# What Will Amtrak Look Like in 2020?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 2, 2015)

With all my discussions on how to "improve" Amtrak, let's get into some predictions here.

What will Amtrak look like five years from now (2020)? Will Amtrak get more money from Congress or less? Will the Viewliner II's be running? Will Amtrak have better or worse service/schedules than today (and how?) What will happen to diner car service?

You can take the optimistic view, pessimistic view, or somewhere in between.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 2, 2015)

Basically it will look the same with the all of the Viewliner IIs in service, more Virginia and North Carolina Trains, the Miami Airport Station open and possibly the through Cars from the Pennsy to the Cap PGH-CHI in service!

Other than that look for mostly full Trains, higher prices and more changes to the food and beverage services and a slight improvement to the IT system and "modifications" to the AGR2.0 system.

Probably will be more state sponsored Trains contracted out to companies other than Amtrak also!( IP would be great!)


----------



## cirdan (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm not sure if the IP thing is going to be a long term success. Running excursions and land cruises with vintage equipment is one thing. Using them on a working train is another. So at some point somebody is either going to have to inject some cash for new (or reasonably new) trains on that route, or its going to die, or its going back to Amtrak. And that decision is down to politics and ultimately to whether or not that train is genuinely valued and the powers that be see value in investing in it.

The further development of Amtrak is going to depend on multiple factors, including whether congessional attention will be more friendly in future, what gas prices are going to be doing and also on whether Amtrak is going to be able to make a sufficiently good impression on first time riders that they become return riders. The whole catering thing is part of this equation, but also things such as WiFi.

In my view, pressure on Amtrak is not going to go away soon and I'd actually call it a success if the present LD network can survive unscathed until then (but my hunch is, yes, all trains will survive). Of course in the corridors I think there will be further improvements, but not that much as 5 years aren't a very long time and these things do take time to ferment and implement.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2015)

I am also almost certain that most of the state funded services will have more and better service. California will certainly see more service, as will Virginia, North Carolina, Connecticut (Springfield Line). Vermont and New York might just be able to pull off the move of C&I to Montreal from the border, and get the Vermonter to Montreal going as well as the Ethan Allen to Burlington. I think midwest will continue to see service growth in spite of occasional hiccups caused by idiotic Governors or Legislature.

I am actually not so certain about Amtrak actually moving to Miami international Airport Station, but it might happen.

More speculative - Pennsylvania might be able to pull off a second Pittsburgh frequency. They do have the source of money. What they need is some significant push from rail advocates. New York might get an additional west of Albany frequency as equipment becomes available. A Gulf Coast service at least connecting NOL to Mobile and perhaps a little ways beyond might take place, though I doubt it will hit Florida yet. In Florida, with the West Palm beach connector in place for Tri-Rail north of West Palm Beach Service along the coast, and FEC/AAF seriously considering service to Jacksonville, it would be another opportune moment to work on the Amtrak down the west coast ideas. Hopefully by then baldy as Governor will be gone. The question is who will replace him though. 

I agree with cirdan that all current LD trains are likely to survive unscathed pretty much on their present routes. I do not foresee any significant growth in LD service though. I'd be very surprised if even the through cars from Pennsy to Cap happens. OTOH, I foresee possibly a few currently unforeseen regional service that is locally funded pop out of the woodworks. Of course part of the uncertainty is whether Amtrak will be the operator or someone else.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 2, 2015)

Disclaimer: posted in wrong forum but seems to fit this thread so will leave it here unless mods think.it should be moved to the non-rail forum?

So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!

And that we more Senior citizens will be the ones complaining about future cuts, and nickel and diming as AmtraK follows the Airline model of "Round 'em up and move 'em out???


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 2, 2015)

Things I see that will probably happen. I see the midwest, and California trains staying healthy and probably getting expansions on the current routes. I see North Carolina adding transit in a different time slot. I don't know what time slot, but I know it's going to happen. I see a new order for diesels coming in before a new order for coaches. I also see Roanoke and maybe Bristol joining the network.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2015)

Bob Dylan said:


> Disclaimer: posted in wrong forum but seems to fit this thread so will leave it here unless mods think.it should be moved to the non-rail forum?
> 
> So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!
> 
> And that we more Senior citizens will be the ones complaining about future cuts, and nickel and diming as AmtraK follows the Airline model of "Round 'em up and move 'em out???


Yes. It has progressively happened in airlines, and my hypothesis is that rail is no different. Rail passenger service will survive if it is truly deemed to be completely necessary by a large enough group of people, not because it provides extra luxuries for a higher price.

The relentless push to reduce cost and increase load factors while holding ticket prices is a universal phenomenon. The annals of airline history (and railroad history) is strewn with outfits that tried to make a go of primarily luxury service for anyone less rich than the one percenters. Very few have survived. The poster child of such is Kingfisher Airline in India which had dreams of serving everyone like a King and went off the deep end ordering dozens of Airbus 380s and what not and then promptly imploded in slow motion over 5 years. It took so long mainly because governance of corporate law in India is weak and disorganized and riven with corruption, nepotism and favoritism. The boss of the airline Mr. Maliya had connections at high places in the ruling party apparently.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 3, 2015)

jis said:


> A Gulf Coast service at least connecting NOL to Mobile and perhaps a little ways beyond might take place, though I doubt it will hit Florida yet.


I believe that something will happen on the gulf coast *eventually*, but I don't see anything by 2020 somehow. Those states don't have strong rail advocacy and even if they did and I was living there, I would be advocating for service to some of the major cities in AL and MS that presently don't have anything rather than something along the coast where there is pretty much nothing comparable and the only reason for talking about it is nostalgia for the old but shortlived Sunset.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 3, 2015)

I believe that something will happen on the gulf coast *eventually*, but I don't see anything by 2020 somehow. Those states don't have strong rail advocacy and even if they did and I was living there, I would be advocating for service to some of the major cities in AL and MS that presently don't have anything rather than something along the coast where there is pretty much nothing comparable and the only reason for talking about it is nostalgia for the old but shortlived Sunset.
I think there needs to be a train connecting Florida and Texas, the two largest Southern states. I don't think nostalgia is the only factor.

I'm also not big on the "advocacy" angle (I know, it's an advocacy forum). But I feel that "if you build it, they will come". I don't think Floridians have less support for trains than other states. If they had the same trains as AL and MS, they would support them (with their wallets) as much as if not more. Like it or not, Amtrak's biggest markets by ridership are still in the most part the big cities with some exceptions like Albany. Clearly you take a large population base near other large population bases. I don't believe in "who needs the train more". Just because other transportation exists in PHL doesn't mean they don't want trains any less than those with fewer options. We can argue about the demand for LD service and yet most of us on this site probably have traveled at least overnight on Amtrak several times. You know there's a market. If Point A and Point B are huge population centers and/or large markets, I think a train between them would be supported.

Was the "old Sunset East" not popular? The last data I have from 2004 (NARPtrains2004.pdf) shows several Florida to other cities pairs.

Of SL passengers in 200 ,

4.2% traveled from ORL to NOL

3.9% traveled from ORL to LAX.

Among passengers traveling to NOL, the most popular destination was LAX (8.7%). ORL was second (3.9%), higher than both HOU (2.8%) and SAS (2.1%).

So I think there is demand for Florida to NOL/Texas/beyond. Small markets probably "need" Amtrak more and might be "louder", but the large markets with a chance speak with their wallets and I feel that should be the most important to Amtrak.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 3, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I believe that something will happen on the gulf coast *eventually*, but I don't see anything by 2020 somehow. Those states don't have strong rail advocacy and even if they did and I was living there, I would be advocating for service to some of the major cities in AL and MS that presently don't have anything rather than something along the coast where there is pretty much nothing comparable and the only reason for talking about it is nostalgia for the old but shortlived Sunset.
> 
> I think there needs to be a train connecting Florida and Texas, the two largest Southern states. I don't think nostalgia is the only factor.
> 
> ...


No objection to any of this.

But a Texas to Florida train is something Texans and Floridans need to get loud about and start demanding and financing.

It doesn't help MS and AL that people are going from Orlando to New Orleans and are maybe stepping onto the platform in Mobile to smoke a cigarette.

If you're in Montgomery and want to go to New Orleans by train, a thruway bus to Mobile is hardly going to satisfy that need.

If any rail service in those states is going to get state support (even imagining we're in the best of all possible worlds and that support magically appears on a political level overnight) that service has got to promise to do something for those states before they put money into it.

You've got to remember we're looking at states with relatively high levels of poverty here, where there are lots of people who cannot afford to driver and there is thus a huge potential in captive passengers.

I caught the Greyhound from Jackson to Shreveport some weeks ago and that bus was pretty much full, and it runs about 5 times daily. So it isn't that there isn't a demand. The guy I was sitting next to told me he worked in Texas but didn't want to move there as he had a house and a family in Mississippi so he did that commute every week. I wonder how many people there are like him?

Besides which, and this is another observation of mine, MS and AL are two states which in contrast to LA are not doing a good job of marketing themselves as tourist destinations, despite there being plenty of interesting stuff to do and see. A train could help here.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 3, 2015)

I'm on my phone, so I can't do fancy quotes and stuff, but I think you have this backwards:

"I don't think Floridians have less support for trains than other states. If they had the same trains as AL and MS, they would support them (with their wallets) as much as if not more. "

FL has both Silvers, the Auto Train and multiple commuter rail systems. AL and MS have... the Crescent...

That aside, it isn't an accident that FL has trains and AL and MS don't. Floridians elect politicians that will support trains. AL and MS elect right wing ideological politicians that think trains are a part of a vast liberal conspiracy that must the flight at every turn.


----------



## jis (Nov 3, 2015)

Frankly sitting in Florida I see any Texas to Florida train way far down in the list of wants among those that are working on deploying passenger rail in Florida, and way below the cut line in the foreseeable future. Way ahead of that are extensions of the Miami and Orlando Commuter systems. Passenger service along the east coast - extension of Tri-Rail along FEC, AAF to Orlando and eventually to JAX and additional stations on AAF. Amtrak LD down the FEC. Commuter rail in Tampa with extensions up and down the west coast around Tampa, though more likely southward than northward. Given how tight money is I don't foresee any service along the Florida panhandle by 2020. I also do not foresee Amtrak finding the money to expand the LD network in the 2020 timeframe. So I don;t see anything happening along the Florida panhandle, unless something unexpected takes place in LA-MS-AL-FL combo or in Washington.

I am strictly sticking to the title of this thread and trying to avoid wild speculation about what might happen someday in the future or in an alternate universe.

Speaking of electing pro-rail folks, Florida has actually managed to elect both pro and anti rail Republicans as well as - oddly enough, Democrats, at various levels of government. Some are way more visible than others. There was an amazing internecine warfare within the Republicans after the Governor canceled the Orlando - Tampa HSR. Oddly enough that war immunized projects like AAF from negative interference from the Governor's office and also smoothed the path for SunRail eventually. Florida has a lot of potential for passenger rail service (afterall it is now the third most populous state in the nation), but as I mentioned, the northwest corner of it is not exactly where the action or the population is.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 3, 2015)

On the LD front, I see relatively few changes in the next few years (maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse, depending on the overall economy and ridership levels and Amtrak's funding situation). I have a hard time guessing how things will play out in terms of food service, though. I tend to think Amtrak funding levels will not change significantly at the federal level.

Any serious expansion is likely, in my opinion, to take place on the corridor front, and be largely driven my decisions at the state level (other than directly on the NEC). I imagine incremental expansion and improvement will occur throughout the Northeast, including state-driven efforts in ME, MA, NY, PA, VT, etc. Beyond the Northeast, we know that there is new equipment (coaches, locomotives, or both) on the way for California, the Midwest, and the Northwest. I can imagine seeing a few extra frequencies on existing routes in those areas (some are already planned). I'm becoming more skeptical, though, as to whether we'll see any new routes (hopefully the two in IL, but I'm not sure anymore).

There are many station improvement projects underway now, with others in planning that way well enter the construction phase in the next few years. Some of the larger stations/cities include Charlotte, Milwaukee, Raleigh, Rochester, and Springfield MA.

So, in 2020, I anticipate we'll see new/expanded/hopefully improved stations in a number of cities. We'll see new equipment operating on many corridor trains outside the Northeast and probably a few extra frequencies operating in various corridors as well. And I think LD trains will be much the same as they are today.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 3, 2015)

jis said:


> Frankly sitting in Florida I see any Texas to Florida train way far down in the list of wants among those that are working on deploying passenger rail in Florida, and way below the cut line in the foreseeable future. Way ahead of that are extensions of the Miami and Orlando Commuter systems. Passenger service along the east coast - extension of Tri-Rail along FEC, AAF to Orlando and eventually to JAX and additional stations on AAF. Amtrak LD down the FEC. Commuter rail in Tampa with extensions up and down the west coast around Tampa, though more likely southward than northward. Given how tight money is I don't foresee any service along the Florida panhandle by 2020. I also do not foresee Amtrak finding the money to expand the LD network in the 2020 timeframe. So I don;t see anything happening along the Florida panhandle, unless something unexpected takes place in LA-MS-AL-FL combo or in Washington.


I don't think its very high on the Texas radar either. Any talk about passenger rail is about Texas Central right now and this is going to be the big one that will fuel the public debate for years to come. Besides that there will or may be developments in commuter and light rail in or around places like Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin, but these will be discussed on a more local level. Anything beyond that is just not a priority in any meaningful interpretation of the word and won't be before 2020 unless some total miracle happens.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 3, 2015)

Ask me again after next year's elections. Amtrak's future ranges from maintaining the status quo with some commuter expansion to heavy retraction or even defunding of the core LD network. It all depends on who is in charge. In an era when even politically neutral agencies like the Export-Import Bank are under routine attack nothing is safe.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 4, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ask me again after next year's elections. Amtrak's future ranges from maintaining the status quo with some commuter expansion to heavy retraction or even defunding of the core LD network. It all depends on who is in charge. In an era when even politically neutral agencies like the Export-Import Bank are under routine attack nothing is safe.


To me it looks as though the Republicans are unable to unite behind a candidate who has any chance of appealing to swing voters or occupying the political middle ground, or even being taken seriously by even the right-leaning Democrats. The Sanders campaign is making a lot of hopeful noise but I think it will eventually sizzle out for the same reason. So to me right now it looks as though Hillary is going to win virtually unopposed (I don't like Hillary by the way, this is my sober prediction not wishful thinking). And the Democrats and especially middle of the road democrats will emerge strengthened and more bullish from her win.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 4, 2015)

On Iowa Pacific, I cannot help but wonder if there wouldn't be a case for them to acquire/seriously rehab equipment with RRIF support (presuming the presence of a multi-year state contract).

As to luxury services, there's still clearly a non-trivial niche in larger markets for higher-end service options (witness the NYC-LAX/SFO markets in the airline industry). The complication is that, as far as I can tell, "luxury" passengers are generally used to cross-subsidize mass market coach pax (at least, on the basis of what you pay for what you get). I basically see three problems here:
(1) The luxury market is subject to a lot more boom/bust. Most carriers can make it until whenever the next "crash" is (IIRC there were a few carriers that popped up both in the late 1990s and the mid-late 2000s) at which point price selection trumps quality.

(2) A lot of would-be carriers get loaded down with debt. This is, from what I've read, what blew up Trump Air...they got like 50% of the BOS-NYC-WAS shuttle market and sorted out their load factors decently; unfortunately, they also loaded themselves down with bad bonds and when the market soured things did not end well.

(3) Frequency often trumps comfort. Do you pick a carrier with 14x daily "cattle call" flights on a "clock" schedule or 2x daily comfortable flights? Even for equal cost, the high-frequency carrier has a decisive advantage while a "high-end" carrier is never going to be able to expand _that_ much.

On Florida, there's another wrinkle (though the state _is_ generally quite pro-rail, all things considered...there was a serious attempt to rebuke Scott over rejecting the HSR money that I believe fell apart on a matter of who had what authority...that was apparently an area the legislature _couldn't_ override): The state is pretty dense by most standards and so has a bit more room to support service (even if the present routes don't do a perfect job of taking advantage of the density).


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2015)

I heard from a reliable source that there two requests outstanding from some senior Republicans in Washington DC. One is for Amtrak to study and report on restoration of a Gulf Coast service covering Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, and the other is for coming up with a proposal to institute passenger service on what has previously been termed as the Crescent Star route. I suspect that at least the latter will probably go nowhere, and something will happen with the former only if those states come up with the money. It was mentioned in no uncertain terms that it will not be an extension of the Sunset to the east. According to several sources that will never happen again.

I also heard that an offer was made to Florida DOT to operate a intra-Florida day train using the idle Talgo sets, which FDOT turned down. They could not convince themselves that it would meet the 60% farebox recovery target that they have set for such service I suppose, and of course have their rail budget completely dedicated to SunRail and TriRail expansions for now.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 4, 2015)

So Michigan no longer is in possession of the Talgos?


----------



## Eric S (Nov 4, 2015)

Did Michigan ever actually take possession of the Talgos? I thought they were still exiled in Indiana somewhere, waiting for Michigan (or anyone) to figure out what it wanted to do.


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> So Michigan no longer is in possession of the Talgos?


Actually they are sitting in Beech Grove in storage for Talgo for almost a year or more now. Talgo still had pending legal issues going on with Wisconsin which was resolved finally a month back or two back, clearing the way for Talgo to actually be able to do something with them. AFAIK the Michigan thing was just a proposal that had never moved beyond a proposal stage.

Meanwhile the whole Talgo deal with Michigan has gotten bogged down in various controversies. So Michigan had never completed the acquisition of them, and apparently now it is on what appears to be a permanent hold. While all this has been unfolding Amtrak has apparently been trying to find other uses for the two sets presumably with Talgo.

See: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/20/state-transport-chief-delays-amtrak-cars-purchase/25121569/


----------



## cirdan (Nov 4, 2015)

With all these goings on I've lost track of who now physically owns the Talgo sets.

Did Wisconsin pay for them, or is Talgo still owed money?


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2015)

Talgo owns them. They were not allowed to do anything with them pending settlement with WI which happened recently (in August 2015). Now they can either sell or lease them as agreed upon with WI which does continue to have certain residual financial stake in them, arising out of WI's contribution to providing real estate/factory space or some such.

You can see the settlement news here.

Specifically....



> Wisconsin taxpayers will end up paying $9.7 million more for two state of the art train sets — for a total of roughly $50 million — but leave the trains with their Spanish manufacturer, under the settlement of a nearly 3-year-old lawsuit.
> 
> If the manufacturer is able to sell the trains, it will return 30% of the net proceeds of the sale, up to a limit of $9.7 million, to Wisconsin.


----------



## Train2104 (Nov 4, 2015)

Bob Dylan said:


> So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!
> 
> And that we more Senior citizens will be the ones complaining about future cuts, and nickel and diming as AmtraK follows the Airline model of "Round 'em up and move 'em out???


As a millennial, for something like a train ride, "premium" service doesn't matter at all. All that's needed is a comfortable seat (or bed for overnights), and some sort of food service available for purchase. Dedicated sleeper/coach attendants, sit-down dining, all that's just extra, and in my view, signs of waste that exists purely because past practices are incredibly hard to change, compounded by Amtrak marketing them, and the "current" demographic demanding them. The demographic will change over the course of a few decades, marketing managers will come and go.

I can't see them surviving beyond 2025. Sooner or later Amtrak's hand will be forced, be it by Congress or by ridership drops caused by the increasingly higher fares that will be necessary to sustain such services. "Zero losses on food service" is impossible since even a cafe car loses money on an overnight route, but those numbers can certainly come way down. A crappy dining car is worse than no dining car at all, might as well cut all the overhead then and there. The "enhanced" cafe car, appropriately stocked, should work well for shorter routes with no more than 2 non-breakfast meals per one-way trip, a kitchen/lunch counter would be warranted on the longer routes - but no way when it comes to sit down dining! Let the passengers eat at their seats/berths (or in the lounge car...)

Non-daily LD's ought to be made daily. State corridor services are going to blossom. Not Iowa Pacific's outdated model, but a decently frequent corridor along the lines of the San Joaquin or Lincoln Service can and will pull growing ridership numbers. Just see Virginia for a recent example of this. Second frequencies will come to many daily corridors like the Pennsylvanian and the Adirondack, with more equipment on order.


----------



## jebr (Nov 4, 2015)

Bob Dylan said:


> So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!


I'm not sure Millenials (myself included) want less for more. In general, at least when I'm on transportation, I'm perfectly fine with less for less. I'll often fly Spirit on a day trip because if I work the system and buy my tickets at the airport (yes, it's cheaper to buy at the airport than online!) I can often get a round-trip fare from MSP to ORD for $32.22. Even on more expensive days it's usually around $50 round-trip. When even Greyhound charges $20+ for a one-way ticket, Amtrak charges $60+ one-way, and Southwest charges $41 on the off-peak days (if you're lucky) and $60+ on other days, I'm going to put up with the lack of amenities and a tight seat pitch for a couple hours while I fly to save that money if the schedules work out. I can spend that extra money for a good meal in Chicago, or to go to a museum, or simply save it up to take a second trip somewhere else.

Sometimes the journey is a major part of the trip, and then I may splurge, but that's not going to be an every-trip thing. I don't want to pay the extra few hundred bucks for a roomette on each trip out to the east coast, even if that includes good meals, turndown service, or something fancy. I'd rather be able to take more trips out there and ride coach, or fly a cheap airline, or take the bus.

Which brings me to the Cardinal's diner situation. I honestly think, with some modifications, that could offer insight to "moving forward" with dining service. A full sit-down meal doesn't work with that concept; there's not enough staffing to properly execute it. However, if the cafe car attendant would take the orders, prepare the beverages (and perhaps have pre-prepared side salads,) and give them to people after ordering at the counter, and the cook/waiter had to simply prepare the main entrees and deliver them tableside (or even be able to order "to go" in coach,) it could be a workable concept. In my opinion, the Cardinal food wasn't bad, and did offer a nice variety to the normal food options on Amtrak.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 4, 2015)

Here's the thing: Ed has been 100% frank that he _wants_ a corridor option. The only difference is that he's convinced that on a proper-length train trip, he can (1) win ridership with better seating (since let's face it, if someone wants super-cheap they're probably going with Megabus anyway) and (2) make a serious dent with good food service being operated at what I strongly suspect is far less thn Amtrak would charge. The issue, as I see it, is that there _is a market _for seating and service which is substantially better than baseline Amtrak coach and which Amtrak could probably extract a non-trivial surcharge (Amtrak's unwillingness/inability to run anything on most trains which attracts a surcharge beyond the old Parlor Car Seat charge, which is really about what the BC charge comes out to for the most part, is a _serious _lost opportunity).

Edit: Ok, to elaborate on Ed's model a bit his idea is that you have Coach akin to what Amtrak has now (he has nicer seats at the moment but I'm taking that as being as much an effort to sell people on taking what has heretofore been a crap train and ensuring that "his" coach isn't worse than Cardinal-day coach since there are some branding issues to be had). However, he wants to also have a "first class" on his trains which sell premium seats with an upcharge of between 50-200% (albeit accompanied with service to induce people to pay that). When you consider that the net cost of doing that (with probably three OBS) versus "basic" cafe service with one attendant I think it works (remember, he's not "wasting" two cars on food service...there's only one such car per train). Put another way, instead of doing a cafe Ed is using his dome as the diner-club model Amtrak suggested they might look at.

I don't think that Ed's model is flawed, and I could see a model working with three classes of service. Lord knows there are people in long-haul Regional territory who would pay for a seat with good padding, substantial legroom, and the ability to get a meal that isn't just microwaved.


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2015)

I am actually curious to see Ed's operations finances at least at the same level of detail that we get to scrutinize Amtrak's. Just out of curiosity mind you.That is the only way we will ever know whether the model really works or not.

Also he really needs to deal with the issue of having enough protect equipment at hand, either his own, or at a pinch leased from somewhere so that he does not have to cancel runs almost every other week.


----------



## A Voice (Nov 4, 2015)

Train2104 said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!
> ...





jebr said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!
> ...


The generation of Millennials often aren't the primary market for premium and luxury-level transportation and travel services. Those willing to pay for a greater level of service are perhaps motivated to do so; They are generally a few years older and have higher disposable income, and often more appreciate better accomodations. A cramped bus (or airline) seat for an all-day journey which is suitable enough (for the right price) when you're 30 might be completely uncomfortable (even painful) by age 45. You might take a road trip as a young man, sleeping in the car at a rest area, but give it a few years and that won't be acceptable anymore; You want Hampton Inn (and not Motel6 either, which is an interesting analogy).

There are many exceptions, of course, and everyone likes less expensive options, but if everyone was happy with "less for less" Cadillac and Lexus would go out of business. There is a very real market for premium-class rail transportation alongside a more basic ("bare-bones economy") coach service; We see that in Acela first-class and regional business-class accomodations. Similarly, people will be willing to pay a _reasonable_ premium for better quality food service (the "real" dining car, with chef) and other amenities.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 4, 2015)

jis said:


> I am actually curious to see Ed's operations finances at least at the same level of detail that we get to scrutinize Amtrak's. Just out of curiosity mind you.That is the only way we will ever know whether the model really works or not.
> 
> Also he really needs to deal with the issue of having enough protect equipment at hand, either his own, or at a pinch leased from somewhere so that he does not have to cancel runs almost every other week.


Dumb question: Who's Ed?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 4, 2015)

Train2104 said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> > So jis, in effect you are saying that the millenials and today's sheeple, having grown up in today's shrinking service environment, will accept Less for More never having known what real Service is like!
> ...


I'm not sure if you're aware of this but many if not most of us started out with cheap coach tickets because "premium service didn't matter" just like you. We didn't need it and we couldn't have afforded it anyway. We didn't start out with bedrooms and steak simply because it was traditional for our generation. But lo and behold we eventually got older slightly wealthier and chose to spend some of our extra money on nicer accommodations. I wonder if any of these silly premiums will remain in service when you reach our age and find you have different goals and a different perspective than when you were young and indifferent.


----------



## jis (Nov 4, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I am actually curious to see Ed's operations finances at least at the same level of detail that we get to scrutinize Amtrak's. Just out of curiosity mind you.That is the only way we will ever know whether the model really works or not.
> ...


The boss of Iowa Pacific which provides the rolling stock and runs the OBS on the _Hoosier State_ these days. His name is Ed Ellis and he is a wonderful guy. I really enjoy having email and forum chats with him.


----------



## cirdan (Nov 5, 2015)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware of this but many if not most of us started out with cheap coach tickets because "premium service didn't matter" just like you. We didn't need it and we couldn't have afforded it anyway. We didn't start out with bedrooms and steak simply because it was traditional for our generation. But lo and behold we eventually got older slightly wealthier and chose to spend some of our extra money on nicer accommodations. I wonder if any of these silly premiums will remain in service when you reach our age and find you have different goals and a different perspective than when you were young and indifferent.


This, absolutely. Agree 100%.

I clearly remember a time that I thought any extras were a waste of money and went for the less for less option whenever I could. I think if I could talk to my younger self now, my younger self wouldn't believe what would become of me.


----------



## NorthShore (Nov 5, 2015)

Train2104 said:


> ..a kitchen/lunch counter would be warranted on the longer routes...


Where is Woolworth's when you need them?


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2015)

Train2104 said:


> As a millennial, for something like a train ride, "premium" service doesn't matter at all. All that's needed is a comfortable seat (or bed for overnights), and some sort of food service available for purchase.


As a late Gen-X-er... Edible food. Food quality does matter. Doesn't have to be fancy, but variety and ability to meet dietary restrictions is important. And on a long trip? Bathrooms.
The reason for sit-down food service is actually that, if done right, it can be more safe and efficient than a giant line of passengers cramming the cafe. Amtrak is of course *not* doing it right, and generating lines at the door to the dining car (oy!).

Perhaps even better would be at-seat (or if you prefer, at-lounge) ordering and service. This would be a lot more work for attendants, but it would really eliminate the lining up.



> Dedicated sleeper/coach attendants, sit-down dining, all that's just extra


Well, they DO clean the bathrooms, and frankly someone needs to do that.



> since even a cafe car loses money on an overnight route,


Solely because they don't stock them properly. When you run out of food to sell less than halfway through the trip, it's easy to lose money. (Running out of stock has been documented repeatedly on the Capitol Limited, among other trains.) They make money when they're stocked -- the long-distance cafe on the LSL does business hand over fist, constantly.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Nov 5, 2015)

I spent years (1970's until recently) traveling all over this country and Canada. My team as well as the 10 other project teams, logged over 100 airline segments, many years over 150. Those airline seats wore you out plus it was difficult to get much work completed. We were thrilled to be upgraded for the more comfortable seat, but especially so we could get our reports started and not have to work until 2Am or 3 Am. When I got sick and was grounded due to my ears, I used Amtrak (Chicago was my home base) as much as possible. I many times cut out a hotel night by departing later afternoon or evening and being on site before lunch. My team joined me, soon rail was our preferred method of travel. We could get decent meals in the DC, have privacy to complete our reports and proposals, and even hold a meeting in the DC or SSL. The general consensus was we were more rested traveling by Amtrak in the SLC. I discussed with several Amtrak managers how the CL could offer the over night business package CHI - WAS with a couple premium extras plus what was at that time already being offered. I used as an example our teams and the regular business folks we met in the SLC or in the DC. On the CL and the LSL I found usually 6 or more overnight business travelers. Our company would pay more to get increased productivity. A happy rested employee is a lot more productive than one who is worn out and making mistakes.


----------



## PerRock (Nov 5, 2015)

jis said:


> Talgo owns them. They were not allowed to do anything with them pending settlement with WI which happened recently (in August 2015). Now they can either sell or lease them as agreed upon with WI which does continue to have certain residual financial stake in them, arising out of WI's contribution to providing real estate/factory space or some such.
> 
> You can see the settlement news here.
> 
> ...


Shortly after the ruling I asked MDOT about the Talgos, according to them, there is no timeline to acquire them at that time. The procurement is currently "under review." A while back MDOT got into hot water with the legislature over spending on the MiTrain Gallery cars; I believe the Talgo purchase is also somewhat wrapped into it as well. I highly doubt anything has changed since then.

https://twitter.com/PFreeman008/status/654781012430360578

peter


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 2, 2020)

Happy New Year!

Thought I'd bump this thread since it is now 2020 and see how accurate the predictions are.

Amtrak is now in Roanoke but not Bristol VA. They did add another frequency to the Piedmont. Amtrak's Miami Airport Station isn't still open. The through cars between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited still aren't running  No LD train was discontinued permanently (for now). Viewliner II's? Mixed results. Food service? Well I don't really care but I'm guessing most on AU aren't happy. We did see the start of Brightline service.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 2, 2020)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Happy New Year!
> 
> Thought I'd bump this thread since it is now 2020 and see how accurate the predictions are.
> 
> Amtrak is now in Roanoke but not Bristol VA. They did add another frequency to the Piedmont. Amtrak's Miami Airport Station isn't still open. The through cars between the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited still aren't running  No LD train was discontinued permanently (for now). Viewliner II's? Mixed results. Food service? Well I don't really care but I'm guessing most on AU aren't happy. We did see the start of Brightline service.


Other Negative Developments from the Guys in the Flight Suits: More Cuts to OBS, More Unstaffed Stations,Declining OTPs on the LD Routes and Big Jumps in Rail and Accommodation Fare Buckets


----------



## JRR (Jan 2, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> Other Negative Developments from the Guys in the Flight Suits: More Cuts to OBS, More Unstaffed Stations,Declining OTPs on the LD Routes and Big Jumps in Rail and Accommodation Fare Buckets



Can I add, more and more stations w/o baggage service??


----------



## Qapla (Jan 2, 2020)

And there are still many trains that have not recently been washed ... making the view out the windows just as dismal as in 2019


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 7, 2020)

Qapla said:


> And there are still many trains that have not recently been washed ... making the view out the windows just as dismal as in 2019


Could be worse. At least Amtrak still has showers for crew and passengers in the sleepers!


----------



## ShiningTimeStL (Jan 7, 2020)

Decreased OTP? Has the CONO always been such a reliable train? Have the midwest corridor trains always been so reliable? Hell even the Empire Builder and the Texas Eagle have been getting better (but still not good).


----------



## adamj023 (Jan 25, 2020)

Nothing significant ever changes at Amtrak. They tweak the system occasional, a new route here and a removed route there and lots of cost cutting and some new station openings.

To me the best Amtrak routes are the train to plane connections such as Penn Station to Newark Airport where you can get a reserved seat unlike commuter lines. The new High speed train in the Northeast is supposed to be delayed which is another route that makes sense. But most of the Amtrak network is useless to me and is counterproductive and losing a lot of money as well.

if Amtrak was run like it has been over the years but was a privately owned business, it would have been bankrupt and gone already.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2020)

If people would quit looking at Amtrak like a for-profit business and accept it for what it is - a government service - many of the problems Amtrak has could be solved


----------



## adamj023 (Jan 25, 2020)

Disagree. Amtrak has too many problems. It is usable however on the Northeastern Corridor lines for instance but nowhere near the level it should be at. Freight trains and passenger trains on the same tracks which the long haul routes are make for a noxious combination. Also Amtrak starts the new Cascades route in Seattle and crashes and people get killed on first day of new route and a host of other incompetence.

TV Shows like Married with Children for instance have known about Amtrak’s issues for years and have had parody skits on it. Taxpayers are on the hook for Amtrak even if they don’t use it as the federal government subsidizes it.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 26, 2020)

OK - you pointed out some of the problems ... are you saying these are unsolvable problems?

Think about it - more people are killed everyday on the Internet Highway System than on Amtrak - and, yes, some are even killed on brand new, just opened sections of road - and yet, no one is complaining about these problems and thinking roads should all be closed or government money should be taken away.

If independent tracks were installed for Amtrak with the same vigor as the added lanes to Interstates - things would be much easier for Amtrak to operate.


----------



## adamj023 (Jan 26, 2020)

The cost of doing nationwide building out of Amtrak tracks is too high so it will never happen. The mechanism that works best for Long Haul is aviation which has significantly faster speeds and is already built out and we could get the speeds up if we got off the petroleum based economy. Being on the ground is unneeded for transportation except to takeoff and land. Bus combined with train where dedicated tracks have been built is better for those who want or require ground based transport, or cars, vans, and the like. I believe Amtrak should cut a lot of unprofitable long haul routes but tweak the network where dedicated tracks exist or are possible to add a few new lucrative routes where demand is.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 26, 2020)

adamj023 said:


> I believe Amtrak should cut a lot of unprofitable long haul routes but tweak the network where dedicated tracks exist or are possible to add a few new lucrative routes where demand is.



It is fine that you believe that ... not all of us believe the same thing. As someone who does not fly, I see no reason us non-fliers should be relegated to second-class citizens because "Long Haul" should only be done by air -

Personally, I do not believe air travel should be prioritized at the expense of ground based travel - long distance travel on a single vehicle that can hold hundreds of people AND that can stop at several locations as it crosses the country just does not work in the air - not all want to go from coast-to-coast every time they travel.

Just imagine if, back in the early days of air travel, people had said that the cost of building airports with a network of road to allow people to access them and the cost of air traffic control was "too high" - where would air travel be today ... there was a time people thought air travel WAS a waste of tax money because only the rich could use it.

Aren't you glad that thinking did not prevail?


----------



## adamj023 (Jan 26, 2020)

Qapla said:


> It is fine that you believe that ... not all of us believe the same thing. As someone who does not fly, I see no reason us non-fliers should be relegated to second-class citizens because "Long Haul" should only be done by air -
> 
> Personally, I do not believe air travel should be prioritized at the expense of ground based travel - long distance travel on a single vehicle that can hold hundreds of people AND that can stop at several locations as it crosses the country just does not work in the air - not all want to go from coast-to-coast every time they travel.
> 
> ...



The interstate highway system was started before air travel for the masses and at that time was appropriate to build. Since it was built already, people who have ground vehicles can use it as the upkeep isn’t that much, and the fact is air is still handling lighter weight and less frequent loads than the ground network which is super congested. Air travel growth is huge and is handling traffic for multiple routes globally. Ground is still necessary for transit to airports for the shorter distances. 

Airlines don’t just do coast to coast routes or longer hail routes. They fly to many different airpots on very short and long haul routes.

A train is not efficient for many routes and is magnitudes slower. A train does work for short haul from the airports to stations in a shorter distance range like the Northeastern Corridor trains are, although there is overlap on many of those routes with airplane which provides competition.

Airplane speeds can be multitudes faster and don’t require ground based infrastructure and allow for much greater traffic to flow. Air is simply the best method we have to combat the traffic congestion problem which has so much untapped potential.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 26, 2020)

adamj023 said:


> Air is simply the best method we have to combat the traffic congestion problem which has so much untapped potential.



I'm not sure if all the people who get stuck in the traffic jams and confusing highways around airports would agree ... have you ever tried to navigate the roads around MCO without ending up going to the wrong place at least once?

Setting that aside ... maybe, in your opinion, rail is not needed (odd coming from someone on a train riding forum) but that is not the general consensus of all people - especially those on this forum.

Somehow, I doubt you will convince many on this forum that "Air is simply the best method we have to combat the traffic congestion problem" ...

As for the Interstate system:



adamj023 said:


> as the upkeep isn’t that much,





> In 2014, a total of $416 billion was spent on highway and water infrastructure... $207 billion for operation and maintenance ... $165 billion was for highways alone





> Forty-five percent of highway and road spending goes toward operational costs, such as maintenance, repair, snow and ice removal, highway and traffic design and operation, and highway safety



And the costs go up each year as prices rise.


----------



## jloewen (Jan 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> I'm not sure if all the people who get stuck in the traffic jams and confusing highways around airports would agree ... have you ever tried to navigate the roads around MCO without ending up going to the wrong place at least once?
> 
> Setting that aside ... maybe, in your opinion, rail is not needed (odd coming from someone on a train riding forum) but that is not the general consensus of all people - especially those on this forum.
> 
> ...


Those who argue that maintaining long-distance rail is too expensive, compared to airports, neglect the synergy between long-distance passenger rail and long-distance freight rail. The rails undergirding the LD routes will still be maintained even if Amtrak disappears. Witness the problem in CO/NM when that isn't true and a heroic rescue is required to maintain the SW Chief. IF Congress, the courts, and Amtrak management can cooperate to enforce the principle of passenger train priority, then this synergy can continue. 
It is true that some freight lines maintain their rails poorly, making higher-speed passenger trains impossible ... sometimes making even "regular speed" passenger trains impossible. The old Wabash, on the other hand, used to advertise their higher-speed freights (higher than other lines), and maybe the economies of minding a shipment for only 12 hours (at 60 MPH) rather than 24 hours (at 30 MPH) will prevail on freight lines.


----------



## adamj023 (Jan 27, 2020)

Cost is just one part of the issue. Air is simply a better technology. We intentionally slow down planes due to the fuel costs and don’t use a better propulsion system which already exists in the military. We can do flights in much faster times than what we see today as well as come out with a new mechanism to replace the existing security which adds significantly to flight times. The potential of air travel is only restricted by how many planes can fit in the sky and even though there is a ton of air traffic already, there is room for a lot more for a much faster ride experience without any infrastructures costs except for airports where cost is shared by multiple parties with potential profit potential as well.

if I go from NYC to Los Angeles, CA for instance, a cross country slow train is not something I would ever do. I can get a first class flight on multiple airlines with or without connections for a much quicker time and even less money than many Amtrak tickets will cost. Yet the tax payer is on the hook for services that many won’t ever use due to subsidies from congress. Private sector can solve the transportation problems much better.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 29, 2020)

adamj023 said:


> Cost is just one part of the issue. Air is simply a better technology. We intentionally slow down planes due to the fuel costs and don’t use a better propulsion system which already exists in the military. We can do flights in much faster times than what we see today as well as come out with a new mechanism to replace the existing security which adds significantly to flight times. The potential of air travel is only restricted by how many planes can fit in the sky and even though there is a ton of air traffic already, there is room for a lot more for a much faster ride experience without any infrastructures costs except for airports where cost is shared by multiple parties with potential profit potential as well.
> 
> if I go from NYC to Los Angeles, CA for instance, a cross country slow train is not something I would ever do. I can get a first class flight on multiple airlines with or without connections for a much quicker time and even less money than many Amtrak tickets will cost. Yet the tax payer is on the hook for services that many won’t ever use due to subsidies from congress. Private sector can solve the transportation problems much better.


So, there are a few things I'd note:
(1) Going to just "rationalized" services, combined with probably allowing one or two too many mergers in the airline industry[1], has resulted in many airports either losing service or losing most effective service outside of EAS funding.
(2) I agree that, for example, NYC-LA isn't likely to be a market trains can compete in. However, on any of the routings between the two there are several dozen intermediate stops. Some of those towns have airports. Some have bus lines. Some both, some have neither, and some have one or the other or both but the condition is dubious and airlines sometimes refuse to serve shorter-haul city pairs that require a connection [2][3]. And this is before we get into the fact that a not-insignificant portion of the population cannot fly, either because of physical reasons or mental ones (fear of flying _is_ a condition), and I don't think it is practical to expect those folks to all drive or take Greyhound. And of course, this doesn't take into account various places where though there may be an airport in the metro area, it might well be far over an hour to get there if traffic isn't on your side (e.g. Fredericksburg to DCA or Manhattan to LGA).
(3) The airline industry has only relatively recently become profitable on a stable basis, and only then amid a record-long economic expansion, relatively cheap oil/gas (fuel now is only marginally more expensive than it was in the early 1970s, accounting for inflation), relative lack of competition, and continuing subsidies to airlines and airports in various forms ranging from direct support for construction and/or subsidies to airports to government funding for various functions (ATC, etc.). Whether this is likely to last indefinitely or how badly the next recession impacts it is anybody's guess (anyone who knows, I am sure some hedge fund managers would love to hear from you).
(4) Also, nobody expects the interstate highway system to "make money", and even at a "break even" proposition in terms of either toll revenues, gas taxes, or a hypothetical VMT tax, there are big chunks of that system that would lose money regardless. Witness the fights in Pennsylvania over trying to toll I-80 (and I've predicted, for many years, that if the highway trust fund ever went bust PA might just cut I-80 to two lanes rather than fund their portion of it).

Now, please note that I'm only addressing rather long-haul city pairs here (e.g. where the train takes more than about six hours...in other words, longer than a connecting flight with a clumsy connection probably takes), and in a sense I'm _really_ getting at longer-than-overnight city pairs. On shorter routes (and note that those LD trains all cover shorter city pairs...for example, the LSL and Cap both serve Cleveland-Toledo) many of the problems with flying become more and more problematic. There's a reason I don't necessarily bust Delta for not serving PHF-DCA (since by the time you get down to Atlanta and back up, you'd spend more time on the plane than you would on the train), though refusing to sell ORF-WAS gets a little stranger since the other three cover an airport apiece there (United/IAD, American/DCA, Southwest/BWI).

One place I think Anderson _is_ right is that Amtrak would be better-served by ramping up frequencies on various city pairs/routes to achieve economies of scale (e.g. a station that has to hire two agents to cover a clumsily-timed pair of trains might still only need two agents with 4-5 trains per day in each direction, while it seems quite plausible that running more trains would make Amtrak into a more important "customer" of the host railroads and thus able to get better treatment). I think the main disagreement I'd express is that I put the threshold for reasonable route lengths rather higher than he does.


[1] Yes, I am aware that many of the mergers in the last two decades or so were the result of one of the partners being in bad shape in the long(er) term and so the merger was the alternative to a collapse.
[2] An easy example for me is that Delta refuses to serve PHF-JFK/LGA because of routing limits that make a connection via ATL (the only connecting airport serving PHF) illegal. This is, perhaps, defensible since there are a number of puddle jumpers serving ORF-JFK/LGA (about 30 miles away). PHL is in a similar situation, as is...basically every airport southeast of Boston (PVD and BDL are both blocked). However, for anyone from my part of the world, traffic getting to ORF can be a royal pain (and let's not even talk about that time the state shut down two of the three bridges one way and had to spend the next six months apologizing with TV and radio ads), and the next-closest airport is RIC (a bit over an hour away). To be fair, American will cover most of those pairs...but the point is that Delta is able to simply decide that there's business that they don't want at any price. Similar examples abound in New York State, where Delta will not sell a ticket from YUL or SYR to ALB. BTW, lest anyone accuse the rules of being rational, they _will_ sell a YYZ-ALB ticket routing via LGA _and_ DTW, something which basically takes those routing limits out back and beats them to death with a shovel.
[3] I will also point out that on many of those routes, airlines may or may not offer "premium" cabins for sale. Now, lest anybody think I'm complaining about seat size (not that such isn't an issue for many passengers), what is often omitted is that those seats tend to come with generous luggage allowances and more flexible change rules at their base. So, picking on Delta again, a passenger traveling in First (or Delta One) with one checked bag (and don't forget that there's all sorts of stuff you can't pack in a carry-on) on a round-trip will have to kick out $60. Two bags takes that to $140. That easily obliterates the cost difference between Economy and First in many pairs for advance purchase tickets. Even without a "better" seat being made available, those city pairs are effectively being denied the ability to purchase an inclusive fare (to say nothing of having to manually sift through fares on OTAs to figure out what is actually being offered for sale).


----------



## neroden (Jan 30, 2020)

Anderson said:


> One place I think Anderson _is_ right is that Amtrak would be better-served by ramping up frequencies on various city pairs/routes to achieve economies of scale (e.g. a station that has to hire two agents to cover a clumsily-timed pair of trains might still only need two agents with 4-5 trains per day in each direction, while it seems quite plausible that running more trains would make Amtrak into a more important "customer" of the host railroads and thus able to get better treatment).


I also firmly agree with this. Railroads are an economies-of-scale business. 

I'd personally start with a combination of the Michigan Corridor and Empire Corridor. There's extra trackbed space in all the sections controlled by freight railroads. Buy whatever empty trackbeds you need to buy to have passenger-priority tracks where needed (CSX and NS will both sell if politically pressured enough), and run many trains per day, on time. Chicago-NY via Lots Of Cities is an eminently reasonable route.



> I think the main disagreement I'd express is that I put the threshold for reasonable route lengths rather higher than he does.


I think there is no actual limit to "reasonable route lengths". There may be a practical limit to "length of trip for major markets", but the route can be longer than that. The can't-fly-won't-fly market will of course take arbitrarily long trips if they're faster than driving (and it's significant, 10% of the population). 

But beyond that, if your major markets are actually Chicago-Denver and Denver-Grand Junction, there's every reason to run a single route all the way from Chicago to Grand Junction -- and that sort of situation happens frequently.

What's important on a train route, IMHO, is that you keep hitting decent intermediate stops every hour or less. So a train travelling across a giant vacant area like San Antonio to El Paso is a *problem*. But if you're hopping from midsized city to midsized city to midsized city, each an hour or less apart, the route could be arbitrarily long. It's good if you can construct convenient overnight service for the city pairs where it's about 8-12 hours, and good daytime service for the city pairs where it's 1-8 hours; you can serve a lot of pairs on one route. Most people aren't riding end to end, of course. The only practical limits to route length come from the problems with dispatcher handoffs and "cascading delays".



> Similar examples abound in New York State, where Delta will not sell a ticket from YUL or SYR to ALB. BTW, lest anyone accuse the rules of being rational, they _will_ sell a YYZ-ALB ticket routing via LGA _and_ DTW, something which basically takes those routing limits out back and beats them to death with a shovel.



Air is fundamentally a bad technology for short hops, as everyone agrees. The time penalty of going to the airport, dealing with security, taking off, landing, going from the airport, eats up any advantage (unless you have a private plane or something). For short hops, it's driving, buses, or trains. But it's not just the short hops where airlines can't provide economic service, while trains can...

Airline service has become one of strictly point-to-point flights -- air routes don't have multiple stops any more. (Because of the huge costs of takeoff and landing, both in time and fuel, and of boarding/deboarding in terms of time.) This renders air travel uneconomic for lots of city pairs.

While a train can hit Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo in one run, that would require a minimum of 10 airline flights just to serve each pair. The traffic demand isn't there for that, so those flights don't exist. (Actually, I'm not sure there are flights between *any* pair of those cities.) Sure, between the very biggest hubs like LA, SF, Chicago, and NYC, every pair is served by air, but as soon as you get to smaller cities, they're not.

As a result of not having intermediate stops, airline service has become a strictly hub-and-spoke affair. Puddlejumpers serving smaller cities generally go only one direction, to the nearest hub. Then the hubs are connected. The hub-and-spoke routings mean that airlines are uncompetitive for many of the city pairs which trains can serve very easily by stopping at a chain of cities.

Another interesting example is going from anywhere in Vermont or Western Massachusetts to Albany or points west -- the planes only go east to Boston.

The disappearance of point-to-point routes, unless you're going from a hub to a hub, or a small city to *the one hub* which it is connected to, means that air ends up being much slower than driving for the routes which air has "abandoned" due to indirection, even if you can technically glue together a route (for instance, by air you can go Ithaca-Detroit-Boston-Lebanon NH -- no, just no). 

Trains can compete with driving. When air travel is slower than driving, trains can also compete with air travel.

Serving the can't-fly-won't-fly market (10% of the population, roughly) is a bonus. Many of them drive, so again the key competition is driving.

"Airline thinking" is no good for a railroad. For an airline, all flights are point-to-point; for a train route, it is essential to have numerous intermediate stops to leverage economies of scale. (Auto Train notwithstanding.)

In response to adamj023, I will simply say that NY-LA is the wrong example; sure, those are big enough to have lots of direct air flights. You want to be looking at Syracuse to Milwaukee, and the many many other city pairs like that.


----------



## neroden (Jan 30, 2020)

FYI, 2017 numbers for public spending on transportation is out. $177 billion to highways, $70 billion to mass transit, $37 billion to aviation, $10 billion to water transportation, $5 billion to rail (other than mass transit) -- some of that is for freight. That is federal, state, and local (though it is likely to be missing some local highway and aviation expenditures).

Federal? Of "transportation and water infrastructure" (no idea why water utilities and dams are lumped in here), it's 47% for highways, 17% for mass transit and rail (mostly mass transit), 5% for water transportation (!), 17% for aviation. (10% for dams and stuff like that, 4% for water utilities.)

It's pretty clear which transportation mode is most cost-effective. That would be rail. The highways are giant money-sucks. Even water transportation gets more public funding than rail, and it's notoriously ineffective for passengers and not that great for freight either.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 30, 2020)

The reason I gave the city pairs that I did is that, air distance-wise, ORF/PHF/RIC-NYC is somewhere in the ballpark of 350 miles, and I did checks for BDL and PVD (which are getting close to 500 miles of ground travel). So that's either at the high end of passenger rail's useful "sphere" outside of full-blown shinkansen-level HSR or somewhat beyond it (pure runtime, aside from the DC locomotive swap, is somewhere in the ballpark of five-six hours (RVR-NYP) to seven-eight hours (NFK-NYP). Add another 3-4 hours for PVD/BDL and the train is starting to push the edge of even being feasible (even if you can avoid a change of trains and the loss of more time). YUL-ALB is a bit of an odd case (the rail routing _sucks_ in terms of runtime, but the distance is relatively short).

I did sort-of mean the feasible length of a given city pair, but I was also looking at distances you could viably run a train while improving crewing, etc. Basically, even if you had the intermediate pairs of the eastern trains all the way to the west coast (versus contending with ridership craters on the western trains), there _is_ a case to be made that (for multiple reasons) running lots of end-to-end trains from coast to coast would be a Bad Idea operationally. Likewise, subjecting either end of a relatively long route to only end-to-end trains being available won't do wonders for reliability even if you have reasonably good handling by the host railroad(s), and that situation gets worse if you have multiple handoffs to deal with. So if your main markets are Chicago-Denver and Denver-Grand Junction and you want to serve each market three times per day, there might be some logic to having at least one of the runs be "split" at Denver so an issue outside Chicago doesn't hose the whole operation.

Of course, if you have an end-to-end run with lots of trains you can also start doing cool stuff like _not having to send the whole OBS crew from end to end._ I suspect Amtrak could save quite a bit of money if they could turn diner crews, for example, partway along a route. Being able to restock Acela-style would also go a long way towards improving certain F&B models (and, you know, _not running out of stuff halfway to your destination_).


----------



## jiml (Jan 30, 2020)

Comment: Recent group of posts have been a thoughtful and interesting conversation. Well worth reading.


----------



## west point (Jan 30, 2020)

neoden: Glad to see more emphasis on the intermediate station city pairs. Airlines used to cover the shorter distance pairs when they flew in low capacity airplanes. thinking of DC-3s, Martin -404s and Convair-440s. There used to be service to all those NY towns you mentioned and even more like Saranac Lake, Messene. etc by Eastern airlines. Eastern and National airline both had 9 stop flights from Miami to the New York area. The march to larger airplanes just made those trips not financially capable.

Now it will be up to Amtrak RR to provide those services that RRs backed out of before the large airplanes came into wide service. IMHO the widespread use of higher capacity airplanes came about 1969 - 1972 period with almost all those low capacity airplanes retired.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 31, 2020)

It isn't just that higher capacity planes are being used...there are a lot of markets that could feasibly support, say, CRJ service, and it doesn't seem _utterly_ insane that (for example) if American is going to serve PHL-PHF and PHF-CLT they couldn't find some way to run the planes through without forcing pax to get off and get back on. I once experienced this sort of nonsense at Atlanta once: MCO-ATL and ATL-CLT were the same plane, but I had to disembark and reboard at ATL regardless.

(On the bright side, I had the same plane back to ATL. The crew had my PDB to me almost as soon as I sat down.)

The bigger problem is that in the larger markets you might want to serve, the airports are jammed. At some point, you have to decide if you're going to send a CRJ/Embraer into DCA or a 737/A32X, and in the end it becomes no contest between a 50-passenger plane and a 150+ passenger plane. You _can_ make some smaller plane operations work if you can shake capacity loose (Southern Air does this out of a hub at Hagerstown; I put my brother on them for a few flights a few years back because he wanted a stopover in PIT). The problem is that as soon as you get thrown into an external secondary airport in a major city you're going to run into viability issues. Nobody wants to land an hour and a half outside of downtown...IAD is in a tough spot as it is (and this issue _killed_ Mirabel since they couldn't be arsed to connect the airport to the city center and didn't offer domestic connections _at_ Mirabel).


----------



## neroden (Feb 1, 2020)

This gets back to the immense economies of scale in railroads. With a much tinier amount of land area, a railroad station like PHL can serve trains carrying more people than the Philadelphia airport. It currently doesn't, but it can -- it's easy to expand train service without the massive land acquisitions needed for airport expansion, and you can do it downtown. So NJT and LIRR can run to hundreds of small towns in NJ and LI and bring all those trains into a couple of blocks in NY Penn Station, where you would never be able to run puddlejumpers from all those towns to JFK or LGA.


----------



## west point (Feb 1, 2020)

neroden: The only problem I can see with that is there needs to be sufficient local mass trainset at the station to move the arrivals in and out. NYP and NYG definitely OK. PHL well maybe. BAL light rail cannot handle it. WASH - Metro maybe. CHI US needs a closer "L" stop.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 1, 2020)

Qapla said:


> I'm not sure if all the people who get stuck in the traffic jams and confusing highways around airports would agree ... have you ever tried to navigate the roads around MCO without ending up going to the wrong place at least once?
> 
> Setting that aside ... maybe, in your opinion, rail is not needed (odd coming from someone on a train riding forum) but that is not the general consensus of all people - especially those on this forum.
> 
> ...


Also, we're dealing with a political climate in which it's very difficult to get people to spend money on highways, let alone rail. If there wasn't a threat that the whole country would grind to a halt, we wouldn't even be spending the paltry amount we do spend. Enjoy the potholes and risky bridges...

Unfortunately, our history was such that we let private investors looking for quick profits build out the railroad network. Then, unlike most other advanced countries, we never nationalized the infrastructure. The result was (1) poorly engineered railroads built quickly to let the original investors (or the swindlers collecting money from the investors) collect the land grants and make a quick buck. Of course, the railroad itself didn't always get the care it needed to provide the public service that justified the land grants. (2) When the railroad industry was threatened by motor traffic on public highways (paid for by taxpayers), their response was to pare down the infrastructure. A few decades later, surprise!, it turns out that rail is actually a competitive transportation mode. Or could be, except that the private management had ripped up a lot of the rails, so we are now stuck with an inadequate system full of bottlenecks. Delayed Amtrak long distance trains are just a minor problem, really. The closest parallel I can see with the highway network is that of the Communist government converting autobahns in East Germany to 2-lane roads because they couldn't handle the expense and the traffic wasn't there. However, after reunification, I suppose the (mostly) West German taxpayers picked up the tabs to rebuild the roads.


----------



## Qapla (Feb 1, 2020)

After all those conversions of "Rails-to-Trails" (and whatever that cost) ...makes one wonder what it would cost to now make "Trails-to-Rails"


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 2, 2020)

Qapla said:


> After all those conversions of "Rails-to-Trails" (and whatever that cost) ...makes one wonder what it would cost to now make "Trails-to-Rails"


The main problem with converting trails to rails is that the highways that replaced the tracks are located differently from the rails, and all the development over the last 60-70 years has been along the highways. The old rail routes don't really serve any population centers any more. 

Case in point is my favorite rail-trail, the Northern Central Trail in Baltimore County, Maryland and York County, PA. There's nothing by the trail anymore, which is what makes it pleasant walking or bike riding. All the action is up by I-83. Also, the route of the Northern Central was laid out in the 1830s or 1840s. Very sharp curves, anything built on it will be slow running. You can drive from Baltimore to York in an hour on I-83, and a new Northern Central rail corridor will have to compete with that. You would probably need to bite the bullet and build a Euro/Asian style line with lots of cuts, fills, tunnels, and viaducts. I can't see it happening in the American political climate.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 2, 2020)

Of course, for most travelers, trips of 500 miles plus are most efficiently done by airplane. From the point of view of the travelers, at least. But there are estimates of about 10% of the traveling public who can't fly (medical reasons), won't fly (anxieties, etc, which I guess are medical reasons, too) or don't live near an airport that provides service where they want to go. In addition to that, there are folks like most of us on AU, who just happen to prefer the experience of riding a train long distances. This seems to me to be a big enough market to provide a national network, and there is certainly a social benefit in providing mobility alternatives for people who can't/won't/don't fly.

As has been repeated ad infinitum, most passengers on long-distance trains don't travel really long distances. On the other hand, those few who do, provide a disproportionately large revenue stream that can cross subsidize the basic national network service. This, Amtrak management has got to figure out how to provide decent premium (and, yes, coach, too) service for the long distance passengers, while at the same time keeping the costs of providing the premium service low. 

Personally, I would like to see Amtrak really serve airports. I'm not sure there's a single airport where the Amtrak platforms are integrated in with the terminal building. Short-hop commuter airlines, I can do without. The smaller planes bounce around in even light breezes, and the predictions for global warming are more rain and storms. Fuel economy per passenger isn't as good because a larger percentage of the flight time is take-off and landing. In fact, the only times I've used commuter airlines is to fly up to JFK to connect to an international flight. There's no reason Amtrak trains could roll up the corridor, right into the terminal. No reason, except money.


----------



## Bonser (Feb 2, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Of course, for most travelers, trips of 500 miles plus are most efficiently done by airplane. From the point of view of the travelers, at least. But there are estimates of about 10% of the traveling public who can't fly (medical reasons), won't fly (anxieties, etc, which I guess are medical reasons, too) or don't live near an airport that provides service where they want to go. In addition to that, there are folks like most of us on AU, who just happen to prefer the experience of riding a train long distances. This seems to me to be a big enough market to provide a national network, and there is certainly a social benefit in providing mobility alternatives for people who can't/won't/don't fly.
> 
> As has been repeated ad infinitum, most passengers on long-distance trains don't travel really long distances. On the other hand, those few who do, provide a disproportionately large revenue stream that can cross subsidize the basic national network service. This, Amtrak management has got to figure out how to provide decent premium (and, yes, coach, too) service for the long distance passengers, while at the same time keeping the costs of providing the premium service low.
> 
> Personally, I would like to see Amtrak really serve airports. I'm not sure there's a single airport where the Amtrak platforms are integrated in with the terminal building. Short-hop commuter airlines, I can do without. The smaller planes bounce around in even light breezes, and the predictions for global warming are more rain and storms. Fuel economy per passenger isn't as good because a larger percentage of the flight time is take-off and landing. In fact, the only times I've used commuter airlines is to fly up to JFK to connect to an international flight. There's no reason Amtrak trains could roll up the corridor, right into the terminal. No reason, except money.



Newark Airport stop is integrated with Liberty via the monorail. That's the only one I'm aware of.


----------



## west point (Feb 2, 2020)

Is the Newark airport monorail down again for a complete replacement ? It certainly has been an almost failure.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 2, 2020)

Tom Booth said:


> Newark Airport stop is integrated with Liberty via the monorail. That's the only one I'm aware of.


Having ridden the monorail, I wouldn't call that well-integrated with the terminal. It's like a glorified parking shuttle from the remote lots. Also, not too many Amtrak trains call at Newark Airport. What I'd like is to be able to ride the escalator up from the train platforms right into the ticketing and baggage check area. Maybe even some trains where you do your TSA business on the train or at the train station, and ride right into the secure concourses, then up the escalator and to your gate..


----------



## jis (Feb 2, 2020)

That’s not surprising since it *is* an extension of a monorail originally built to serve close in remote lots and the terminals. [emoji57]


----------



## Bonser (Feb 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Having ridden the monorail, I wouldn't call that well-integrated with the terminal. It's like a glorified parking shuttle from the remote lots. Also, not too many Amtrak trains call at Newark Airport. What I'd like is to be able to ride the escalator up from the train platforms right into the ticketing and baggage check area. Maybe even some trains where you do your TSA business on the train or at the train station, and ride right into the secure concourses, then up the escalator and to your gate..[/QUOTE


----------



## Bonser (Feb 3, 2020)

jis said:


> That’s not surprising since it *is* an extension of a monorail originally built to serve close in remote lots and the terminals. [emoji57]



The monorail stops at all terminals - or at least it did. It was designed for train station/parking transit to terminals.


----------



## jis (Feb 3, 2020)

Tom Booth said:


> The monorail stops at all terminals - or at least it did. It was designed for train station/parking transit to terminals.



Originally it was just for inter terminal and parking transit. The train station and the extension of the Monorail to it came much later. 

I have been a frequent user of EWR for 38 years. Saw it all built including Terminal C as we know it today - originally a People Express project.


----------



## Bonser (Feb 3, 2020)

jis said:


> Originally it was just for inter terminal and parking transit. The train station and the extension of the Monorail to it came much later.
> 
> I have been a frequent user of EWR for 38 years. Saw it all built including Terminal C as we know it today - originally a People Express project.



I live 15 minutes away and also saw it built. While it originally served just terminals and parking the station was in plans from the outset - just took longer to complete.


----------



## jiml (Feb 3, 2020)

Tom Booth said:


> Newark Airport stop is integrated with Liberty via the monorail. That's the only one I'm aware of.


Burbank is within walking distance. Collect your bag, walk a few hundred yards to the train.


----------



## neroden (Feb 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> The main problem with converting trails to rails is that the highways that replaced the tracks are located differently from the rails, and all the development over the last 60-70 years has been along the highways. The old rail routes don't really serve any population centers any more.


Depends. There used to be tracks exiting Ithaca in SEVEN directions. One still exists, but is borderline useless. Two have trails which would make no sense as rail routes any more. One has a trail which is actually right along the correct route for any intercity rail service to Ithaca! And the other one which is on the correct route had housing built on it, dammit! (One cut houses off from the lakefront and is probably better gone, and the last one has been obliterated but wasn't a great route anyway.) 

So one out of seven is still where a new passenger rail route should be. I'd guess this is about typical.


----------



## jis (Feb 3, 2020)

Tom Booth said:


> I live 15 minutes away and also saw it built. While it originally served just terminals and parking the station was in plans from the outset - just took longer to complete.



That is true. But one thing EWR is not, is well integrated with rail service. For examples of those one has to see airports like Amsterdam Schiphol or Frankfurt Rhein-Main. Newark is basically like JFK but with a shorter ride to a train station.

In the US, Orlando International Terminal C will be better integrated with Brightline. Terminal A and B will be like Newark with an APM ride involved. And in Orlando it won’t cost $7 to just get to the train.

Incidentally, one of the original PA architecture team handling planning for airport circulator and rail access was later a member of NJ-ARP and a colleague of mine on its Board. He showed me documents that were produced by PA back then explicitly stating that PATH will not be used for such, and insisting that the architecture actually take positive steps to prevent PATH from being used. The result of that is the current abomination. Just to prevent PATH they had to restrict access paths to something that would only fit a dinky toy train. Of course after wasting a couple of Billion they will probably not make that mistake of restricting gauge again, but nor will they allow PATH into the airport.

The Regional Planning Association has recently published a plan which would make EWR at par with airports like Amsterdam for multi-modal access, but PA is already trying to find excuses for why that is infeasible. I do not expect EWR to become anything like a world class airport under the tender loving care of the PA. Fortunately it is hard to make it worse, so things will improve in spite of the PA.


----------



## neroden (Feb 9, 2020)

jis said:


> Incidentally, one of the original PA architecture team handling planning for airport circulator and rail access was later a member of NJ-ARP and a colleague of mine on its Board. He showed me documents that were produced by PA back then explicitly stating that PATH will not be used for such, and insisting that the architecture actually take positive steps to prevent PATH from being used. The result of that is the current abomination. Just to prevent PATH they had to restrict access paths to something that would only fit a dinky toy train. Of course after wasting a couple of Billion they will probably not make that mistake of restricting gauge again, but nor will they allow PATH into the airport.



I'd be interested to understand the internal politics which caused the Port Authority, owners of both the airport and the rail line, to try to prevent the Port Authority rail operation from serving the Port Authority airport. I mean, that's seriously bonkers garbage nuttery. 

If anyone were in charge at the Port Authority (it's quite obvious nobody is and nobody ever has been) they would have fired everyone involved in such a bizarre piece of internal self-destructiveness.


----------



## railiner (Feb 9, 2020)

When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of NYC, he butted heads with Port Authority administration over his perceived mistreatment of LGA and JFK airports, versus Newark Airport.
He made good on his threat to not renew the PA’s 30 year lease on those City of NY owned airports, and did receive proposals from Schiphol and other global operators.

Eventually, the Port Authority made many changes in their bid to renew, ( including the new Airtrain ), and did win a new lease...


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 9, 2020)

railiner said:


> When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of NYC, he butted heads with Port Authority administration over his perceived mistreatment of LGA and JFK airports, versus Newark Airport.
> He made good on his threat to not renew the PA’s 30 year lease on those City of NY owned airports, and did receive proposals from Schiphol and other global operators.
> 
> Eventually, the Port Authority made many changes in their bid to renew, ( including the new Airtrain ), and did win a new lease...


Cue the Theme from "The Godfather!"


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2020)

And so the PA and Emperor Cupmo are now building another nutty Airtrain. What can I say? [emoji57]


----------



## railiner (Feb 10, 2020)

Well, at least JFK and LGA (rebuilding now), have been improved from what they were...
Just saying that the PA can be made responsive to local needs, despite its reputation, otherwise...


----------



## Veronica99 (Nov 9, 2020)

Funny that no one in 2015 predicted that a global pandemic would lead Amtrak to reduce its long distance trains to tri weekly service and briefly suspend the Acela Express between March and June 2020


----------



## flitcraft (Nov 9, 2020)

Veronica99 said:


> Funny that no one in 2015 predicted that a global pandemic would lead Amtrak to reduce its long distance trains to tri weekly service and briefly suspend the Acela Express between March and June 2020


And this is the fundamental problem with long-term predictions about the future. Inevitably some 'black swan' unforeseen event will occur that will upend the predictions utterly. For example, Alvin Toeffler's best-seller, Future Shock, was well researched, by a really smart and well-informed guy, and made lots of predictions about the future. What he didn't see coming? The ubiquity of computers aka 'phones" and the Internet--which have shaped modern life from top to bottom. Like Yogi Berra once said, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."


----------

