# LD Trains That Run Less Than Daily



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 20, 2015)

Currently to my knowledge Amtrak runs just two trains fewer than daily, the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited both to my knowledge three times a week. In the past, several other LD trains ran fewer than daily (CZ, EB, Desert Wind, and Pioneer). All were either extended to daily (CZ, EB) while others were cut (DW, Pioneer). The CZ and EB passengers are obviously happier but the DW and Pioneer ex-passengers probably aren't too happy and would love to still have their trains for 3-4 days/week than not have the train at all.

In Amtrak's PIP's for the Card and SL they clearly push for a desire for daily service on these trains. Unless there is another non daily train I forgot, that would make all LD trains daily. They point out layover time is a problem and that the non daily train is a problem for customer service. They have mentioned moving the trains to daily would improve CSI (Customer Service Index). According to the 2008 data, the Cardinal had the worst CSI (66%) of all LD trains (no other train is below 70%). But the SL (75%) is very competitive compared to several daily trains.

I feel some members feel the trains are not as popular because they are not daily. I feel it's the other way around and they aren't daily because they aren't as popular. Remember Amtrak has switched some non daily trains to daily (CZ, EB) so there has to be a reason why the Cardinal and SL aren't daily. My theory (which may or may not be wrong) is that the market does not allow it. Also keep in mind that when they made CZ and EB daily they cut two other trains. This subscribes to my theory that sometimes you have to cut something to add something else.

One forum member once said for the Cardinal "daily or bust". While I am sure Cardinal fans (referring to the train of course) would rather a daily Cardinal than a 3 day a week Cardinal, I am sure they would prefer a 3 day Cardinal than not at all. Just ask ex DW and Pioneer passengers, especially those in Las Vegas.

I think there is a reason to have some trains that don't meet daily. If the train cannot attract an acceptable ridership to justify daily operation, why not have less than daily operation rather than no service at all? It also might be a good way to test market some new routes or re-establish routes like the BL/TR before committing to daily trains and all of the costs (labor and operating).

You know my ongoing feud with Cardinal fans. How about this for a compromise? Keep the Cardinal as is but introduce the BL/TR 3 or 4 days a week (on the opposite schedule of the Cardinal of course). Ideally the two trains would combine for daily service from CHI to the NEC between NYP and WAS. I'd even give the Cardinal the extra day (of course because I have no bargaining power right now). I would like to see the Cardinal and BL/TR "head to head" to see if consumers do have a preference. I'd argue that if it was Cardinal 4 days and BL/TR 3 days that the BL/TR would be close to if not higher in ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (it's faster and serves larger markets). But in my position of no bargaining power, I just want the chance to prove the value of the BL/TR. So I'd love at least a 3 day BL/TR compared to none at all.

I know some of you hate me pitting one train vs. another. I've heard "why not both"? You need to ask Amtrak that, not me. Can Amtrak afford to give all of us everything we want? Clearly in 1997 Amtrak could not choose "both". And this "compromise" would not cut any current service at all as opposed to my previous proposals.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 20, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You know my ongoing feud with Cardinal fans. How about this for a compromise? Keep the Cardinal as is but introduce the BL/TR 3 or 4 days a week (on the opposite schedule of the Cardinal of course). Ideally the two trains would combine for daily service from CHI to the NEC between NYP and WAS. I'd even give the Cardinal the extra day (of course because I have no bargaining power right now). I would like to see the Cardinal and BL/TR "head to head" to see if consumers do have a preference. I'd argue that if it was Cardinal 4 days and BL/TR 3 days that the BL/TR would be close to if not higher in ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (it's faster and serves larger markets). But in my position of no bargaining power, I just want the chance to prove the value of the BL/TR. So I'd love at least a 3 day BL/TR compared to none at all.
> 
> I know some of you hate me pitting one train vs. another. I've heard "why not both"? You need to ask Amtrak that, not me. Can Amtrak afford to give all of us everything we want? Clearly in 1997 Amtrak could not choose "both". And this "compromise" would not cut any current service at all as opposed to my previous proposals.


So, you say that this compromise wouldn't cut any current service (which by that I'm guessing you mean routes since it is quite clear that service levels would drop). Additionally, you'd like to see the trains go head to head?

Let's take the first point. If you believe this, I'll accept it but do me a favor: balance the equipment, crews and commissaries. Additionally, please document how much those expenses would rise when you attempt to reactivate a route for passenger service that previously does not have it.

The reason why I ask you to do this is because that is a true cost of trains. What is the balance? Trains don't just drop from the sky and plod along the rails. While you may think you'll save with a reduction of service, it may be the exact opposite since some costs (track fees, maintenance fees, the cost of crew bases and mechanical support) are often fixed. In other words, if you run one train, you may as well run three trains.

As for a head to head preference between consumers, a better comparison would be head to head support.

A few years ago, Kentucky residents made mention they wanted additional service. Please allow a brief "fair use" quote from Poll: Kentuckians support more Amtrak funding, service:



> By Ed Wytkind and John Previsich
> 
> Passenger rail has a long, proud history in Kentucky and Amtrak in particular enjoys support from Kentuckians, regardless of their political views. That's the clear message of a recent poll that finds bipartisan support for maintaining or expanding Amtrak service.
> 
> ...





> Nearly 60 percent view Amtrak favorably, which explains why a similar percentage wants to maintain or increase funding for Amtrak. A mere 10 percent have an unfavorable view of Amtrak.
> 
> And here's the remarkable thing: Kentuckians overwhelmingly support Amtrak, even though limited service means that most use it infrequently. The two lines that run through Kentucky, the Cardinal and the City of New Orleans, traverse a relative handful of towns and cities on the western and eastern edges of the state.





> The reason for Amtrak's popularity is simple: Kentucky residents, like most Americans, understand that passenger rail is part of an integrated transportation system.
> 
> These views are not a nostalgic yearning for more trains — Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high, reaching 31.6 million last year. This poll proves that Kentuckians want a piece of the action.





> Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/11/15/2931585_poll-kentuckians-support-more.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy


Even though the pool is small in comparison to the populations is small, it is good that Kentucky residents feel this way. Did Ohio residents feel the same way? Do they feel this way now? I would venture to guess the answer is no since the Cardinal continues to exist (although in limited form) while the trains that serviced the route of the Three Rivers and Broadway do not.

Perhaps you can change that by lobbying Congress with other members impacted by the route. Then, perhaps traction can be gained and equipment can be found for such a trains since at the end of the day, there still isn't a reasonable amount of equipment to support significant service expansion.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 20, 2015)

Check the history of those trains a little further. They were cut from daily operation in 1995ish and then restored to daily in 1997ish (with the Desert Wind and Pioneer discontinued, as you mention). In an effort to cut costs, Amtrak cut many western long distance trains to less-than-daily operation in the 1990s (you mentioned the California Zephyr and Empire Builder, and as I recall the City of New Orleans and Texas Eagle were also cut back). Experience showed that more was lost than gained by such cuts. I believe it's been phrased, perhaps quoted from someone, that if you're not in the market daily, you may as well not be in the market at all.

I believe the Sunset Limited has been less-than-daily since SP/pre-Amtrak days. And I'd need to check old timetables, but I think the Cardinal may have been cut back in the early 1980s.

Operating less than daily is a horrible method which is why the PIP recommended operating the Cardinal and Sunset Limited on a daily basis. When the Viewliners are all in service and the trackwork in VA/WV is finished, I hope there will be a push to operate the Cardinal every day. The Sunset Limited seems to be a trickier mess.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2015)

I feel that the least cost way of achieving NYP - PHL - PGH - CHI service is to put the through cars Pennsy - Cap in place ASAP. All other proposals have a quantum jump in cost of operations and no certainty that NS would even allow such without a separate contract based on much higher trackage charges for additional trains. Establishing the through cars, which can be done as soon as the VLIIs are delivered and some Horizons get freed up from midwest would be the way to go for now. The other stuff are just as unlikely as trying to cut the Card or whatever.

I suspect that if additional operating money becomes available it will first be used to make the Cardinal daily before anything else is done on restoring any other train. And trust me, I am no particular fan of the Cardinal. it is just that it has way more political support from people that matter than anything else proposed to run across Ohio/Indiana. Such are the realities of the day.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

Less than daily trains, while better than no service at all, are a horrible idea and waste vast sums of money. And plan that creates more of them ignore the fundamental economics involved.

The major impediment to a daily Cardinal are track capacities, some of which are being worked on. As Jishnu says, the best path forward today is through cars on the Pennsy to provide more one seat rides from the east coast to CHI, which can be done without harming other trains in the system.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 20, 2015)

OK, now lets come up with a workaround to bypass Union Pacific's $700 million fee for expanding the Sunset Limited to daily operation.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

Fire the idiot at Amtrak that pissed them off (if the story about them nearly having a deal and then rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory is true), wait the requisite waiting period (almost done), and try again? The UP has already made some of the improvements they demanded money for, so the bill should be smaller.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Fire the idiot at Amtrak that pissed them off (if the story about them nearly having a deal and then rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory is true), wait the requisite waiting period (almost done), and try again? The UP has already made some of the improvements they demanded money for, so the bill should be smaller.


That person is not at Amtrak anymore and has not been there for a while as far as I am given to understand.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 20, 2015)

See that, they are already implementing my plan!!!


----------



## afigg (Aug 21, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Fire the idiot at Amtrak that pissed them off (if the story about them nearly having a deal and then rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory is true), wait the requisite waiting period (almost done), and try again? The UP has already made some of the improvements they demanded money for, so the bill should be smaller.


A google search turned up a recent statement from UP execs that 80% of the Sunset route between El Paso and Colton CA is now double tracked and they expect to reach 100% in the next few years. Since UPRR was initially willing to host a daily SL several years ago with less of the route double tracked and the 2 year Amtrak agreement with UPRR not to ask for a daily SL has expired, time for Amtrak management to re-open discussions with UP if they are not already doing so.

Despite what Philly Amtrak Fan may want, if over the next 5 years, by some miracle, the SL goes daily between NOL and LAX, the Cardinal goes daily, and pass-through cars are added to the Pennsylvanian<->CL, that would qualify as meaningful improvements to the LD system. But cutting operating costs for the LD trains where possible is the current management directive, so I don't know if Boardman would agree to a daily SL in the current budget environment.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 21, 2015)

Concur.

Of course, increasing revenue has the same net effect (ask long as revenue increases faster than costs), hopefully they consider that a wise move and execute.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 21, 2015)

IINM the proposal was to run a Daily Eagle from CHI-LAX with a stub train between SAS and NOL!( a true Sunset Ltd.)

This would be mas mejor! as they say in Mexico!


----------



## neroden (Aug 23, 2015)

It costs more (after "farebox recovery" from revenue) to run a 3-a-week Cardinal than it does to run a daily Cardinal. Daily is *good for the bottom line*. And it provides more service and makes people happier. Less-than-daily is just an awful way to waste money, and the low service quality simultaneously hurts Amtrak's reputation, making it harder to get state and federal funding.

I don't know how much the capital costs are to make the Cardinal daily, but whatever they are, they're worth it. If it's impossible to get agreement at any price, then it's time to pull the plug on the Cardinal.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 23, 2015)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Fire the idiot at Amtrak that pissed them off (if the story about them nearly having a deal and then rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory is true), wait the requisite waiting period (almost done), and try again? The UP has already made some of the improvements they demanded money for, so the bill should be smaller.
> ...


In my experience the leading indicator of a dishonest story is when the subject appeals to an emotional response while being entirely devoid of any details or specifics. I've asked repeatedly for some sort of explanation or elaboration so I can judge the situation on the merits instead of wasting my time on some vague mob justice witch hunt. Instead of fleshing out the rest of the story the folks who have repeatedly propagated these half baked claims have never once been able to provide any details whatsoever. Unlike a conventional insider leak this oddly manipulative tale continues to lack any names, dates, titles, locations, or other verifiable information and comes across more like a fabricated spin attack. If Snopes wouldn't buy it then I don't see why AU should be selling it.


----------

