# What small changes would increase ridership exponentially?



## Metra Electric Rider (Jan 4, 2017)

I've been catching up on my post readings after a break and a thought occurred to me; what small changes (relatively speaking) would increase overall Amtrak ridership exponentially? I'm thinking 'small' along the lines of say a Chicago-Cleveland day train or an additional MSP-Chicago train or the addition of an unserved city such as Columbus in addition to reliability and service quality.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jan 4, 2017)

Definition of exponential

1: of or relating to an exponent

2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an _exponential_ expression>

3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; _especially_ : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an _exponential_growth rate>





So, if you think any changes will increase Amtrak ridership by an exponent, you're basically expecting ridership to be higher than the number of people who have ever lived since the dawn of humanity.

In a slightly less nit-picky sense, I don't see any additional service / new routes as a "small change" by any means, and certainly not in a way that would result in a significant (even if not exponential) ridership increase.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 4, 2017)

The problem is anything small/short distance requires state funding.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jan 4, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The problem is anything small/short distance requires state funding.


I didn't specify funding - just what change would have an outsize increase on ridership.


----------



## west point (Jan 4, 2017)

Having enough equipment to add that equipment to current trains and sell the seats .


----------



## Fred Wis. (Jan 5, 2017)

west point said:


> Having enough equipment to add that equipment to current trains and sell the seats .


I have wondered about this idea. How often are long distance trains "sold out"? Or how often are sleepers "sold out"? Would adding one car to certain long distance trains help revenue? Or even seasonally as I think the Zepher does for the warm months?


----------



## AFS1970 (Jan 5, 2017)

I think the number one thing that would lead to increased ridership is speed. I know that there are lots of factors like tracks and freights, but speed is always going to be a factor in trip planning. I was looking into a recent trip from NYC to Chicago, driving was around 6 hours and the train for the time we were looking at was 12 hours. Given that circumstance the trains just can't compete.

As for adding sleeper cars, is it feasible to add cars only when demand calls for it? A group I am in online was planning a cross country trip, due to a train split the number of sleepers would be limited. When they went on sale a year in advance almost all were sold to this group. I think the few remaining ones went within a month. So for the rest of the year, unless there is a cancellation that train will be sold out of sleepers. It would seem that when there is a high demand, resources could be shifted to add more capacity to a train as long as it would be within engine capacity.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 5, 2017)

AFS1970 said:


> I think the number one thing that would lead to increased ridership is speed. I know that there are lots of factors like tracks and freights, but speed is always going to be a factor in trip planning. I was looking into a recent trip from NYC to Chicago, driving was around 6 hours and the train for the time we were looking at was 12 hours. Given that circumstance the trains just can't compete.


How fast are you going making it between NYC and Chicago in 6 hours? Google Maps has it 789 miles. And 12 hours between the cities is a dream, especially considering there isn't a direct route between the cities like I-80. You either have to go up to Albany or down to Philly (assuming the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers still existed). Both routes are/were over 900 miles. That would be 75 mph. Maybe someday but we're not even close.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 5, 2017)

west point said:


> Having enough equipment to add that equipment to current trains and sell the seats .


You got it. Equipment. Equipment. Equipment.

#1. We need to see an order for more Viewliners before the production line shuts down. Let's rush to order 100 more baggage cars.

The current Viewliner order is for 70 bag cars (delivered), 25 diners, 25 sleepers, and 10 bag-dorms. Last I saw it, the 130-car total will cost out at roughly $350 million including spare parts and stuff (the original bid was $300 million for cars only), each car on average about $2.7 million.

Diners cost the most, sleepers next, bag dorms less, and full bag cars the least. I'll wing it and say $2.4 million per baggage car (no cooking, no plumbing). So an order for 100 more should cost about $240 million, or more.

Amtrak will no doubt need more baggage cars, but not 100 more of them. Let's buy as many basic units as possible for the least Congressional appropriation. Later, as cash becomes available, install plumbing and modules to convert them into bag dorms (the cheapest -- half a car -- upgrade), and full sleepers if the budget permits.

I'd do without more diners. I'm one who has come to suspect that they will never cover their costs. If we get pleasantly surprised by good numbers for the 25 diners on order, then convert 5 or 10 of the extra bag cars to diners.

The urgent need is for sleepers. They sell out too often, leaving money on the table. The current order will add 25 sleepers, and 10 bag dorms (equivalent to 5 full sleepers). Amtrak has 50 Viewliner sleepers in the fleet, so the expansion underway will be a nice 60% increase, for a total of 80 cars. Good, very good. But the need will be for another 50 sleepers. Or more.

# 2. Hundreds of single-level coaches and other cars to replace the aging Eastern fleet on existing trains. And then to expand: The daily Cardinal. That third train East Coast-Chicago. The split of the Crescent at Birmingham heading off Jackson-Vicksburg-Monroe-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth. The Trans-Dominion Express Norfolk-Richmond-Lynchburg-Roanoke-Bristol-Knoxville-Chattanooga-Birmingham-Mongomery-Mobile-New Orleans. The restored Sacajawea (a.k.a. North Coast Hiawatha). And more.

#3. Hundreds of bi-level cars for the Western long distance trains.

#4. Replace and expand the fleet of locomotives.

It's new equipment that will deliver the most bang for the buck.


----------



## west point (Jan 5, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> [it's new equipment that will deliver the most bang for the buck.


If one Billion was allocated for new cars that would probably add 300 revenue cars and the rest non revenue. That would increase yearly ridership by at least 10M. #1B spread of 4 new routes would not increase ridership that much ? 4 new routes would need what in cars ? 16 train sets? = 80 mew cars to finance ? $249M ?


----------



## DesertDude (Jan 5, 2017)

AFS1970 said:


> I think the number one thing that would lead to increased ridership is speed. I know that there are lots of factors like tracks and freights, but speed is always going to be a factor in trip planning. I was looking into a recent trip from NYC to Chicago, driving was around 6 hours and the train for the time we were looking at was 12 hours. Given that circumstance the trains just can't compete.


The lack of speed might be more manageable for people if all trains had WiFi. I have a friend who's taking Amtrak for the first time this month (Zephyr from Denver to San Francisco), and I can already tell he's miffed that there's not going to be WiFi. Lack of WiFi isn't a problem for me or most rail fans, and I can already feel the "but he should disconnect from it all and enjoy the scenery!" comments coming. But sadly for so many people in the 21st century, lack of reliable internet for several hours is just not ok, and makes that trip from Denver to San Francisco not doable.

Edited to add: I'm 100% aware that the train ends in Emeryville, I was just reading my friend's texts which said SF.


----------



## neroden (Jan 6, 2017)

On Time Performance. It's the big one, so I guess it isn't a small change. Basically, consistent arrival times will cause ridership to start booming and growing exponentially (after about a year, as people realize it's for real).


----------



## neroden (Jan 6, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> I'd do without more diners. I'm one who has come to suspect that they will never cover their costs.


I'm pretty sure they do cover their costs... if the trains are long enough. If the trains are long enough it may also be necessary to have table cars.I don't really see a role for that many more dining cars though (basically you only need more if you add more more-than-overnight Viewliner trains, which is going to take a long time -- or to cover wrecks. I'd get 5 more and it would probably cover Amtrak's potential needs for the next 2 decades). I'd rather see some Viewliner cafe/lounges, which could be used as table cars to expand the reach of the dining cars.


----------



## snvboy (Jan 6, 2017)

Considering the current dining cars sometimes struggle to get out their often crappy food, and that the largest cost is the labor, I think it's time for Amtrak to do on LD trains exactly what they do on Acela: airline style catering for the meals. I don't want to hijack this thread since I think this is both not a small change and not one that would drastically increase ridership, but I think it's a move that makes a lot of sense to address a very long list of issues and complaints with food service on Amtrak.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> AFS1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the number one thing that would lead to increased ridership is speed. I know that there are lots of factors like tracks and freights, but speed is always going to be a factor in trip planning. I was looking into a recent trip from NYC to Chicago, driving was around 6 hours and the train for the time we were looking at was 12 hours. Given that circumstance the trains just can't compete.
> ...


You don't have to go near Philly if you're driving NYC, to CHI, I-80 across central PA works fine. But there are still a lot of curves, and the driving distance is a lot more than the airline distance.

By the way, I drive a lot from DC to Akron quite a bit, the distance is about 300 miles, the speed limits are 70 mph for most of the route, I, ahem, exceed that slightly if conditions permit, there's never ant traffic jams, and and, s till, I never exceed an average point to point speed of 50 mph. That's about the same as most of the Amtrak LD trains I ride, at least when they keep to schedule.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 10, 2017)

west point said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > It's new equipment that will deliver the most bang for the buck.
> ...


Maybe someone else can speak to the cost of a mini-order of 80 new cars. I want to see new cars ordered by the 100s.

Could 4 new routes increase ridership by at least 10 million? No way. Not with $1 [edited to match previous comment] Billion to start new trains.

Extending the City of New Orleans along the Gulf Coast is predicted to get 140,000 new riders, iirc. No telling what it will cost to make a deal with CSX. If we're lucky it will be the PTC and signaling and not much else.

More easy pickings: Take the Cardinal daily. Probably CSX will make it costly to do. But daily service would almost double the 3/7th train that carries 105,000 riders now.

The sad sack Hoosier State could find a purpose in life if it ran daily to complement the Cardinal's service. An Indiana State Highway Dept study a couple of years ago suggested that for $250 million the route could be made 29 minutes faster, with track upgrades in Indiana alone (ignoring potential time savings from pending CREATE projects in Chicagoland). Then a Hoosier State running with owning departures from Chicago AND Indianapolis could have ridership in the 80,000 range, instead of the measly 30,000 it got last year.

Taking the Sunset Ltd daily west of San Antonio would again double ridership, according to the PRIIA study, so pick up a quick 100,000 new riders thru the desert.

The 2009 study concluded that the Sacajawea (a.k.a. the North Coast Hiawatha) could add a net 360,000 new riders at that time. It's performance, 58.0% firebox recovery, rivaled the best long distance train in the stable, the Empire Builder with 65.7% firebox recovery, and in 2009 51.8% for the LD trains as a group. (Updating a bit, last year FY 2016, the Builder carried 455,000 pax.)


Well, I may have spent your Billion before I even got into Montana and North Dakota with the Sacajawea. Keep in mind that the host railroad always finds problems in need of costly fixes. Opening or reopening stations, training new crews, etc. -- that stuff adds up.

For roughly $10+ Billion the Stimulus is getting us greatly improved routes Seattle-Portland, St Louis-Chicago, Dearborn-Ann Arbor-Kalamazoo-Chicago, Charlotte-Raleigh, NYC-Albany-Schenectady, and New Haven-Hartford-Springfield. It's all good, and I'm an optimist about there being a huge untapped demand for trains. But for the $10+ Billion from the Stimulus, I'm looking to see only about 500,000 more riders in FY 2018, maybe cracking a million more on board a few years out.


----------



## neroden (Jan 10, 2017)

OK, If we had the money for expansion and I could make the choices personally, this is what I'd do. Yes, there's some regional bias here.

Daily Service:

(1) Daily Cardinal

(2) Daily Sunset

Water Level Route:

(1) TWO A DAY New York to Chicago (LSL route)

(2) South of the Lake, exclusive passenger tracks from Chicago to Porter

(3) New Station at Buffalo Central Terminal, with NFTA Metrorail expansion to BCT and the Airport

(4) New Station at Amsterdam NY, pull-off passenger tracks and high-level platforms both sides like Rochester

(5) New Station at Elyria, pull-off passenger tracks and high-level platforms both sides like Rochester

Twin Tiers:

(1) TWO A DAY Lackawanna Cutoff to Scranton

(2) Extend TWO A DAY service along the Cutoff from Scranton to Binghamton

(3) Extend from Binghamton to Syracuse via Cortland

Pennsyvlania:

(1) TWO A DAY Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia

(2) TWO A DAY NY-Allentown service, new tracks and station as needed

(3) TWO A DAY Philadelphia-Allentown service

(4) The expensive reroute of Pittsburgh-Harrisburg via State College with new tunnels (totally worth it)

Virginia/NC:

(1) Work necessary to reroute all southbound trains through Richmond Main Street, and suitable expansion and ADA access

(2) SEHSR Petersburg-Raleigh

(3) Charlotte station

(4) If they don't stop sabotaging the plans locally, Atlanta station

Gulf of Mexico:

(1) TWO A DAY on the Gulf Coast, as proposed: one from NOLA to Mobile, and the CONO from NOLA to Orlando

(2) Commuter service NOLA/Baton Rouge

Ohio River region:

(1) Change Hoosier State timing to form TWO A DAY with the Cardinal

(2) South Shore Line Dyer Extension, and reroute the Cardinal/Hoosier State onto it

(3) Speed up the Indiana - Chicago tracks

(4) Restore the Kentucky Cardinal

(5) Extend it to Chattanooga

Colorado:

(1) TWO A DAY Chicago-Denver (the Denver Zephyr)

(2) Commuter service Denver-Fort Collins via BNSF, extend to Cheyenne

Minnesota/Wisconsin:

(1) TWO A DAY Chicago-MSP

(2) Restore the Madison line as originally planned before the evil Scott Walker

(3) Commuter service MSP-Northfield

Michigan:

(1) Something connecting Dearborn to Toledo

(2) Grand Rapids-Lansing-Dearborn

You could add a section for Texas, though Texas has managed to shoot their own projects in the foot so many times recently that I didn't.

There's a lot you could add in Ohio but all of it is expensive and not very pinned-down yet.

Frankly, California and the PacNW have matters well in hand.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 26, 2017)

Not sure if it's the type of change you had in mind, but how about some advertisement?

I have the impression that the majority of Americans do not know much about Amtrak, especially middle distance or LD. They might have a vague idea there is a train system, but many if not most can't even tell you if it goes past their towns or not.

Furthermore, those who know about Amtrak have the wrong assumption about the accommodations and comfort levels that middle distance and LD trains offer at even the base price. Many just imagine it is a prolonged commuter rail, on which nobody wants to spend a long time or overnight.

Speaking for myself, I only learned about LD train travel from traveling aboard (exchange programs) including some third world countries, and the experience was all extremely positive. If it weren't for that experience, I would never have paid much attention to trains or Amtrak.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 26, 2017)

I think it depends on what counts as a small change. I highly doubt Woody's or Neroden's qualify ($10 billion?)

The Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian through cars would be as small a change as you can get.

I would say Michigan to Toledo wouldn't require any new stations and about 50 miles of track rights. It opens up train service between Michigan and the NEC.

Hopefully the end game of the two would lead to ... well the regulars on AU know next.


----------



## Gulfwind2 (Jan 26, 2017)

I have sometimes wondered why Amtrak could never conceive a class of seating which you would consider as being underneath Amtrak's usual definition of coach class. If Amtrak could take a chair car from the Silver Meteor, for example, and reconfigure the seating in that car to have more of a motor coach feel- all the while charging substantially less fare per seat- this would certainly be a more efficient means of competing with carriers like Megabus between short distance markets. Of course this would not be a product that you would reasonably market to long distance travelers. But Amtrak should take note of the fact that companies like Megabus and Spirit Airlines are capturing a new breed of no-frills passenger. There should be some effort to play along on Amtrak's part, and of course the ridership would increase substantially.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jan 26, 2017)

Longhai said:


> ... how about some advertisement?
> 
> ... the majority of Americans do not know much about Amtrak, especially middle distance or LD. ... a vague idea there is a train system, but ...
> 
> Furthermore, ... the wrong assumption about the accommodations and comfort levels that middle distance and LD trains ... Many just imagine it is a prolonged commuter rail, on which nobody wants to spend a long time or overnight. ...


A good observation.

For what you want, TV ads may not be the best thing. I'd have Amtrak spend on "product placement" in movies and TV shows. If Hollywood would include on-board scenes in various episodes, viewers could see the spaces and amenities, without the tune-out treatment that many commercials get.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 26, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> For what you want, TV ads may not be the best thing. I'd have Amtrak spend on "product placement" in movies and TV shows. If Hollywood would include on-board scenes in various episodes, viewers could see the spaces and amenities, without the tune-out treatment that many commercials get.


Well the Coast Starlight was mentioned on the Big Bang Theory a few years ago. It's hard to get much bigger of a captive audience on TV than that.


----------



## Carolina Special (Jan 26, 2017)

The characters on the CW shows Flash and Arrow have used trains several times over the last five years. Never have seen an Amtrak logo, though, even that seems like a young desirable audience.

Of course if the message from those shows is that the train or train stations may get attacked by super villains while you're traveling, maybe not such a good idea to sponsor those shows.


----------



## keelhauled (Jan 26, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > For what you want, TV ads may not be the best thing. I'd have Amtrak spend on "product placement" in movies and TV shows. If Hollywood would include on-board scenes in various episodes, viewers could see the spaces and amenities, without the tune-out treatment that many commercials get.
> ...


As I recall, the characters riding the train were dismayed about the travel time, and unfavorable comparisons to flying were made. I sure hope Amtrak didn't pay for that.


----------



## A Voice (Jan 26, 2017)

keelhauled said:


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


When Amtrak's existence in many markets is a well-kept secret, there is no such thing as bad publicity.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jan 27, 2017)

Small changes would be having seasonal inventory (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.) to add cars or additional special short distance trains. There is a large overflow of people wanting to travel on Amtrak each year that find all seats have been sold out.

How many cars are waiting repairs that could be put into service if Amtrak had the money to fix them. Yes, these are not new cars, but repaired cars could be inserted quicker, while new cars are ordered.

On Time performance is critical to customer confidence, thus a high priority for increased ridership.

Customer Relations is a critical component that Amtrak needs improvement. There are many Amtrak employees who give 110% to make passengers feel like their guests. But there are too many who are first looking for their pay check, then begrudgingly doing minimal work, being offended when asked for anything. Rewarding excellent customer service would provide a positive incentive for others to follow the lead.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 28, 2017)

How about a new station/fix the situation in ATL? It's a market that should benefit from a second train or the ability to have through cars (Crescent Star and/or ATL-Florida service) or even cut off cars as suggested in the PIP.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 28, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Longhai said:
> 
> 
> > ... how about some advertisement?
> ...


Like a semi romanticized product cameo? That's a very cool idea. Amtrak marketing or PR department can try it.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> How about a new station/fix the situation in ATL? It's a market that should benefit from a second train or the ability to have through cars (Crescent Star and/or ATL-Florida service) or even cut off cars as suggested in the PIP.


Or reviving the Floridian.

Though I have to admit the current location is unbelievably convenient for me personally as my employer has a site within walking distance and I have plans to utilize it for business trips in April and May. 

But yes it needs to be upgraded, maybe even relocated if Atlanta ever wants to have more Amtrak services.

And through cars? You mean like a split service, one car to Nola and another to Florida?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 28, 2017)

Longhai said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > How about a new station/fix the situation in ATL? It's a market that should benefit from a second train or the ability to have through cars (Crescent Star and/or ATL-Florida service) or even cut off cars as suggested in the PIP.
> ...


Absolutely. I can think of plenty of cases where through cars/split service would help a lot. You can improve LD service without having to service/store LD cars at areas that can't support it (ex. Boston, Portland). I wonder if some of these can be considered extensions of existing trains and not require state funding.


----------



## A Voice (Jan 28, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Longhai said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


If the Portland section of the _Empire Builder_, or the Boston section of the _Lake Shore Limited_, are extensions of the existing train - and they are - then no reason it would be different anywhere else.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 28, 2017)

For the record, split trains and station upgrades are hardly small changes.


----------



## Chessie (Jan 28, 2017)

Another idea, again, not sure if it counts as a "small" change as it would require equipment overhaul, but how about adding some sections (like the ones on VIA sleepers) into Amtrak sleepers?

Now I understand the advantage of roomettes and bedrooms but a major disadvantage is it is not designed for solo travelers, which, most business travelers are.

Air travel take much less time and most would not feel the need for first class accommodation traveling to anywhere within the country but rail travel is a different story. If I have to spend overnight on a train and then go to work the next day, I would much prefer to be able to lay down. And now there is no reasonable priced (as in, I wouldn't look out of line asking my company to reimburse) option for a solo traveler.

Presently I have two business trips coming up, one from PHL to JAX and back (I would do SM southbound and SS north) and another from PHL to ATL and back. In both cases, the Amtrak schedules are near perfect for my needs, however, a roomette, which is designed for two, is just too much to ask my company to reimburse for. As much as I would love to incorporate Amtrak into my business travel, I am still debating if I am willing to pay for the roomette myself. Or roomette one way and coach back.

I would imagine solo travelers are a fairly big market, no?


----------



## neroden (Feb 3, 2017)

It may not count as a small change, but if VIA or Quebec purchased the CN line from the US/Canadian border to Montreal Central, and maintained it properly and dispatched it properly, it could make a massive difference to OTP on the Adirondack, which would cause ridership to boom.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 3, 2017)

Longhai said:


> Another idea, again, not sure if it counts as a "small" change as it would require equipment overhaul, but how about adding some sections (like the ones on VIA sleepers) into Amtrak sleepers?
> 
> Now I understand the advantage of roomettes and bedrooms but a major disadvantage is it is not designed for solo travelers, which, most business travelers are.
> 
> ...


Well unbundling the meals from the roomette charge on the Silver Star is a start. Not only are you paying for overpriced Amtrak steaks, you're actually paying for two people's overpriced Amtrak steaks even though you're a single person.


----------



## amyontherails (Feb 9, 2017)

Vegas. The real one in Nevada.


----------



## Bradenmeridian (Feb 10, 2017)

Okay, here's one that hasn't come up: _A la_ Autotrain, there is a great untapped market for a BikerTrain that would transport motorcycles on a long distance route. All east coast motorcyclists - think people with obviously disposable incomes, and retirees - want to take their bikes out west to ride the Rockies, etc. but don't want to ride all the way there on truck filled interstates and boring plains states. There is _absolutely_ no competition with airlines, and relative to riding a mc cross country, Amtrak is actually faster. A mc is much slower than a car because typical auto speeds are uncomfortable and untenable, frequent fuel/butt rest stops are required, and you can't do anything while riding but ride - no eating, drinking coffee, water, etc. Motorcycle rentals, unlike car rentals are hard to find, and pricey, and the whole point of owning a bike is to ride it on beautiful roads in great places. So the option of being able to load your bike on a train is a truly attractive one.

Bike trips are also something that are often done in groups of friends - perfect for the social environment of a train, and because they have the money, they'll be willing to pay the extra charge for the bike as well as the sleeper and meals.

The trip would _only_ be between two cities. Bikes don't need to go downtown to downtown so they could ride to a place such as a siding near Rensselaer to load onto a waiting modified baggage car, which could then be coupled to the LSL. The car would be transferred in Chicago onto the Zephyr and then uncoupled in Denver and pulled out to a siding. The bikers don't care if it's not where they wanted to go because now they are in the Rockies, which are fun riding to almost anywhere out west.

Because renting a bike is so expensive and trucking your own bike has a very unpredictable delivery schedule, there is virtually _no_ competition so the fare price should be able to cover the costs. Also, unlike other improvements, the service need not be offered all year or even _every day of the week_. That means a _single_ motorcycle carrier might possibly cover the service in both directions - Depart Rensselaer Thursday, Depart Denver Monday. Or to create a specific vacation idea a single car could run every other week all summer: Friday, board in the east, ride all week, board the next Friday in Denver for the return. If it's a hit, you get a second car and run every week.

All the other ideas for improved ridership involve enormous expenditures to improve schedules, speeds, and destinations. A modified box car might do the trick, if it is certified to passenger train speeds. Bikes are already allowed on AutoTrains; they are strapped down onto pallets and loaded into the car carriers. I can picture a pallet that can roll sideways, so a bike is strapped on, the pallet is loaded into the car by a fork lift, then the whole pallet is slid to either end of the car to make room at the doorway for the next pallet. With a system like this you might even open it up to ATV's.

You think I've been thinking about this?


----------



## Paulus (Feb 11, 2017)

The easiest small change is to add connecting bus frequencies. They very easily pay for themselves and significantly increase ridership. Half the ridership on the San Joaquins, for instance, uses a connecting bus at one or both ends of their journey.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 11, 2017)

Bradenmeridian said:


> Okay, here's one that hasn't come up: _A la_ Autotrain, there is a great untapped market for a BikerTrain that would transport motorcycles on a long distance route. All east coast motorcyclists - think people with obviously disposable incomes, and retirees - want to take their bikes out west to ride the Rockies, etc. but don't want to ride all the way there on truck filled interstates and boring plains states.


How many retirees have motorcycles? I'm not saying the Biker Train is a bad idea but I have a hard time seeing Grandpa or Grandma on a motorcycle.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 11, 2017)

Paulus said:


> The easiest small change is to add connecting bus frequencies. They very easily pay for themselves and significantly increase ridership. Half the ridership on the San Joaquins, for instance, uses a connecting bus at one or both ends of their journey.


It's been nice to see Amtrak adding more Thruway connections in recent years (in North Carolina, in Kansas-Oklahoma, in Minnesota, for example). But there certainly seems to still be plenty of low-hanging fruit in that regard - although I suppose states really should be taking the lead on bus connections to corridor services.


----------



## A Voice (Feb 11, 2017)

Eric S said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > The easiest small change is to add connecting bus frequencies. They very easily pay for themselves and significantly increase ridership. Half the ridership on the San Joaquins, for instance, uses a connecting bus at one or both ends of their journey.
> ...


I would agree that greater bus connections have potential as a way to build ridership, with perhaps a few caveats (nor is it necessarily a _small_ change). First, many of these should be dedicated Amtrak Thruway buses, and not merely existing Greyhound schedules (and similar) which operate anyway. While connections to Greyhound are sometimes appropriate, far more potential lies in a higher-quality motorcoach exclusively for connecting train passengers. Certainly it can be operated by a regional bus contractor/operator, but the branding, service, and experience should be virtually seamless for the passenger between bus and train.

Secondly, the connecting bus routes need to emphasize segments of routes where there is excess capacity. It accomplishes nothing merely to replace an existing passenger with a different new passenger from the bus connection. Some routes are more heavily patronized on portions of the line but have plenty of empty seats elsewhere (_Crescent_ south of Atlanta, for instance); Connections are important everywhere, but expanded Thruway buses could help fill an otherwise lightly populated train.


----------



## jebr (Feb 11, 2017)

Far more potential may lie in branded service, but there's a lot more cost and risk involved. Busses aren't cheap to run, and if a route already has a Greyhound or regional run, a trial with a codeshare is much better than fronting the cost for busses (or even the cost of a contracted bus.) A codeshare can run profitably for both companies even if only a couple people a day use it, assuming the route is otherwise self sustaining.

I think Amtrak would do well with putting almost every practical bus connection online. Maybe only a few people use it, but if there's no major recurring costs and they're just paying per passenger, there's not a lot of downside to Amtrak and a lot of upside. If a route becomes popular, Amtrak can then work to either tailor a route specifically to their needs with that company or run their own service. But they can build the market first and then adapt later if ridership is especially strong.


----------



## XHRTSP (Feb 11, 2017)

Second to what's been said about the importance of equipment acquisition.

Thence, fatten up the current Amtrak footprint, especially in the Midwest. Have a second LSL and CL with daily Cleveland service. Add PHL-CHI service over the Penn and CL route. Make the Cardinal daily, This would certainly be easier, cheaper, and faster than opening up new LD routes. Get the Midwest on board with train travel and build from there.


----------



## west point (Feb 11, 2017)

Paraphrasing what someone on the trains magazine form said about Moorman's interview " What's more important is to first make the present Amtrak better not bigger " Of course what do we define as better ?

1. Enough equipment so passenger demand is met 90 - 95% of the year ?

2. 90 - 95% on time originations and enroute operations. Discounting delays due to non RR incidents and weather ?

4. Enroute equipment failures reduced a whole order of magnitude ?

5. Improve OBS --- probably a given ?

6. Improved food service ?

7. Improved customer contact experience and improve web site

8. Improve irregular operation communications ?


----------



## Lonestar648 (Feb 13, 2017)

In many cases almost anything is an improvement. Hopefully someone has established a starting point with some public metrics to measure the above, If Moorman is really saying there will be improvement, would want to see facts and not Amtrak post measurement period manipulated numbers.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 13, 2017)

snvboy said:


> Considering the current dining cars sometimes struggle to get out their often crappy food, and that the largest cost is the labor, I think it's time for Amtrak to do on LD trains exactly what they do on Acela: airline style catering for the meals. I don't want to hijack this thread since I think this is both not a small change and not one that would drastically increase ridership, but I think it's a move that makes a lot of sense to address a very long list of issues and complaints with food service on Amtrak.


So you believe that lowering the food quality again will increase ridership? Wick Mooreman is on the record of saying that dining cars are necessary and part of the product. On a long trip travelers need a decent meal. I tend to agree with the simple solution- meet the demand. For LD trains adding more sleepers and an additional coach during peak ridership periods should be beneficial.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 13, 2017)

Who said anything about lowering food quality?

I know you're morally opposed to flying, so you don't really know what you're talking about, but a decent meal is absolutely possible on an airplane.


----------



## west point (Feb 13, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> In many cases almost anything is an improvement. Hopefully someone has established a starting point with some public metrics to measure the above, If Moorman is really saying there will be improvement, would want to see facts and not Amtrak post measurement period manipulated numbers.


Amtrak did make note of CAL Z cancelled between Reno and Colfax but neglected to alert cancellations SLC <> Reno. As well service between Colfax Emeryville not available until FEB 19 and as well all way to CHI. Amtrak communications still much to be desired.

Here is Amtrak service alert -----------

?

Amtrak

Print

Close

California Zephyr Disruption

Service Reno, NV, to Coxfax, CA, disrupted through February 16, 2017, due to mudslides.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 22, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Bradenmeridian said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, here's one that hasn't come up: _A la_ Autotrain, there is a great untapped market for a BikerTrain that would transport motorcycles on a long distance route. All east coast motorcyclists - think people with obviously disposable incomes, and retirees - want to take their bikes out west to ride the Rockies, etc. but don't want to ride all the way there on truck filled interstates and boring plains states.
> ...


I've been told that if you started riding motorcycles as a kid, you can safely do so into geezerhood, at least as long as your eyesight holds out, but under no circumstances should you take it up as a retirement hobby.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 22, 2017)

Ryan said:


> Who said anything about lowering food quality?
> 
> I know you're morally opposed to flying, so you don't really know what you're talking about, but a decent meal is absolutely possibly on an airplane.


Not on Southwest Airlines


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 22, 2017)

Gulfwind2 said:


> I have sometimes wondered why Amtrak could never conceive a class of seating which you would consider as being underneath Amtrak's usual definition of coach class. If Amtrak could take a chair car from the Silver Meteor, for example, and reconfigure the seating in that car to have more of a motor coach feel- all the while charging substantially less fare per seat- this would certainly be a more efficient means of competing with carriers like Megabus between short distance markets. Of course this would not be a product that you would reasonably market to long distance travelers. But Amtrak should take note of the fact that companies like Megabus and Spirit Airlines are capturing a new breed of no-frills passenger. There should be some effort to play along on Amtrak's part, and of course the ridership would increase substantially.


This would actually work nicely in the NEC, where high NE Regional fares drive a lot of potential pax to the Bolt Bus.

Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.


----------



## A Voice (Feb 22, 2017)

MARC Rider said:


> Gulfwind2 said:
> 
> 
> > I have sometimes wondered why Amtrak could never conceive a class of seating which you would consider as being underneath Amtrak's usual definition of coach class. If Amtrak could take a chair car from the Silver Meteor, for example, and reconfigure the seating in that car to have more of a motor coach feel- all the while charging substantially less fare per seat- this would certainly be a more efficient means of competing with carriers like Megabus between short distance markets. Of course this would not be a product that you would reasonably market to long distance travelers. But Amtrak should take note of the fact that companies like Megabus and Spirit Airlines are capturing a new breed of no-frills passenger. There should be some effort to play along on Amtrak's part, and of course the ridership would increase substantially.
> ...


While there is no doubt a market for low-priced intercity rail service in the Northeast, and I personally like the idea, offering such service would likely hurt revenue significantly as passengers formerly paying Regional coach fares defect to the cheaper option. It would not be just bus passengers attracted to low-cost "commuter-style" trains. There would be an increase in ridership certainly, but largely from just the increased capacity; There is a shortage of single-level cars and capacity constraints on Acela. Addressing the capacity issue would alone boost passenger counts, but that is hardly a small change.

So long as there is adequate demand to fill greater overall train capacity, the emphasis should likely be on selling more premium-priced seats. This gives you both the capacity to increase ridership and the greatest revenue. Better to sell 100 seats at $150 than to fill 250 seats for $50 or less.


----------



## ainamkartma (Feb 22, 2017)

MARC Rider said:


> Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.


OK, but is it not the case that there is no significant additional capability available into NYP? So any new budget train capacity would displace some of the present premium cost capacity?

So here is an alternate scheme: instead of running the new budget trains to NYP, turn them around at Newark, and have the low cost passengers transfer to PATH to get into NYC. Is there track capacity available for this kind of service between WAS and Newark? Could it come close to recouping its cost, assuming you used commuter-style equipment? Would it be worth running even at a substantial subsidy, if it provided transport to lower income people for whom the present NEC costs are out of reach?

Edit to add: I am of course assuming that there is excess PATH capacity under the Hudson available outside of rush hour; is this in fact the case?

Ainamkartma


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 23, 2017)

ainamkartma said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.
> ...


You said the T word. I highly doubt out of towners will want to board a train stopping in Newark when they really want to go to New York. If you really want a cheap train, why not stop at New Carrolton south (tell them to T-word to Metro)? I can't even find a NJ Transit train that terminates in Newark (although I think a train from Newark to Philly makes sense the same way New York to Trenton does while New York to Philly wouldn't). Besides, why would Amtrak want to prop up PATH?


----------



## jis (Feb 23, 2017)

There are no facilities in Newark to turn a train without causing huge disruption to the NEC flow beyond the hourly Raritan Valley trains that are turned there. So just forget about it unless you have a very significant budget handy to redo the track layout at the Hudson Yard. And trust me, there are a dozen other places where that money would be better spent with better return.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Feb 24, 2017)

Airline meals are less than acceptable unless in First Class. Have you seen what the airlines pay for the meals they service?? Its highway robbery! Delta pays over $100 for an average First Class meal. So, I do not see a savings financially or an improvement in food quality. I am a 2M flyer with Delta and 1M with United, so I have experience with airline food. To me, Amtrak has the kitchen on board, therefore the opportunity exists to improve the food quality and experience in a way the airlines can not. The Dining experience is a critical component to the LD rail system.


----------



## jis (Feb 24, 2017)

'Tis the labor cost which kills in highly constrained financial environment, which often causes people to do penny wise - pound foolish things, optimizing the immediate while shortchanging the overall performance.

Even the airlines after all these years are suddenly starting to improve their offerings in the front cabin and restarting food service in the rear cabin on domestic flights, and improving the offering in the rear on international flights. I suspect Amtrak will be following them in five or so years if things stay on course.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 24, 2017)

Meals do not need to be over the top

gourmet to be considered acceptable. There is a wide gap that can be filled by meals that are far cheaper than $100/plate.

The food in Acela First is "airline style" and is perfectly adequate and costs significantly less than $100 ea.


----------



## neroden (Feb 25, 2017)

"What small changes would increase ridership exponentially?"

Caring enough to bother to put service disruption notices on the website. Amtrak doesn't care enough apparently.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 25, 2017)

IMO, good service and better OTP will in itself increase ridership. If the freight tracks get more congested in the future we may see alternative routes being reactivated. Look at the single track through the Moffat Tunnel. It's a huge bottleneck for the CZ . If freight traffic gets any heavier the UP could reopen the old Rio Grande Tennesee pass route that also goes through the Rockies... The track is still there but the route is currently mothballed and listed as out of service. UP has not abandoned the line. With a bit of maintenance, traffic through the Mofftat can be cut and Amtrak performance will increase.


----------



## west point (Mar 25, 2017)

jis said:


> There are no facilities in Newark to turn a train without causing huge disruption to the NEC flow beyond the hourly Raritan Valley trains that are turned there. So just forget about it unless you have a very significant budget handy to redo the track layout at the Hudson Yard. And trust me, there are a dozen other places where that money would be better spent with better return.


This poster has long held the same idea. However With the shutdown yesterday Friday 24th due to the derailment at NYP both NJT and Amtrak seemed to reverse trains at NEWARK PENN the other way with too much confusion. May need to rethink ? Some one there yesterday could give us a thumbnail.

Been sometime since Newark Penn. For passengers inbound to NYC it has been relatively easy to board onto PATH. Now for the outbound unless changed the upper level discharge of PATH trains to get to a NJT or Amtrak trains always seemed awkward. Still the same ? The main item of PATH is how difficult for passengers getting NYP <> PATH 33rd street ?. Plus have to add in the few passengers from Empire trains to the NEC ?


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2017)

As long as there is no stream of through traffic to keep flowing, as happens when NYP is shut down you can turn all the trains in the world at Newark. But when you have to maintain close headway through stream of traffic through Newark you cannot turn trains there without severely disrupting the flow. So no, there is nothing to rethink. All this is already very well known, modeled and analyzed.


----------



## Carolina Special (Mar 25, 2017)

How much capacity in terms of train slots is there currently to add traffic on the NEC? Assuming Amtrak could round up the engines and cars? Anything there slotwise or would it require substantially more infrastructure spending? Of course, Schumer is going to cut an infrastructure deal with Trump (ha!).

I recognize most of the board wants to increase LD trains, but from a business standpoint you'd want to reward what is supposed to be most rewarding part of the business-first the NEC and other corrider traffic as applicable, then state supported, then finally LD.

And for the LD, I think adding capacity to the existing trains first before taking the three day trains to weekly or adding additional lines makes more of a quick buck with minimal added costs up front. That is, if the new sleepers show up anytime soon.

Just my opinion.


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2017)

There is no single answer. The situation is different from segment to segment, with the New York area probably the most congested and yet carrying the highest capacity at present.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 26, 2017)

Carolina Special said:


> How much capacity in terms of train slots is there currently to add traffic on the NEC?
> 
> ... most of the board wants to increase LD trains, but from a business standpoint you'd want to reward what is supposed to be most rewarding part of the business-first the NEC and other corridor traffic as applicable, then state supported, then finally LD.
> 
> And for the LD, adding capacity to the existing trains first before taking the three-day trains to [daily] or adding additional lines makes more of a quick buck with minimal added costs up front. That is, if the new sleepers show up anytime soon.


Minimal capacity on the NEC, especially during rush hours when you need it most. But when/if the Avelia Liberty cars arrive to replace the Acelas, Amtrak does plan to squeeze in two (or three?) more frequencies each morning and late afternoon.

I can't think of another Amtrak corridor besides the NEC that's not state-supported.

The D.C.-Richmond corridor is built on Amtrak's _Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star_ and the overnight train 66/67 to Newport News, as well as North Carolina's _Carolinian_. But Virginia has been supporting several Regionals extending to Richmond (and Newport News and Norfolk) to fill out the D.C.-Richmond corridor schedule.

Which reminds me that when the haters and cut-the-budget fanatics declare their desire to close the LD lines, they don't understand, or don't care, how many corridors are built on, or supplemented by, LD trains. Not just the Richmond corridor, but the _Empire Service_ NYC-Albany-Buffalo-Niagara Falls overlapping the _Lake Shore Ltd._, the _Cascades_ where four Talgo trains are supplemented by the _Coast Starlight_, the _Lincoln_ service St Louis-Chicago where again four state-supported trains are supplemented by the _Texas Eagle_, the _Lynchburger/Crescent_ route, Illinois' Carbondale and Quincy trains, and maybe others I'm forgetting. Chopping the LD trains would cost all these corridors a frequency, obviously, making them all less convenient with a consequent hit on ridership, and raising their costs as station operations and other shared expenses are not so much shared.

Anyway, is there a way to direct much Amtrak funds to add or improve the state-supported trains? A little Amtrak funding seems to go as matching money toward new or upgraded stations, along the _Keystone_ Corridor for instance, but not much else. Congress dumped those trains on the states and there you are. Well, not that Amtrak has any funds to spare toward the corridors, but if it did, that's where the money should go. Otherwise, the best use of Amtrak's funds for the LD trains will be to replace (and expand) the single-level and bi-level fleets.

Clearly Amtrak's current overall policy or strategy is to add capacity to existing trains. The Viewliner IIs will add another sleeper to each of the New York-based LD trains. Maybe another 2 or 3 can add a sleeper to the overnight 66/67 that runs Boston-Newport news. And maybe 1 or 2 can supply the third (or fourth) consist to take the _Cardinal_ daily.

You may underestimate how good the bang for the buck will be for taking the 3-per-week _Cardinal_ to a daily schedule, and making the _Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle_ daily between San Antonio and L.A. In both cases, the PRIIA studies forecast that ridership would more than double. You can't double ridership by adding another car to existing trains. So two trains going from 3/7 to 7/7 schedules is probably the best single change possible to gain disproportionate benefits.

Now Amtrak is working toward restoring service New Orleans-Florida. We haven't heard how much it will cost to upgrade the signaling etc to get CSX to agree to carry this Gulf Coast train. But Amtrak's study showed that operating losses could be a very modest $10 million or less each year for an important addition and link to the national system, bringing 140,000 new riders on board Amtrak.

Hereabouts, member Philly Amtrak Fan has made a strong case to restore a _Broadway Ltd NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Chicago, and most members here support the idea._



_Otherwise, while we have post after post, and thread after thread, of fantasy expansions of service, none are likely to happen in a 10-year horizon, and we know it._



_Remember that it's not really "either/or" for corridor trains and LD, it's "both/and". What Amtrak needs most is Stimulus-level funding for upgrades to the corridors, and almost any corridor improvement will benefit an LD train. So, a high(er) speed 110-mph Cincinatti-Indianapolis-Chicago corridor would transform the Cardinal_. A high(er) speed Cleveland-Toledo-CHI route would transform the _Lake Shore_ and _Capitol Ltd._ High(er) speed on St Paul-Milwaukee-CHI would transform the _Empire Builder._ Even 79-mph top speed Carbondale-CHI could make a huge improvement to the _City of New Orleans'_ performance. And so forth. If we could invest a lousy $10 Billion in half a dozen corridors it could transform Amtrak's national system. Then we'd really need more cars on every LD train.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Mar 26, 2017)

Well, dayum. My apologies.

Apparently the AU system will not allow an edit to _ [ i ] or [ /i ]_. So once you've posted half in italics, live with it. LOL.


----------

