limited'_s initially ran combined west of Pittsburgh anyway).

But as has been said here (many, many times) before, the strategy of "trains for me but none for thee" doesn't work for a national railroad passenger system. The idea of taking your toys and going home if you don't get your way is absurd. Should I work to oppose the _City of New Orleans_ extension if Amtrak doesn't _first_ restore some train to east Tennessee? That's exactly what you're suggesting.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 20, 2017)

Congress controls the budget and allocates funds accordingly. The president tries to set policy, guide the process and put forth recommendations. The Trump budget does not agree with his campaign promise to push for the rebuilding of our transportation infrastructure. If Amtrak is to be saved from the chopping block Wick Mooreman needs to immediately get on the phone, make an appointment at the White House, present the case for long distance rail and invite the president and transportation secretary on a train trip. Wick must be quick!


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 20, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> Congress controls the budget and allocates funds accordingly. The president tries to set policy, guide the process and put forth recommendations. The Trump budget does not agree with his campaign promise to push for the rebuilding of our transportation infrastructure. If Amtrak is to be saved from the chopping block Wick Mooreman needs to immediately get on the phone, make an appointment at the White House, present the case for long distance rail and invite the president and transportation secretary on a train trip. Wick must be quick!


I'm not sure why this hasn't happened already or at any time when a budget has been proposed with nearly or 0 money for Amtrak.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 20, 2017)

cirdan said:


> Amtrak is not Solomon's baby.


----------



## keelhauled (Mar 20, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> Congress controls the budget and allocates funds accordingly. The president tries to set policy, guide the process and put forth recommendations. The Trump budget does not agree with his campaign promise to push for the rebuilding of our transportation infrastructure. If Amtrak is to be saved from the chopping block Wick Mooreman needs to immediately get on the phone, make an appointment at the White House, present the case for long distance rail and invite the president and transportation secretary on a train trip. Wick must be quick!


Since as you say Congress has final say in spending I'm not entirely sure why Moorman should be appealing to the President, especially as Trump has already played his role in the process...he would be better served lobbying Congress. Which in fact he did last month when he testified before the Senate transportation subcommittee.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2017)

Moorman has been on record saying that there is considerable support for Amtrak in the Congress. So we'll see, won't we.

Some of us will get a better sense of where things stand after we participate in NARP's Day on the Hill in April.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 20, 2017)

Here is the thing why should my taxes in South Carolina or a better example West Virginians support a train that runs from New York to Chicago via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? From what I understand you saying that if the train doesn't benefit the state it's in then it shouldn't be charged to the taxes of that state.

And we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are as eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those. The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.

And the New York Texas train doesn't really effect me because I don't do business in Texas but I'm a major supporter of it when it eventually starts running.


----------



## neroden (Mar 20, 2017)

Amtrak is in a very different situation from the situation during the 1970s or 1980s cuts. In particular, the trains are mostly profitable, and those which aren't are running very small losses. This wasn't true in the 1970s or 1980s.

I think it's important to point out the following:

-- It's bonkers, insane, lunatic to cut any train service which is profitable (or breakeven) before overhead. Doing so would cost Congress more money and would just be shuffling overhead around. If I'm correct the Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Lake Shore Limited, and Crescent are all profitable before overhead. And I know I'm correct. Therefore these trains should be guaranteed-operation no-questions-asked

(Though Moorman could get those numbers for sure, I'm pretty sure I'm *underestimating* overhead because I assumed that it didn't increase from 2014 to 2016, and the result is that my calculations assume that more costs are variable costs than reality, and therefore my calculations make the trains look *less* profitable than they really are. Overhead went up by 19% from 2012 to 2014; it probably went up from 2014 to 2016 as well.)

-- It's unacceptable to cut any state services. The states pay for these, including a large percentage of allocated overhead, and the feds can damn well chip in 2% for overhead. The states would be furious if these were cut -- truly furious.

-- Given that the overhead costs will remain regardless of how many train services are cut -- short of cutting the NEC and shutting down Amtrak entirely -- it should be made very clear that only the variable costs would be saved by cutting any given train.

Literally the most which could be possibly saved by cutting long-distance train services (by cutting the ones which are loss-making before overhead only) is $59.2 million per year. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

In actual fact, the supposed "zeroing out of the national network" would simply result in a charge to the NEC to the same amount; there's no other alternative, because it's mostly overhead which would just get reallocated.

I'll go further and go into detail on the *avoidable* losses of the short list of long-distance trains which aren't profitable before overhead. And remember that because of the way my overhead estimation works, it's quite likely that these trains are more profitable than I think.

-- Coast Starlight -- $1.8 million per year loss (possibly profitable). And connects Los Angeles to the Bay Area and to Washington and Oregon. Obviously worth it, probably profitable next year.

-- Cardinal -- $3.2 million per year. Would be profitable if it were daily. If you cut this, you tick off southern Ohio. They've been trying to get a new station.

-- Empire Builder -- $3.5 million per year. With huge political support from every state along the route except Idaho.

-- CONO -- $4.1 million per year. Illinois likes having the third frequency on the Illini/Saluki route, and it has serious support in Mississippi now, as well as New Orleans.

-- Capitol Limited -- $4.7 million per year, which is probably covered by the value of connecting traffic to the Southern trains.

-- Texas Eagle -- $8.7 million per year. Illinois and Missouri like the extra frequency on the Lincoln Service; Texas has actually stepped up and funded this when it was threatened in the past.

-- Southwest Chief -- $10.2 million per year. Even a proposed reroute which would have improved service was rejected by massive political support. I don't think this can be cancelled.

-- California Zephyr -- $10.4 million per year. You want to tick off Colorado? I don't think so. Amtrak wouldn't be able to run the Ski Train without the Zephyr service base, too. Nevada likes having service to Reno.

-- Sunset Limited -- $13.2 million per year (because it's three-a-week, doesn't stop in Phoenix, etc.) Honestly, this is the only train in the *entire* Amtrak system which is both unprofitable and lacks a powerful political lobby.

The correct "compromise" is to offer to zero the Federal Highway System budget along with the Amtrak budget. Amtrak would survive; the unprofitable highways would not.

If the demand from the Congressional negotiators is "you must cut something!!!!", then the Sunset Limited is the only possible choice.


----------



## neroden (Mar 20, 2017)

jis said:


> Moorman has been on record saying that there is considerable support for Amtrak in the Congress. So we'll see, won't we.
> 
> Some of us will get a better sense of where things stand after we participate in NARP's Day on the Hill in April.


I wish I could go but my medical problems with my digestion are still making travel extremely impractical -- currently hoping they'll be better by September. (And, to boot, I have medical appointments and business appointments during late April, and my car is in the shop during April too.)

Those of you who go -- I really hope you hammer on the fact that running each train makes money, and cutting any train would just cost Congress *more* money. Congress is really only paying for the fixed overhead of having a system at all; overhead which is needed to run even one NY-DC train. (The cost of having Beech Grove is a large part of it, as is the cost of operating the reservations system.) Also, running a train daily instead of three-a-week means more profit, and running 2 trains per day instead of one means *more profit*, and having a connecting train means *more profit* (so, for example, the Zephyr feeds passengers into all those state-sponsored trains leading out of Chicago, and vice versa).

This concept -- the economies of scale -- is *not* properly understood by most members of Congress; many still think that cutting a train would save money. Which is simply not true. This has be hammered home.


----------



## CraigDK (Mar 20, 2017)

neroden said:


> ...
> 
> (Though Moorman could get those numbers for sure, I'm pretty sure I'm *underestimating* overhead because I assumed that it didn't increase from 2014 to 2016, and the result is that my calculations assume that more costs are variable costs than reality, and therefore my calculations make the trains look *less* profitable than they really are. Overhead went up by 19% from 2012 to 2014; it probably went up from 2014 to 2016 as well.)
> 
> ...


How are the overhead cost split? Does each train get "charged" the same? Does the NEC and state corridors (that run multiple trains) get charged proportionately more because there are more trains?

Is there a good breakdown of what is included in the total overhead charge? The 19% increase in a two year period seems high, have they changed (added) what is included in overhead? Are there cost savings that can be found there, versus cutting service?

If the above the rail or direct cost is only $59.2 million that really isn't that bad. And if you want to spread it over (I know that probably won't happen) the total number of passengers per year it really is fairly insignificant.


----------



## neroden (Mar 20, 2017)

CraigDK said:


> How are the overhead cost split?


Advocates, and indeed *state transportation departments*, have been trying to get that information out of Amtrak for literally DECADES. Without success. It's not clear Amtrak even knows what its computer system is doing.
It's got some loose relationship with train-miles, but it's not strictly proportional.



> Is there a good breakdown of what is included in the total overhead charge?


Last time I was able to figure it out was from the 2014 Annual Report; since then, Amtrak has not given sufficiently detailed accounting breakdowns.



> Are there cost savings that can be found there, versus cutting service?


Quite possibly. One cost savings comes from switching to E-ticketing, which should eventually eliminate an entire office (in, where was it, El Paso?)of a large number of people handling the back-end accounting for paper-value tickets.

Unfortunately you have to spend money to save money: the process of switching to E-ticketing involves very high IT costs for several years, and much of it is considered operating costs rather than capital costs....

IT programs, such the one to replace Amtrak's 1970s mainframe-assembly-language systems with modern programs are a significant piece of operating cost, which if it ever gets *finished* should be able to go down. Another IT program involves computerizing the inventory tracking for parts. And so on.

In another area, it turned out Amtrak had been accidentally paying utility bills for a building it didn't own. Whoops. There's an overhead cost. Some care with the utility contracts could help...

You'll notice that Amtrak has been removing staff from smaller stations by attrition as they retire; that's an example of eliminating overhead.

In another "spend money to save money" example, a number of Amtrak's bigger stations (notably Chicago) had antiquated, inefficient heating and cooling systems. Replacing them cuts the heating/cooling costs substantially, but they had to put in a lot of money to do that.

Moving Amtrak offices out of leased space into the otherwise-vacant rooms at Chicago Union Station also saves Amtrak money... but they had to renovate those rooms first.

And it goes on and on like that.

Amtrak has been absolutely pinching pennies on lease agreements for stations owned by cities, which are also fixed costs (not proportional to number of trains). Amtrak is attempting to displace as much as possible of those fixed costs for just *having* a station on the cities, which makes sense given that the city does benefit greatly from the station.

There's also weird stuff like old pension liabilities for railroad workers who used to work for the passenger departments of private railroads. The formulas used by the Railroad Retirement Board seriously soaked Amtrak for decades. This is finally being corrected as those retirees *die of old age*.

Amtrak also killed its non-union-employee defined-benefit pension plan (no new credits will be earned for future work and those with existing credits are being offered cash buyouts) and is attempting to dismantle its non-union-employee post-retirement-medical-benefits plan. So there's some more fixed costs they're working on.



> If the above the rail or direct cost is only $59.2 million that really isn't that bad. And if you want to spread it over (I know that probably won't happen) the total number of passengers per year it really is fairly insignificant.


I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" buisness.


----------



## CraigDK (Mar 20, 2017)

Thanks for the reply!



> Advocates, and indeed *state transportation departments*, have been trying to get that information out of Amtrak for literally DECADES. Without success. It's not clear Amtrak even knows what its computer system is doing.
> 
> It's got some loose relationship with train-miles, but it's not strictly proportional.


Certainly something that I think advocates, the states, and congress-critters all should continue push to find out.



> Quite possibly. One cost savings comes from switching to E-ticketing, which should eventually eliminate an entire office (in, where was it, El Paso?)
> of a large number of people handling the back-end accounting for paper-value tickets.


Sounds reasonable. I would assume e-ticketing still allows for someone (or even an agent) to print a paper copy of the ticket and that paper value tickets are different animal.



> Unfortunately you have to spend money to save money: the process of switching to E-ticketing involves very high IT costs for several years, and much of it is considered operating costs rather than capital costs....
> 
> IT programs, such the one to replace Amtrak's 1970s mainframe-assembly-language systems with modern programs are a significant piece of operating cost, which if it ever gets *finished* should be able to go down. Another IT program involves computerizing the inventory tracking for parts. And so on.


Again, I hope it is happening and hopefully they do separate out those cost that are capital.



> In another area, it turned out Amtrak had been accidentally paying utility bills for a building it didn't own. Whoops. There's an overhead cost. Some care with the utility contracts could help...


I recall seeing that story. Certainly not unreasonable for care to be taken on such issues, nor for those with an interest to call for.



> In another "spend money to save money" example, a number of Amtrak's bigger stations (notably Chicago) had antiquated, inefficient heating and cooling systems. Replacing them cuts the heating/cooling costs substantially, but they had to put in a lot of money to do that.
> 
> Moving Amtrak offices out of leased space into the otherwise-vacant rooms at Chicago Union Station also saves Amtrak money... but they had to renovate those rooms first.


I am not an accountant, but I would assume that most of those cost for renovation would be capital cost.



> There's also weird stuff like old pension liabilities for railroad workers who used to work for the passenger departments of private railroads. The formulas used by the Railroad Retirement Board seriously soaked Amtrak for decades. This is finally being corrected as those retirees *die of old age*.


While they maybe nearing the end of that issue, that certainly is something that should be clearly denoted. It certainly needs to be viewed as something unrelated to the cost of the current system.



> I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" business.


While I cannot directly verify that concept, I think you are correct with that statement. It certainly is something that should be stressed to those who might not realize that. It certainly helps to make a case for expanding the system (and thus spreading out the cost over more services). It also suggest the need to say if we invest $X in improving things like those you mentioned, that $Y can be saved (assuming that over a certain time it does pay off).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 20, 2017)

Seaboard92 said:


> ... we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are ... eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those.
> 
> The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.


Thank you, and thanks to others on the board who made the effort to show support for the proposed train, in person when and where it counted.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 21, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > ... we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are ... eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those.
> ...


Your quite welcome. And I can assure you when the next inspection train runs I'll be involved somehow. Be it filming it for the press or showing support somehow. But I think I have an in on the planning for the next one so I'll probably be on board.


----------



## neroden (Mar 21, 2017)

CraigDK said:


> I am not an accountant, but I would assume that most of those cost for renovation would be capital cost.


The point there is that Amtrak has to spend money on capital in order to reduce operations costs.  They were spending operations costs to lease an entire office building because the one they owned wasn't in good enough shape to use. Once they spend the capital on fixing up the one they already own, they can stop spending the operations costs leasing the other building.
Amtrak is doing the equivalent of driving a 40-year-old car and spending a fortune on maintenance every year, instead of buying a new car, because nobody has given Amtrak enough cash to buy the new car. (Though they're *finally* becoming able to afford some of it in the last decade.) There's a disturbing amount of stuff like this in the Amtrak budget; high operational costs caused by not having enough money to replace stuff which should have been replaced, often, decades before Amtrak was formed.

Actually, every case where an Amtrak train is running very slowly on deteriorated track (or other ROW damage) is like this. If the track were fixed up, the train would run faster, reducing operating costs and increasing revenue simultaneously. But it's been very hard to get the money to fix things up; it took years even to get funding to fix up the part of the Empire Connection in Manhattan with the rockslides.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 21, 2017)

neroden said:


> Actually, every case where an Amtrak train is running very slowly on deteriorated track (or other ROW damage) is like this. If the track were fixed up, the train would run faster, reducing operating costs and increasing revenue simultaneously. But it's been very hard to get the money to fix things up; it took years even to get funding to fix up the part of the Empire Connection in Manhattan with the rockslides.


That's not just Amtrak. That's railroads as a whole. If the freight railroads would spend more on ROW, they could run faster trains. But obviously that's not their thinking (aside from some major corridors). And the reason is the accounting. Shareholders expect a balance sheet that looks good and hence repairs get deferred as long as humanely possible.

Bad ROW also causes equipment to deteriorate more quickly. Maybe the freight lines don't mind about their own equipment so much, but there's little that Amtrak can do to make them take better care of theirs.


----------



## RSG (Mar 21, 2017)

neroden said:


> I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" buisness.


This highlights the learning curve with regard to rail issues. It's an industry that's been around forever, few people in the general populace think about (aside from a derailment or a crossing which makes them late for wherever), and one that obviously much of Congress doesn't understand either. Most don't realize railroads are one of the few industries exempt from Social Security and the only one that has its own comparable shadow system. Without any reading of history, that alone should give any thinking person an idea of not only the power of the rail industry but the complexity as well. It's not something that can be easily dismantled and as noted, often costs more to dismantle than to keep operating.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 30, 2017)

A Voice said:


> But as has been said here (many, many times) before, the strategy of "trains for me but none for thee" doesn't work for a national railroad passenger system. The idea of taking your toys and going home if you don't get your way is absurd. Should I work to oppose the _City of New Orleans_ extension if Amtrak doesn't _first_ restore some train to east Tennessee? That's exactly what you're suggesting.





Seaboard92 said:


> Here is the thing why should my taxes in South Carolina or a better example West Virginians support a train that runs from New York to Chicago via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? From what I understand you saying that if the train doesn't benefit the state it's in then it shouldn't be charged to the taxes of that state.
> 
> And we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are as eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those. The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.
> 
> And the New York Texas train doesn't really effect me because I don't do business in Texas but I'm a major supporter of it when it eventually starts running.


There goes the old "Philly Amtrak Fan is selfish" again.

May I remind you of the expansions I support:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/67778-wish-list-for-amtraktrain-service-expansions/

There's plenty of train expansions and current LD trains I support. I just feel Philly should have better faster service to Chicago than Rugby.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2017)

It already does.


----------



## jebr (Mar 30, 2017)

Ryan said:


> It already does.


Eh? Including transfer time, it does take a bit longer to get from Philadelphia to Chicago on Amtrak as it does to get from Rugby to Chicago on Amtrak.

Now if you're going to pretty much any other non-Empire Builder (or Coast Starlight) destination on Amtrak, Philadelphia is faster. Especially since you can do a same-day transfer to all the western long distance trains that start in Chicago (along with the eastern ones) from Philadelphia. But the fact that a Philadelphia resident can get to Denver faster on Amtrak than a person from Rugby can, despite the Rugby person being in much closer physical proximity to Denver than Philadelphia is, doesn't make the "woe is Philadelphia, with its plethora of trains but the city of Chicago being slightly inconvenient to get to" argument as well. It also ignores the fact that someone without a car in Philadelphia can still take a bus or fly to Chicago with great ease, where someone from Rugby who doesn't have a car has to rely on the once-a-day train (or a once-a-week bus, on Thursdays, to Minot) to get anywhere outside of Rugby.

But yes, let's rip out a major lifeline for many Americans (including quite a few Senate votes) to save a bit of money and maybe make a connection to Chicago slightly more convenient for Pennsylvanians.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2017)

3.5 trains/day as opposed to one? I'd say so.

I get that transfers are the work of the devil, but claiming that Rugby has better transportation than Philly is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 30, 2017)

Ryan said:


> 3.5 trains/day as opposed to one? I'd say so.
> 
> I get that transfers are the work of the devil, but claiming that Rugby has better transportation than Philly is utterly ridiculous.


Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak. Although Philadelphia has more options as you say, they all run on roughly the same schedule and some are much faster than others. Most people other than railfans don't care if their train goes through West Virginia or New York. Having said that, some oddities like this can not be avoided. For example, Las Vegas, NM has better access to LA than Denver. I fully support restoration of the BL, but there will always be a potential improvement that could happen.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 30, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak.


Yes. Remember Chicago is the main east-west gateway and unless they add a second one (NOL?) it will be more important than most other destinations.

PHL-CHI: 834 miles via Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited, 12:42pm ET-8:45am CT (roughly 19 hours including transfer time)

Rugby-CHI: 879 miles via Empire Builder, 10:43pm-3:55pm CT (roughly 17 hours)

So two hours longer (and a transfer) to go 45 fewer miles.

I hope Rugby enjoys all the attention I'm giving them the same way I did for White Sulphur Springs and Thurmond I saw the name and thought what a cool name for a town.



brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Most people other than railfans don't care if their train goes through West Virginia or New York.


I think they would care if one train took 7 hours less than another. Why not route passengers from CHI to NYP via NOL (CONO/Crescent) and see if it makes a difference to them (even if the overnight stay in NOL was removed)?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 31, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak.
> ...


People would certainly care if a train takes 7 hours longer, which is exactly my point; without some aversion to transfers hardly anybody would use the Cardinal between these cities. (I do not believe the Cardinal should be discontinued, but it is almost useless for this specific city pair) If the schedules were different then that may not be true, but it leaves PHL earlier and arrives CHI later than the other choices. All three options from PHL arrive CHI within a short period of the morning, so most people are going to take one of the CL options because they are faster. However, very few non-railfans would take the Cardinal or LSL. I understand that connections in Chicago are important, but I think that if a BL were to be restored it should arrive Chicago at night and depart in the morning to add a new frequency to the NEC to CHI market as well as provide service to Ohio during the day.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 13, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.
> 
> Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.
> 
> ...


Let me put this in money terms. Amtrak's subsidy the last few years is around $1.4 million. So here's the conversation:

Amtrak: We want $1.4 billion.

Congress: We don't want to give you any money.

Amtrak: OK, let's compromise. How about $2 billion?

If you can get $2 billion out of Amtrak, more power to you. If you can get around the same Amtrak's been getting recently, I think most of us would be happy. If you can't get $1.4 billion, try to get $1 billion or $1.2 billion rather than say "$1.4 billion or nothing" or "$2 billion or nothing".

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616). 

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

Extend the CONO to SAS via HOS (would we change the name?) or the TE to NOL via HOS. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the "longer" route between CHI-NOL or CHI-SAS but NOL-SAS would be covered and you would add the possibility of a one seat ride between CHI-HOS.

Cancel the Cardinal, Sunset Limited, and Empire Builder with portions covered by the CONO extension and the new CIN-MSP train. If the portions between CIN-IND and NOL-SAS can get daily service then Amtrak would have no non daily service.

If the entire LD system were shut down, 23 states would lose all of its Amtrak service including Texas, Florida, and Ohio. With my plan, only 4 states would lose all Amtrak service with the 37 most populous states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) maintaining at least some Amtrak service. Of the 13 least populous states in the country, four (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota) don't have any service right now, three (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) have only state supported service, and two (Rhode Island and Delaware) have federally funded NEC service but no LD trains.

Among the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas), only one MSA out of the 53 MSA's with 1 million or more people (Tucson) would lose Amtrak service and only three MSA's out of the 107 with 500,000 or more people would lose Amtrak service (Tucson, El Paso, and Spokane).

Only one of the 12 most populous states (Texas) would lose any service at all. Cross country service between the NEC and California (both LAX and the Bay Area) via CHI would remain intact and North-South service would remain between NEC-Florida, LAX-SEA/PDX, CHI-NOL/Texas. The most significant connection lost to me would be between Texas and California but the SL has really low ridership (NOL-SAS would remain intact).

Train miles saved:

828 miles of the Cardinal between NYP-CIN (340 miles, NYP-CVS, would still have other service, including the Crescent)

1422 miles of the Sunset Limited SAS-LAX

1787 miles of the Empire Builder MSP-SEA

376 miles of the Empire Builder SPK-PDX

Total savings of 4413 train miles.

12 stations on the Cardinal route can be closed.

13 stations on the Sunset Limited route can be closed.

33 stations on the Empire Builder route can be closed.

Total of 58 stations that Amtrak can close. Amtrak boasts more than 500 destinations. This would cut about 10% of the destinations but those 10% most likely amount to significantly less than 10% of the US population (the entire states of West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota combined contain less than 2% of the total US population and Amtrak barely touches Idaho now). I would say only 5-7% of the country that currently has Amtrak would lose service.

My hope is that this will cut around 10% of the Amtrak subsidy (over $100 million savings) while losing a lot less than 10% of Amtrak's ridership/revenue. Amtrak currently brags it covers 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue. Hopefully these changes will bring that percentage to 96-97%. And there is nothing stopping states from picking up the tab for the missing service. SEA-SPK can be added to the Cascades service that Washington already pays for. It is not unprecedented for states to do so, after the National Limited was canceled Pennsylvania started the Pennsylvanian service and Missouri added KCY-STL service.

In terms of schedule...

I'd like to move CIN outside the graveyard shift. The westbound train would leave CIN at 5:41am, arrive in CHI 2:05pm, leave CHI at 3:15pm, and arrive in MSP at 11:03pm. The eastbound train would leave MSP 6:00am, arrive in CHI at 1:55pm, leave CHI at 2:45pm, and arrive in CIN at 12:17am.

I'd move the NOL-SAS portions closer to the CONO. Westbound leave NOL at 9:00pm, arriving in SAS at 12:05pm. Eastbound leave SAS at 6:25pm, arriving in NOL at 9:40am. This would allow a one seat ride between CHI and HOS with around a 5.5 hr gap in NOL going south and a 4.5 hr gap in NOL going north (the times in HOS would be 6:18/6:55am west and 11:10pm/12:10am east so you can't really cut the dwell times in NOL without screwing HOS). You would have a longer gap in SAS between the CONO extension and the TE but it currently requires an overnight stay now anyway. Ideally you'd move the NOL-SAS closer to the TE so you can close the service facilities in SAS but with HOS-SAS only being around 5 hours the times would be bad on one or both ends.

Even if the CIN-CHI, CHI-MSP, and NOL-SAS schedules couldn't be changed, at least service remains along those routes.

I'd be reluctant to cut any more trains than I have proposed. Will the cuts get a few more Congress critters to support Amtrak at a cheaper price than the current price?


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 13, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.
> ...


Maybe you should consult with the people that depend on the services you propose cutting before you actually do, as Montana, North Dakota, and Washington will all fight to retain the empire builder.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 13, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.
> ...


That's a fair amount of research, thought and effort put into a plan to reduce and eliminate Amtrak train service. Now, imagine if that same effort were expended instead advocating for expanded and improved Amtrak intercity (long-distance) train service.....


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 13, 2017)

And West Virginia has just set up an account to potentially fund track improvements for a daily Cardinal. So I second that you need to talk to these people. And most of them when you say I'm from philly and want a fast one seat train to Chicago. Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly. And for those who want the train they can go to Washington or New York easily to get there. Or connect in Pittsburgh. While these people don't have these options. The cardinal communities have the choice of drive hundreds of miles to an airport, their destination, or to a daily Amtrak. Which is what they would do without the Cardinal, or the Empire Builder. With those services they don't have to leave their home towns, or drive as far they would other wise.

You can't cut service to places with no other service alternative. Amtrak is more then a city to city carrier. It is town to town. Town to city. It isn't just the big cities that matter.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 14, 2017)

To quote the late President Reagan: "There you go again!"

And FYI, Delaware has Four LD Trains,The two Silvers to Florida,the Crescent and your whipping boy, the Cardinal in addition to the NEC Trains.

Good thing nobody rides these trains so they won't be missed!

Opps, forgot the Crescent and the Palmetto,thanks jis.


----------



## jis (Apr 14, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> To quote the late President Reagan: "There you go again!"
> 
> And FYI, Delaware has Three LD Trains,The two Silvers to Florida and your whipping boy, the Cardinal in addition to the NEC Trains.
> 
> Good thing nobody rides these trains so they won't be missed!


Four. The two Silvers, Crescent and Cardinal. And technically the Palmetto is also an LD train.


----------



## Carolina Special (Apr 14, 2017)

The comment that Amtrak brags about covering 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue is not accurate. Amtrak instead talks about ticket sales and other revenues as the numerator in the equation.

As near as I can tell, the equation is total revenue divided by total expense less pro forma non cash adjustments (primarily depreciation).

Ticket revenue makes up about 2/3 of total revenue. The remaining 1/3 of revenue is made up of food and beverage revenue, state supported train revenue, commuter revenue, reimbursable engineering and capital improvement activities, other track related transport revenue, commercial development, amortization of state capital payments, and freight access fees.

How relevant some of these items are to supporting passenger train operations is debatable, but that's another topic.

Anyway, Amtrak is far, far away from covering operating costs with pure ticket revenue.


----------



## neroden (Apr 16, 2017)

I don't listen to proposals to cut train services to "save money", 'cause they're stupid. I already explained why. Save at most $60 million? Why bother?

In fact, what Amtrak will do if budgets are reduced temporarily is to defer capital expenditures. It's the only thing which makes any sense.


----------



## dlagrua (May 5, 2017)

When I read all of these "cost cutting" suggestions it makes me quite curious. What do we do with all the people in the USA in the small towns, and in the countryside that live hundreds of miles away from the nearest regional airport? Do we consider the elderly and the people with physical and/or mental handicaps that prevent them from flying? What about the Amtrak employees; do we just lay them all off and say good luck, go flip burgers?

The point that I am making is that passenger rail service is essential to not only the economy but vital for the well being of our society. Everything should not always be all about the money but with making political decisions that benefit the American people.

I always knew that the budget to cut LD passenger rail service was going nowhere. If that budget had passed it would be political suicide for those that voted for it. It is important that we expand passenger rail service not cut it . Passenger rail serves the American people well and I am happy to see the $1.5 Billion appropriation.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2017)

Don't go to the bank with that thought yet. The battle for 2018 will be way bloodier than this mini-tussle for the balance of 2017. You ain't seen nothin' yet. 

Also realize that more than half of that $1.5 billion has already been disbursed, since it is just a tad bit more than what was in the previously appropriated for 2017 amount. All that remains to be disbursed is roughly half of that amount or a little less than that.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 5, 2017)

I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.



Seaboard92 said:


> Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly.


I reject the premise of "because they have an airport they don't need a train". NOT everyone flies. I haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years and I've traveled to the west coast and back three times since then. So those who can't fly have to just sit at home or take a bus? Can you imagine riding a bus three days?


----------



## railiner (May 5, 2017)

Yes.


----------



## Chessie (May 5, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why not take NEC?

Anyway I would like to keep all three trains and have Sunset limited east resorted before thinking about adding anything. :giggle:


----------



## CCC1007 (May 5, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I've discussed my feelings on small town trains already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd love to have you visit Malta, MT for a week, walk around and visit with the people of the town...
I would guess that your opinion about small town living would change quite a bit.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (May 6, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyinNYC said:
> ...


Considering the EB is currently the only option from CHI to MSP, I will fight for the EB if it means I have to fight a fist fight for every dollar. (Obviously a hyperbole, but I just might do that)


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (May 6, 2017)

neroden said:


> Amtrak is in a very different situation from the situation during the 1970s or 1980s cuts. In particular, the trains are mostly profitable, and those which aren't are running very small losses. This wasn't true in the 1970s or 1980s.
> 
> I think it's important to point out the following:
> 
> ...


YEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cut funding for anything above essential two lane roads, and even then the two lane roads will lose money while Amtrak is possibly overloaded with intercity traffic as the gas tax skyrockets and automobile ownership plummets, like in Europe. And I'm not saying eradicate highways, I know how essential they are to country life, especially to farmers and my long distance bike trips (I ride a lot). If there was better public transit, my dad wouldn't need a car, but because it takes an hour to go 8 miles on public transit, we have to have a car when it's not feasible to bike.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 6, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Considering the EB is currently the only option from CHI to MSP, I will fight for the EB if it means I have to fight a fist fight for every dollar. (Obviously a hyperbole, but I just might do that)


I liked the fact that you quoted my entire post yet obviously forgot to read it.

To recap:



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:
> 
> Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.
> 
> ...


There's your CHI-MSP train. Minneapolis is a major city relatively close (418 miles) to an Amtrak "hub" (not to mention it includes the popular Hiawatha (CHI-MKE) corridor. It would be ridiculous to cut that portion of service just like canceling CHI-CIN.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 8, 2017)

If those in Congress come to the table with the idea that they have to negotiate by giving in to some cutting, then Amtrak has lost. The Amtrak side must come to the table with a positive attitude that Amtrak is still growing and will grow even more given the chance. So hit the negotiation with the demand for more funds to make the company carry even more passengers with additional revenue, therefore exists the opportunity to shave more off the loss column. The more passengers carried, the greater the opportunities. I have gone into negotiations when the other side felt we would be intimidated into proposing a weak starting point. By hitting hard we put the other side on their heels and in the end got more than was originally expected. I hope those negotiating for Amtrak take a strong stance, demand more than the other side was prepared to hear, thus they offer a weak response, which opens the door to aggressive negotiating by the Amtrak side. .


----------

