# Sleeping cars under attack



## saxman (Jul 17, 2010)

Just saw this on the NARP news site.

It may be true that sleeping car passengers make up a small percentage of Amtrak's long distance passengers, but they sure provide a huge amount of revenue, actually subsidizing the coach passengers in essence.

I also find it interesting that whenever I see a "per passenger loss" or per passenger subsidy" it's always a different number depending who you ask.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 17, 2010)

:hi: Interesting Chris, seems like the same old right wing propoganda! Meanwhile the mess that the last group in power created continues to compund the current woes that this country faces! What is spent on Amtrak would, maybe, fund one uneeded weapon platform (ie plane),what is stolen monthly in the Middle East or scammed by brother in law contracts! People vote with their pocket books and Amtrak is getting lots of votes even in the high bucket sleepers!


----------



## pebbleworm (Jul 17, 2010)

Ack! Cut taxes for billionaires, cut services for the destitute, de-regulate industry! That's worked out great for the nation over the past 30 years... I can't track down a link, but I've seen some numbers that an Amtrak sleeper actually generates more revenue than a coach. Maybe I need to watch Fox "news" more.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 17, 2010)

So what would be a reasoned response to this attack? How much would a sleeper ticket cost if it had to pay for every expense it incurred? How do we make the case that the subsidy is a benefit? Speaking of which, why is Cantor wasting his time on subsidies that pale in comparison to the really huge giveaways? If he was serious about cutting subsidies you'd think he'd be looking at completely upside down markets like corn syrup and nuclear power.


----------



## volkris (Jul 17, 2010)

It seems the obvious response is to prove the attack wrong with some real numbers.

The blurb flat out says that "Amtrak loses more than twice as much per passenger (an average of $396) for first class service as compared to coach class service," yet the OP claims first class services subsidize coach. Both statements can't be right, so if you want to argue against their statement you should probably bring some data to support your side.

After all, if they have their facts right, they're making a pretty good argument.


----------



## kentuckian1977 (Jul 17, 2010)

Republican arguments against Amtrak always make me very tired. If anything, Amtrak should receive much more in the way of Federal funding, so that we can have a national passenger rail system that even starts to compare to those in other industrialized nations. Maybe then sleepers would not be priced out of reach of working class people, as they are most of the time now. More to the point, maybe then there would be more corridors that would be daylight only, city to city, not requiring sleepers at all. This particular argument is silly too in the sense that if they want Amtrak passengers to pay every dime it costs to provide the sleeper services, how about having every driver pay their proportional share for the destruction of farmland for more interstate lanes, and the paving, repaving, and endless upkeep of said highways, or ditto for every flyer and the government propped-up airlines and airport infrastructure...


----------



## lyke99 (Jul 17, 2010)

daxomni said:


> So what would be a reasoned response to this attack? How much would a sleeper ticket cost if it had to pay for every expense it incurred? How do we make the case that the subsidy is a benefit? Speaking of which, why is Cantor wasting his time on subsidies that pale in comparison to the really huge giveaways? If he was serious about cutting subsidies you'd think he'd be looking at completely upside down markets like corn syrup and nuclear power.


It is my personal opinion that Amtrak is the target because of it's political impact. If you live in a place with little or no service, most people haven't have ridden Amtrak, but everyone has heard of it. Cutting Amtrak seems like "doing something" - especially to people with little or no chance to use the service. Most people are not aware of corn syrup subsidies so cutting those would have less political impact (it would seem less like "doing something") and this is an election year for Congress.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2010)

Personally I think sleepers should be subsidy free. I mean when someone is paying a grand on the Zepher for a bedroom it is not a question of affordable transportation anymore.

Now of they want to start nit picking they need to cut way back on EAS as well. Why does Bar Harbor need subsidies on flights when Bangor is an hour away, ect? I have done a EAS flight before and while convenient it was completely ridiculous.


----------



## Boswash (Jul 17, 2010)

Sleeping cars are like the airplanes that the car companies flew to testify in DC. They are only for rich people. The vast majority of the common folk have no use or need for any of it.

Just send us our unemployment checks so we can make the payments on our Silverado's and F150's. That's how to keep us happy and as long as we have our trucks we will vote for you in November.


----------



## had8ley (Jul 17, 2010)

The red flag that jumps out at me Sax is that "only" 16% of Amtrak pax opt for sleeper class. Well, if it's only available on 16% of trains I think they twisted the math... h34r:


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 17, 2010)

Just send a nice email expressing your opinion. The You Cut website is designed so that you can submit items to cut wasteful spending from the Federal Budget. You submit an idea, & if it gets enough votes from the public on the internet, he will submit it to the House. This does not mean that anything he submits will pass, however. Remember the Democrats have control of both the House & the Senate.

The Democrats have a similar website.

I personally do not agree with the opinion that since sleepers are "First Class", & they should not be subsidized.

If that is the case then Business Class should not be subsidized either.

There are plenty who take it because they can afford it, but others who use a sleeper for many reasons, such as age, health, etc.


----------



## spacecadet (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm sure these Republicans fly coach whenever they travel anywhere, right?

Their tax dollars are going to subsidize first and business class on airlines too, because it's only government paying for things like airports, air traffic control and runway maintenance that keeps those fares from being even higher.

That's the obvious argument against these cuts. There should be no selective cutting of transport subsidies. Cut one, cut them all. That includes air travel and roads too. (What about all those "first class" buses now using government paid-for roads?)


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 17, 2010)

spacecadet said:


> I'm sure these Republicans fly coach whenever they travel anywhere, right?
> 
> Their tax dollars are going to subsidize first and business class on airlines too, because it's only government paying for things like airports, air traffic control and runway maintenance that keeps those fares from being even higher.
> 
> That's the obvious argument against these cuts. There should be no selective cutting of transport subsidies. Cut one, cut them all. That includes air travel and roads too. (What about all those "first class" buses now using government paid-for roads?)


Yeah, just like Speaker Pelosi flies coach. :lol:

I'm a Republican & I fly coach if I fly...Granted, we do not fly much. We have actually taken the train more than flying in the last few years. On the train we use sleepers. If we didn't, I don't think hubby would want to go. We usually go for an overnight trip, & would not do well trying to sleep in coach. He needs to lie flat.


----------



## alanh (Jul 17, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Speaking of which, why is Cantor wasting his time on subsidies that pale in comparison to the really huge giveaways?


Because real cuts are hard. 75% of the budget is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military, and interest on the debt. You can't make meaningful cuts without cutting any of those, and good luck with that. Military spending (adjusted for inflation) is the highest since WW II.


----------



## Boswash (Jul 17, 2010)

True, some ride trains because they are too large to fit in a bus or airline seat. Some cannot drive. Should the taxpayer continue to subsidize large folks or those who don't drive? Should the taxpayer continue to subsidize business people by operating airports, covering the cost of airline operations (air traffic control, weather satellites,etc)? Do we really need the government trying to educate children, fight fires, providing police protection, or piping water into our homes?

It does one good once and a while to consider which services they really want and need, and let their elected officials know which ones they do want and which ones they don't.


----------



## saxman (Jul 17, 2010)

volkris said:


> It seems the obvious response is to prove the attack wrong with some real numbers.
> 
> The blurb flat out says that "Amtrak loses more than twice as much per passenger (an average of $396) for first class service as compared to coach class service," yet the OP claims first class services subsidize coach. Both statements can't be right, so if you want to argue against their statement you should probably bring some data to support your side.
> 
> After all, if they have their facts right, they're making a pretty good argument.


The problem is that $396 per passenger is a really meaningless number. It's sort of like asking me how much money per passenger it costs me to drive my car. Even if I sit and calculate all that out and come up with say $10 per passenger to drive my car. Great! But what does mean? It obviously depends on how many people ride in my car and the distance I go, pretty much messing up my $10 number.

People that ride buses, trains, and planes, always are going different distances. So maybe it's more accurate in measuring ridership and cost in cost per passenger mile. Ask an airline what their per passenger cost is and you'll get an answer in per mile.

So you wanted numbers, and this is just some average numbers. I don't have time to dig through the files on Amtrak's site, but here are some of NARP's site made simple:

Looking at Amtrak's long distance route only, Amtrak takes in an average of 23.8 cents per passenger mile for sleepers. They took in only 12.3 cents per passenger mile for coach. The average fare for sleeping car pax was $241 vs. only $67 for coach. And for 2008, Amtrak took over 635,000 sleeping car passengers vs. 3.5 million coach passengers. Keep in mind that the average sleeping pax travelled twice the distance of coach passengers too. (1014 vs. 546)

So even though, according to these numbers, sleeping car passenger made up only about 15% of all long distance passengers, they make up for almost 40% of the revenue.

So essentially, this senator is asking Amtrak to eliminate 40% of its revenue for the long distance trains. If you want to write to him that is all you have to say.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 17, 2010)

Boswash said:


> True, some ride trains because they are too large to fit in a bus or airline seat. Some cannot drive. Should the taxpayer continue to subsidize large folks or those who don't drive? Should the taxpayer continue to subsidize business people by operating airports, covering the cost of airline operations (air traffic control, weather satellites,etc)? Do we really need the government trying to educate children, fight fires, providing police protection, or piping water into our homes?
> 
> It does one good once and a while to consider which services they really want and need, and let their elected officials know which ones they do want and which ones they don't.


I don't think anyone mentioned size as a factor, although, in some cases, that may be a reason people would prefer train travel. It seems a good number choose train travel & sometimes sleepers is because of disabilities. Train travel seems to be a better option for some in that situation compared to flying or driving. The premise is that sleepers are 'First Class' & therefore should not be subsidized by the government.

The argument about subsidies for things we all use-education, firefighters, police etc., is IMHO, a different comparison. We are talking about travel. We subsidize airports, airlines, highways etc. Train travel, IMHO, is in that category. Not everyone flies or takes trains, but almost everyone uses roads, directly or indirectly.


----------



## Tony (Jul 17, 2010)

spacecadet said:


> I'm sure these Republicans fly coach whenever they travel anywhere, right?


Wow, how quickly people forget the all new luxury private jets the Republican controlled Congress had on order for their own personal use. Well, until the press uncovered the expenditure, hidden in the federal budget as a so-called military aircraft.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 17, 2010)

If you live in this guy's district, vote him out of office. Donate money to his opponent (providing his opponent isn't also anti-Amtrak).


----------



## birdy (Jul 17, 2010)

lyke99 said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > So what would be a reasoned response to this attack? How much would a sleeper ticket cost if it had to pay for every expense it incurred? How do we make the case that the subsidy is a benefit? Speaking of which, why is Cantor wasting his time on subsidies that pale in comparison to the really huge giveaways? If he was serious about cutting subsidies you'd think he'd be looking at completely upside down markets like corn syrup and nuclear power.
> ...


I agree. Amtrak is high profile, even if its low-dollar. The billion per year we spend on it is about equal to the cost of our wars until Monday morning. Probably most people think is something like the Post Office. Its easy enough for the anti-Amtrak types--Sen. McCain comes to mind--to talk about "billions" in subsidy by merely talking as if the last twenty years of subsidy happened last year.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 17, 2010)

We seem to have a very partisan crowd here on this forum. People are idiots to believe that one party is better than the other. Look at the past administration and then look at the current one that runs the whole show today. They both stink to holy hell. That opinion comes from a traditionalist/constitutionalist pro American independent. The partisan finger pointing game is to make you feel that you have a choice. You dont have a choice. The president takes his orders from the financial elite and the world banking establishment.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> We seem to have a very partisan crowd here on this forum. People are idiots to believe that one party is better than the other. Look at the past administration and then look at the current one that runs the whole show today. They both stink to holy hell. That opinion comes from a traditionalist/constitutionalist pro American independent. The partisan figer poin ting game is to make you feel that you have a choice. You dont have a choice. The president takes his orders from the financial elite and the world banking establishment.


Why does this conversation need to be about your personal views?

Anyway, uneducated individuals (referring to people complaining about sleepers) will always complain about things like this. If they want to believe that Amtrak's sleepers (or diners, or whatever) are the cause of all the railway's problems, they're going to believe it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2010)

These kinds of nonsense things like "u-cut" never work or mean much. Why? Because you can't get a lot of people to agree on cutting a particular item. Such a group focused on general cost cutting is too disorganized to do anything. Also, they have amazingly bogus numbers.

There are no additional subsidies for Amtrak sleeper passengers, period. Amtrak sleeper passengers pay the full cost of their first class service, and then some.


----------



## wheatridger (Jul 18, 2010)

Sleepers are essential, I believe, to the success of long distance trains. It's a big country, and you can't make all that distance in the daytime. You wind up riding overnight. My recent (and last) experience on an overnight coach indicated to me that sleep may not be possible anymore. Too many other passengers, juiced on caffeine (or whatever) and amused by DVDs and laptop games (without using headphones), may not even attempt to sleep, especially if they must board or disembark on the wee hours. In a sleeper, you're insulated from the increasing hubub in coach and guaranteed a chance to sleep. While sleeping, you won't count the hours spent enroute. That's the unique advantage of a train- you can sleep through the miles in comfort that's unattainable in a car or a plane.

Planes do those speeds even before liftoff. Speed comes naturally to air travel, just as the nature of trains enables them to carry more weight and provide more space. why not build on rails' natural advantages?

So the current goal to rebuild our national passenger rail network to allow 100+mph speeds over thousands of miles of track seems rather misguided. Keep your HSR, and give me cheaper sleepers, and a lot of 'em.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 18, 2010)

Let us not discount competitiveness in this debate. First off, sleepers are an essential part of long distance travel via rail. Eliminate and or greatly increase the price of the sleepers and Amtrak will lose business. Revenue will go down as people like myself will no long consider LD trains an appealing form of travel. Sleeper passengers pay three times as much per mile of travel as coach passengers do. There comes a price point when rail travel no longer becomes affordable and Amtrak must consider that.

Let's not assume that only affluent people ride the sleepers. You will find mostly middle class people, senior citizens, families and the handicapped in them. Over dinners onbord I have met very few people that seem rich. On the AutoTrain you have mostly seniors during certain periods of the year and some months there are many students.

Point is that everything has a value. When you already charge three times as much for an average sleeper trip (and take in more revenue per mile than in coach) leave well enough alone. As a frequent Amtrak travelers, we are NOT going to buy a sleeper fare for $350 to $800 per night plus coach fare. Our limit is $200-$300 per nite (in addition to coach fare) and that's it. If Amtrak fares rise much more, then we drive.

As for "FIRST CLASS". Amtrak sleeper cars at this point are well worn and far from real First Class. While they are the best accomodations onboard, the bedrooms and roomettes can hardly be called luxurious. They are cramped, the trip can be rough and they are utilitarian at best.


----------



## lyke99 (Jul 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> As for "FIRST CLASS". Amtrak sleeper cars at this point are well worn and far from real First Class. While they are the best accomodations onboard, the bedrooms and roomettes can hardly be called luxurious. They are cramped, the trip can be rough and they are utilitarian at best.


I'd have to agree. I just took my wife on her first long train trip - she compared our Superliner bedrooms to camping. Lots of living functions in a small space similar to a tent. We very much enjoyed the service from the SCAs and dining car crews and the privacy, when we wanted it. We will travel this way again, but to call it luxurious is a stretch.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 18, 2010)

Another thing to consider. In a sleeper there are 11 bedrooms + four roomettes (AT) or other combinations of roomettes and bedrooms. I believe that the number varies from 14 to 18 sleepers in a car

The average cost of a bedroom is about $350 *per night *+ *the coach fare added in*. For instance a one way trip for two in a sleeper on the CL from WAS to Chicago costs a minimum (low bucket)of $500. Times this by the number of sleeping rooms or roomettes and the revenue per sleeper is easily $5,000-$6,000 or more. Yes there are other costs involved but the point is that Amtrak should be making out very well on their sleeper accomodations. Cut them or raise prices and you will sink Amtrak. Sleepers are necessary for their survival.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 18, 2010)

Attitudes like that of the representative from Virginia about Sleeping Cars may be the reason that the badly needed new equipment has not been funded yet. The order for the additional viewliner sleeper and dining cars along with baggage cars was supposed to be placed by now. If new equipment is not funded in the current congress, it may not happen in 2011 after the November elections. There also needs to be orders for additional Superliners for western trains just to maintain the current route structure. If no new equipment is ordered and existing equipment wears out, the long distance trains will likely disappear except for some luxury "cruise" type trains for those who can afford it to see the beautiful scenery. We all need to write our representative and encourage a specific long term funding source for Amtrak that will allow them to operate a national network with modern equipment that can be ordered when Amtraks needs to order it and not just when there is the right congessional support. Even if Amtrak placed an order for new equipment tomorrow, it will be 2-3 years before that equipment be delivered and operated in trains. Yikes, some of those heritage dining cars that have served so well will be close to 70 years old!


----------



## rrdude (Jul 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Let us not discount competitiveness in this debate. First off, sleepers are an essential part of long distance travel via rail. Eliminate and or greatly increase the price of the sleepers and Amtrak will lose business. Revenue will go down as people like myself will no long consider LD trains an appealing form of travel. Sleeper passengers pay three times as much per mile of travel as coach passengers do. There comes a price point when rail travel no longer becomes affordable and Amtrak must consider that.
> 
> Let's not assume that only affluent people ride the sleepers. You will find mostly middle class people, senior citizens, families and the handicapped in them. Over dinners onbord I have met very few people that seem rich. On the AutoTrain you have mostly seniors during certain periods of the year and some months there are many students.
> 
> ...


After having just boarded #51, bound for Huntington, WV and checking into Roomette #3, car 5100, I'd have to agree. "First Class" is a misnomer.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 20, 2010)

Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 20, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.


Thank you for posting the info, Alan. Are there any newer reports?


----------



## Jambo Bound (Jul 20, 2010)

My wish would be for a lay down option that's affordable for the lone passenger, as cramped as the roomette on the Cardinal was it DID feel like a luxury compared to riding coach as I had PRIVATE space, more than just me needed.

All I would need is a bed to lay on, a curtain for a little privacy so I can pretend the rest of the world is not there and fresh clean air to breath. Can that be done for twice what a coach seat costs? No meals included, maybe a mealplan add on for those who want it?

Could a railcar like that hold 2/3 (my guess) the passengers as a coach car for twice the ticket gross make money? I think so. Build a few and try them on the CL, I don't see them replacing the sleepers and roomettes but as a upgrade for those in coach class.

Guess that was all off topic.


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 20, 2010)

wheatridger said:


> Sleepers are essential, I believe, to the success of long distance trains. It's a big country, and you can't make all that distance in the daytime. You wind up riding overnight. My recent (and last) experience on an overnight coach indicated to me that sleep may not be possible anymore. Too many other passengers, juiced on caffeine (or whatever) and amused by DVDs and laptop games (without using headphones), may not even attempt to sleep, especially if they must board or disembark on the wee hours. In a sleeper, you're insulated from the increasing hubub in coach and guaranteed a chance to sleep. While sleeping, you won't count the hours spent enroute. That's the unique advantage of a train- you can sleep through the miles in comfort that's unattainable in a car or a plane.
> 
> Planes do those speeds even before liftoff. Speed comes naturally to air travel, just as the nature of trains enables them to carry more weight and provide more space. why not build on rails' natural advantages?
> 
> So the current goal to rebuild our national passenger rail network to allow 100+mph speeds over thousands of miles of track seems rather misguided. Keep your HSR, and give me cheaper sleepers, and a lot of 'em.


Very Well Said!!!


----------



## AlanB (Jul 20, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.
> ...


I haven't seen any newer reports, probably in part because I don't believe that there has been a new report issued by the GAO. However, I've no doubt that a new report would only improve the picture, seeing as how sleeper prices have gone up considerably since that first report.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 20, 2010)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


That's what I was thinking too. Plus, LD ridership has been increasing, not decreasing. I do think there is a real need for sleepers, & I would be surprised if they were discontinued.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 20, 2010)

saxman said:


> Just saw this on the NARP news site.
> 
> It may be true that sleeping car passengers make up a small percentage of Amtrak's long distance passengers, but they sure provide a huge amount of revenue, actually subsidizing the coach passengers in essence.
> 
> I also find it interesting that whenever I see a "per passenger loss" or per passenger subsidy" it's always a different number depending who you ask.


On week five of the web page you link to, the most popular idea was to save 15 billion by not hiring additional IRS agents to handle health care reform. Since there is no plan to hire additional IRS agents, and it has been publicly debunked repeatedly, you can get a pretty good idea of the accuracy of the data presented. The fact that the claim is made that first class travel is subsidized twice as heavily as coach can be assumed to be as accurate as the myth of the IRS agents.

The fact that the claim is being made on Cantor's website should be all of the de-bunking that is necessary.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 20, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw this on the NARP news site.
> ...


You may want to do a search about this (IRS Agents) subject. I just did one, & did not see anything 'debunking' it.

It might help if you actually read the law-if you have the time. Apparently Congress did not have the time to read it.


----------



## pebbleworm (Jul 20, 2010)

Sunchaser, your google -fu needs practice:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 20, 2010)

pebbleworm said:


> Sunchaser, your google -fu needs practice:
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/


It does not matter the exact number of people they will need to hire-they will still need more employees.

Quoting from the Article-

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

At his March 25 appearance, IRS Commissioner Shulman said that the bulk of the IRS’ efforts would go to informing individuals and businesses of the various tax incentives available under the new law. Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Shulman said: "What we’re going to do is try to make sure people are educated, there’s information, that we process payments quickly."

He said the IRS hadn’t yet figured out what staffing levels would be required, and he didn’t deny that some new agents might be hired. "We also will make sure there’s no fraud and abuse in the system as we always do," he said. "We will need resources to implement the tax provisions."

Sorry for the excessive quote. The IRS does not need to know if anyone has 'acceptable health coverage', period.

As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not. That is why I did not go there first. I googled the subject. MY BAD!! :lol:

Now can we go back to discussing trains, please!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not.


How so? (Please include specific examples)


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 21, 2010)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not.
> ...


I guess you would rather discuss politics?? It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org. I try to get info from multiple sources, not just one.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 21, 2010)

daxomni said:


> How so? (Please include specific examples)


They are probably non-partisan, in that they probably do not specifically endorse a particular party. Being non-partisan and being impartial, however, are two totally different things. I have yet to find ANY news source that is impartial. The New York Times seems to be the closest, so far as their actual news reporting goes. But it is not at all perfect. And their editorial articles, which can often look like news articles, are certainly not impartial.

But that's fine. All you need to do is heed Sunchaser's most valuable advice- look for more than one source of information. Look for many sources of the same information. Keep looking until you can see enough of the picture to strip off all the BS piled onto it and have an actual idea of reality.

Lastly, I've read the having health insurance tax. There is no taxation of private citizens laid out in that law. I've skimmed a good portion of it, and looked for just about all kinds of taxes and levys. None are on private citizens. Under numerous circumstances, an EMPLOYER can be fined or taxed if his employees do not have adequate coverage.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 21, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org.


I just wanted to you explain how exactly you came to the conclusion that factcheck was partisan and in what way, instead of asking us to research your own conclusions for you.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 22, 2010)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org.
> ...


As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him. I don't base this decision on just one source. I spent days & days researching it. That was several years ago.

So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.

All I was saying is look at the backgrounds of the people who work there, that will explain their viewpoints.

I'm not telling you to research for me.

Time to get back to trains!!!


----------



## pebbleworm (Jul 22, 2010)

Any source of information is partisan if you don't agree with their conclusions. However, I'll just smile and nod like I do in the lounge car...


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 22, 2010)

pebbleworm said:


> Any source of information is partisan if you don't agree with their conclusions. However, I'll just smile and nod like I do in the lounge car...


:giggle: Careful, you just might turn into a bobblehead!! :giggle:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 22, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him.


Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it _partisan_. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome. Kerry's war record could fill a book. Suggesting we use multiple sources is a great idea, but it doesn't answer the question. I might even agree with you, but there's no way to know until you explain what exactly you're talking about.


----------



## volkris (Jul 22, 2010)

We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the numbers supporting Cantor can be found here. See table 1 for the route-by-route breakdown.

In the end, part of the contradiction may come down to two groups asking different questions: the NARP, as it states, is asking what can be done to most efficiently maintain rail services it considers appropriate, while the DOT report is asking how much rail service is worth in the first place. Those are very different questions requiring different types of analysis, but in the end the DOT direction is probably more correct since the government is holding the lifeline.

Accounting is a tricky thing when there's no chance to see a profit. At that point you can lose revenues and actually come out ahead for it.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 22, 2010)

daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him.
> ...


If you paint a picture of someone as a certain way, to make them look much better than reality, you are doing it for a reason. That is what I found. The information was presented in such a way to dispell any questions about his record, but the information did not include the truth. It was to show him as a good candidate to defeat Bush. I do not have the information anymore, but I do remember clearly two details. The Government of Viet Nam considers him a hero, & have pictures of him in one of their museums. When he came back, he threw all his medals away. He said he committed war atrocities, then backed away from it later. Now we are to believe that he was proud to serve.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2010)

volkris said:


> We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.


I'm sure that you won't have any trouble posting an example, then.


sunchaser said:


> When he came back, he threw all his medals away. He said he committed war atrocities, then backed away from it later. Now we are to believe that he was proud to serve.


How does that relate to factcheck at all? Is it unreasonable for people to change their mind on something over 30+ years? As a former Naval officer, I was damn proud of my service in the opening weeks of OIF (I was aboard a cruiser that fired Tomahawks into Iraq and provided defense to two carriers while they flew strikes into Iraq. These days, with the myth of WMDs debunked and the war looking like a colossal mistake, I'm significantly less proud of my service.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 22, 2010)

Ryan said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.
> ...


Ryan,

This is information that was not available on factcheck.

Yes, you can change your mind. I was referring to the atrocities he claimed to have committed, then said he didn't. You can't have it both ways. Either he did or he didn't. :blink:

Thank you for serving our country.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2010)

It's not available on factcheck because they're not there to provide a comprehensive overview of everything about a subject, they're there to correct the factual inaccuracies that get bandied about. That's probably why you feel that it has a liberal bias - of course, correcting factual inaccuracies tossed out there by the right wing will make it look like that. If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.


----------



## Bierboy (Jul 22, 2010)

jpnberea said:


> Republican arguments against Amtrak always make me very tired...


Quit lumping "arguments" into an entire political party. They aren't blanket "Republican" arguments. Leave politics out of this thread.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2010)

They're arguments made by a Republican, making them "Republican arguments". Nobody's saying that all Republicans feel that way.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 22, 2010)

Ryan said:


> If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.


Which leave the opening to say, the left does not play fast and loose with the truth because it can't find the truth and would not recognise it if they did.

At this point I will say no more nor answer anything else political.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > If the left were to spend as much time playing fast and loose with the truth, it would look a little more balanced.
> ...


Gotta sling an insult, then take your ball and run home since you know that it isn't supportable here in reality. That's a real valuable contribution to the conversation, George.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 22, 2010)

volkris said:


> We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.
> 
> Anyway, getting back on topic, the numbers supporting Cantor can be found here. See table 1 for the route-by-route breakdown.
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting it. That one is pretty old too. I did notice some interesting ideas according to the study:

They wanted to get rid of the diner, checked baggage & transdorm.

The diner, to save money.

Same with checked baggage!!

I don't know where they thought the snack car & coach attendants, & Conductors would sleep.

They also stated that sleeper passengers would just ride in coach!!! While that may be true for some, but I'm sure many would just not ride at all.

Here is an update-the Amtrak cut was selected, but itDID NOT PASS

Which of course I expected, & fine with me- I like using the sleepers!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 23, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.





daxomni said:


> Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it _partisan_. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome.


Enough!

I am now partaking in my roll as Obergrammargruppenführer Grünermähnenlöwe, the feared grammar ****.

According to my holy bible of languages, Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary (Unabridged), printed and copyright 1940, Partisan is:



> n. [Fr.] 1. One who takes side of. or strongly supports the side of, a particular party, usually political.2. in milatary affairs, (a) a member of a group of irregular troops engaging in guerilla fighting, often behind military lines. (b) a person commanding such a party.


Also, by the by, it is pronounced "par-tee-zshan" not "part-issan", as one would expect of a French word. Which apparently everybody gets wrong.

You are using the wrong word, all of you. The word you are looking for, the correct word, is "partial". The paper, source, or whatnot, is being partial rather than impartial.

Defined:



> favoring one side in a dispute above the other; biased


I trust you will, in the future, not make the biggest mistake, commit the biggest crime, of all- destruction of a language. English is hard enough to understand without people constantly making a mockery of it.


----------



## volkris (Jul 23, 2010)

Is this really the direction you guys want to go, revisiting the same old political arguments that every other forum on the planet deals with?

Or do you want to talk about Amtrak and rail and the future of both?

Sometimes everyone just needs to agree to disagree on the price of tea in China and get back to what they all agree is the real subject under discussion.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 23, 2010)

So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?


----------



## rrdude (Jul 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.
> ...


Wht doo u meen?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 23, 2010)

Sunchaser, thanks for (eventually) explaining what you were talking about. At least the part you (eventually) remembered.

GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a _living language_ that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.

Ryan, your stock just rose my friend. Even though I'm pretty sure you'd rather I not say so.


----------



## volkris (Jul 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?


I'm here to talk about rail. I have plenty of other people to discuss politics, factuality, science, the weather, and what I had for breakfast with.

Don't we all have enough drama and enough to argue about just looking at things like the implications of the apparently contradictory analyses by the ARPA and the DOT? They certainly represent entirely different worlds of thought about the direction rail should take in the country, and figuring out the merits of the two arguments is kind of important to be able to speak in a legitimate, informed way about the advantages of rail.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 23, 2010)

volkris said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > So you're also not willing or able to provide examples of factcheck conflicting with primary sources?
> ...


Then don't go making statements that you then refuse to back up, unless you want your credibility to suffer.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 23, 2010)

volkris said:


> I'm here to talk about rail. I have plenty of other people to discuss politics, factuality, science, the weather, and what I had for breakfast with.
> 
> Don't we all have enough drama and enough to argue about just looking at things like the implications of the apparently contradictory analyses by the ARPA and the DOT? They certainly represent entirely different worlds of thought about the direction rail should take in the country, and figuring out the merits of the two arguments is kind of important to be able to speak in a legitimate, informed way about the advantages of rail.


Well said. Or typed. In any case, I can't imagine that there are many issues on which I agree with you, but you hit it dead on the nail here.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Sunchaser, thanks for (eventually) explaining what you were talking about. At least the part you (eventually) remembered.
> 
> GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a _living language_ that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.
> 
> Ryan, your stock just rose my friend. Even though I'm pretty sure you'd rather I not say so.


It wasn't a memory issue. I did not want to put the info into print attached to me in any form. Even though I found the facts out, I did not want to discuss those facts. I still don't, because I am still very concerned about what I found. I will quote him "It is seared in my memory". I do mean mine, not his.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 24, 2010)

daxomni said:


> GML, although I may take the English language more seriously than some, even I have to admit it's a _living language_ that has changed substantially since the 1940's, just as our political discourse has.


A language being alive, and a language being needlessly debased are two different things. If we are going to destroy and adulterate word meanings and structure as we please at all times, what for do we have any rules governing them? What purpose does it serve if we change in such a way as to make things difficult to understand.


----------



## henryj (Jul 25, 2010)

According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.


----------



## volkris (Jul 28, 2010)

henryj said:


> According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.


Right, but that's not the question the DOT and the politician were looking to answer.

The situation you describe involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.

So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.

If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2010)

That's only valid if the would-be sleeping car passengers turned to another transportation method and didn't require any subsidization.

If all of the sleeper passengers became coach passengers (and therefor required the larger subsidy), the overall costs would go up considerably.

I don't think that we have the data to calculate where the break even point would be, nor do we have the data on what sleeper passengers would do if the sleepers would be eliminated to determine the impact on overall cost to the taxpayers. But it most assuredly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 28, 2010)

volkris said:


> The situation [described] involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.
> 
> So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.
> 
> If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.





Ryan said:


> That's only valid if the would-be sleeping car passengers turned to another transportation method and didn't require any subsidization.
> 
> If all of the sleeper passengers became coach passengers (and therefor required the larger subsidy), the overall costs would go up considerably.
> 
> I don't think that we have the data to calculate where the break even point would be, nor do we have the data on what sleeper passengers would do if the sleepers would be eliminated to determine the impact on overall cost to the taxpayers. But it most assuredly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.


You're both falling into the same trap that anti-Amtrak folks like to set, which is this idea of a per-passenger subsidy.

Passengers are not subsidized. It is the train service that is subsidized. This may be a matter of semantics, but it makes a difference when one approaches how to solve the "problem" (if you will) of service that doesn't make money.

Every passenger that buys a ticket reduces the amount of subsidy required to operate the train. The cost of the crew, fuel, maintenance, etc. does not change significantly with every ticket that is or isn't sold.

You can't easily say that passengers don't cover their costs, because the incremental cost of moving one passenger is very small. I also don't see how, in a theoretical situation where all sleeping car passengers became coach passengers, costs would go up considerably. Losses would likely increase, because revenue would go down significantly, but the cost of operating the train wouldn't change, except for, perhaps, a bit of a staffing adjustment on board.

But, if the incremental cost of carrying a passenger is less than the fare they paid, you really can't say that the passenger is being subsidized.


----------



## henryj (Jul 28, 2010)

volkris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > According to Amtrak own statistics sleeping car passenger make up 15% of the total boardings for LONG DISTANCE TRAINS. They account for 36% of the revenue. This per the FY09 YTD september report. So the sleeping cars are actually subsidizing the coach passengers. The only reason for the low 15% number is the lack of adequate numbers of sleeping cars. If Amtrak were a viable business they would have more first class cars than coaches for Long Distance trains. But hey, it's the government.
> ...



Actually, I am not so sure that first class isn't already paying it's way. Amtrak does not publish any statistics devoted to first class only. They only separate the boardings and revenues, not the expenses. So I question the logic of the argument. When only 15% of the boardings are contributing 36% of the revenue I would think that first class pays it's own way already. If the long distance trains were coach only, most of the first class passengers would go elsewhere, including me. I have no desire to travel on a glorified greyhound on rails. It would basically mean the end of LD trains. I would just resort to flying. Taking the train only if it's a day train. Via has learned how to market the long distance market with the likes of the Canadian. During the summer the train is over 20 cars long with only a couple of coaches. My brother just sent me a picture from Jasper of a 25 car Canadian. That means it had probably 17 sleeping cars or almost 400 first class passengers vs probably around 100 coach. Just for comparison, the one way fare, Vancouver to Toronto, coach is around $600cad, a roomette is $1600cad during this peak season. All the bedrooms were sold out through August and possibly beyond. Compare that with the Empire Builder where the coach seat is $263 Chicago to Seattle and not sold out. Whereas I had to look for several days to find sleeping car space of any kind. A Roomette was an additional $661. Total fare is probably half that of the Canadian. In other words, Amtrak is a bargain. Empire Builder is 2200 miles vs Canadian 2700.


----------



## Big Iron (Jul 28, 2010)

rrdude said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > sunchaser said:
> ...


Maybe that Demercrats speek gooder than Republicans?

Should it then be called "Amtrack"? Like all to good mainstream media reporters spell it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 28, 2010)

Lets fall into the trap of the per-passenger cost. Then take it to its logical conclusion. There would be no trains, no cars, no sleepers, no first class subsidy, and we'd spend no money. The highways on the coasts would become unbelievably crowded and we could spend $5-10 billion a year upgrading and maintaining the needed additional infrastructure.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 29, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Lets fall into the trap of the per-passenger cost. Then take it to its logical conclusion. There would be no trains, no cars, no sleepers, no first class subsidy, and we'd spend no money. The highways on the coasts would become unbelievably crowded and we could spend $5-10 billion a year upgrading and maintaining the needed additional infrastructure.



Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 29, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.


Since this topic is about sleeping cars (and not, say, NEC trains), there would be virtually no additional infrastructure needed to absorb the displaced passengers. The Coast Starlight runs with three sleepers during the summer. If we were to assume an average of 40 passengers per car (which is quite an assumption, as that would mean practically no single travelers), you'd need to find space on the highways, in the airways, and on buses, to accommodate, at most, 120 people per day. That's assuming that everyone still travels if the train isn't available.

Spread those 120 folks out (it's not like they'd all still wind up traveling at the exact same time, as they have to now with the once per day train schedule), and you'd need to find capacity for, on average, 5 people per hour. Our infrastructure wouldn't even notice the difference.

That's why I'm saying we shouldn't even lend any credibility to the per-passenger numbers. You'd lose pretty badly when compared to other modes.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 29, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.
> ...


About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement


----------



## Donctor (Jul 29, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement


Long-distance services do not account for 50% of Amtrak's ridership.

Question: Does "30 million travelers" mean "30 million different people," or does it mean "30 million tickets sold"?


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 29, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement


Excluding the Auto Train, the highest-capacity long-distance train is the Empire Builder, with three Superliner sleepers (plus four rooms sold in the transition sleeper), and five coaches (if you count the local coach to MSP).

That gives you a maximum capacity of about 500 people at any given time. The Lake Shore Limited has capacity for around 450. Many other trains have much less capacity.

Given the once-per-day frequency, that means that any given segment of a long-distance train is going to have no more than 500 people per day traveling over it. That's 20 people per hour. Spread over the other modes (driving, riding a bus, flying, hitchhiking, walking, biking, etc.), the infrastructure will not notice the difference.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 29, 2010)

Many costs associated with the running of long distance trains are fixed. That is, if we removed the LD trains, many of the costs of operation of the LD trains would have to be redistributed to the remaining short distance trains. The cost of operation of the LD trains is extremely small. If I were to hazard a guess, first of all the number usually quoted ($375 million) is high. Amtrak is a government agency. It would increase costs via increased inefficiency as a result. I'd say the real number would be closer to $200 million.

It costs us $200 million a year to provide transportation to remote areas of the northwest, and to areas of WV and KY that have limited other service, via the Cardinal and Empire Builder. We provide access to a few isolated areas of Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas. And we run trains, providing service to about 10 million people per year.

While most of those 10 million could realistically be relocated to other transportation methods with limited pain to the overall system. several of those trains don't fall into that category. The Cardinal, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited provide access to areas not served well by roads. To provide a lifeline to those communities, superior roads and infrastructure would have to be built and maintained.

Our long distance trains cost very little to operate, in the overall scheme of things. Especially for what we get in return for their operation.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 30, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> If we were to assume an average of 40 passengers per car (which is quite an assumption, as that would mean practically no single travelers), you'd need to find space on the highways, in the airways, and on buses, to accommodate, at most, 120 people per day.


While I agree overall with your conclusions, assuming 40 passenger per car isn't really as big an assumption as you think it is. You're counting the capacity of the car and assuming end to end ridership, something that almost never happens. Generally at least 3 or 4 rooms will turn over during the trip, making it quite likely that the loss of any one sleeper could displace as many as 40 people.

Again, that's still 1/1000th of a drop in a bucket.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 30, 2010)

henryj said:


> Via has learned how to market the long distance market with the likes of the Canadian. During the summer the train is over 20 cars long with only a couple of coaches. My brother just sent me a picture from Jasper of a 25 car Canadian. That means it had probably 17 sleeping cars or almost 400 first class passengers vs probably around 100 coach. Just for comparison, the one way fare, Vancouver to Toronto, coach is around $600cad, a roomette is $1600cad during this peak season. All the bedrooms were sold out through August and possibly beyond. Compare that with the Empire Builder where the coach seat is $263 Chicago to Seattle and not sold out. Whereas I had to look for several days to find sleeping car space of any kind. A Roomette was an additional $661. Total fare is probably half that of the Canadian. In other words, Amtrak is a bargain. Empire Builder is 2200 miles vs Canadian 2700.


I just came off the Canadian on Tuesday. We were sold out (at least in the sleepers) during the first leg Vancouver to Jasper, with 320 passengers on board and 29 crew members who do occupy sleepers in the revenue cars, no dorms. We had 2 engines, 1 bag, 3 coaches, 4 dome cars, 1 Colorado Railcar Sightseer lounge style car (VAC-Edmonton), 2 diners, and 13 sleepers. Note the Park car also has sleepers in addition to the dome.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 30, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The situation [described] involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.
> ...


While Trogdor is quite correct in his evaluation, let me just comment a bit on something that Volkris mentioned.

If we follow the logic that you're suggesting the politicians are applying to things, then that means that we also need to eliminate first class air travel too. After all, those sitting in first class on an airplane are still availing themselves of the subsidies to the FAA to help run the Air Traffic Control system.

I wonder what our Congress Reps will think of coach travel on a plane. :unsure:


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 31, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I just came off the Canadian on Tuesday.


May we hope for a report?


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 31, 2010)

AlanB said:


> While I agree overall with your conclusions, assuming 40 passenger per car isn't really as big an assumption as you think it is. You're counting the capacity of the car and assuming end to end ridership, something that almost never happens. Generally at least 3 or 4 rooms will turn over during the trip, making it quite likely that the loss of any one sleeper could displace as many as 40 people.
> 
> Again, that's still 1/1000th of a drop in a bucket.


I actually did think about turnover, but decided that it wasn't really relevant to the argument being made.

For example, if someone has a sleeper on the Empire Builder CHI-MSP, and someone else gets in that room and rides MSP-SEA, then, if we assume that those people decide to drive instead if the train isn't available, then person A will use the interstate highway system between Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, and person B would use the highways from Minneapolis to Seattle. Therefore, in any given segment of the route, the infrastructure would really only have to accommodate the theoretical maximum capacity of the train for that segment.

So, just like you don't need 800 seats in order for the Empire Builder to serve 800 passengers on its end-to-end trip (which it routinely does during the busy season), you wouldn't need capacity for those 800 people across the entire route on other modes, should the train not be there. This speaks to dlagrua's claim that dumping 15 million people onto other modes would require a capacity improvement (even if we were to assume that the number really was 15 million). The most any given segment would have to accommodate would be the peak capacity that is currently provided by the LD trains in question. As I noted earlier, that would amount to a maximum of about 500 people per day on any corridor outside of the Auto Train/NE-Florida service.


----------



## Spokker (Jul 31, 2010)

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 31, 2010)

A high percentage of Americans have no idea that passenger train service or Amtrak exist. When you mention traveling by train to many, they seem confused. Because most are familiar with air travel, they assume that traveling by train is similar to air travel where passengers just sit in seats for the duration of the trip. They have no idea you can sleep in a small hotel room, eat in a restuarant or a snack bar or enjoy the view in a lounge car. So when Representatives and the press bash Amtrak and sleeping cars, most just accept that this is something that a few wealthy Americans use and it won't effect most people if it went away. NARP and others need to get the word out to Americans about rail travel. The subsidy for Amtrak is so miniscule to the overall Federal budget that ending the subsidy would do very little and it would drive more people to the airways and highway who have strong lobbyists again anything to do with rail passengers.


----------



## sher (Nov 26, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> These kinds of nonsense things like "u-cut" never work or mean much. Why? Because you can't get a lot of people to agree on cutting a particular item. Such a group focused on general cost cutting is too disorganized to do anything. Also, they have amazingly bogus numbers.
> 
> There are no additional subsidies for Amtrak sleeper passengers, period. Amtrak sleeper passengers pay the full cost of their first class service, and then some.



*In response to your YouCut See what happens with it Jan 1, 2011. Since the Dems had the house no way for anything to pass - You ask the republicans what they would cut they have been working on it for a year asking the people. *


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 26, 2010)

Spokker said:


> Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.
> 
> I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.
> 
> ...


Trains can bring other benefits ala Auto-Train - the ability to move one's car long distances. Unfortunately, Amtrak has chosen to only implement this on one route.

One can only dream they had the money to buy more sleepers, coaches, diners and car carriers. The incremental cost of adding more cars to a train is comparatively low.

I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 26, 2010)

me_little_me said:


> I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.


That's basically how service in California, Oregon, and Washington works.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2010)

me_little_me said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.
> ...


The problem with looking at other routes for the Auto Train is that the one time that was tried (Louisville to Florida), it was a spectacular bust. Now granted, it would be nice if they could run the train further up the East Coast (I rather suspect they could pack a train from Philly or NJ to Florida), but that runs into engineering difficulties on at least a few line segments (the Baltimore tunnels leap to mind, and acc. to the wiki, the cars can't make the First Street tunnel). Also, a longer run would probably require more than two equipment sets to complete.


----------



## me_little_me (Nov 27, 2010)

Anderson said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > Spokker said:
> ...


I meant the concept of carrying cars. Personally, as used, I think the Auto-train is ill-conceived as a concept. There may be enough business to keep that particular route going but single entry/single exit is too limiting. Putting car-carrying at major cities could be more widespread. For example, having car pickup near Chicago, Denver and LA along the route of the CZ or DC , Atlanta and New Orleans along the Crescent would allow drivers along those routes to load/unload cars. There would be limitations - near major cities, stops in daylight only, etc. In Atlanta, the Gainesville station would probably have to be used as the car loading/dropoff. The Piedmont trains (Charlotte to Raleigh) might be ideal also. A future LA to Vegas train might even be better for this.

The point is that Amtrak is going to have to be a little creative in highlighting its advantages over cars and planes.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2010)

Well, I think it's increasingly obvious that there _is_ the demand for an LA-LV service of some kind, preferably HSR but possibly something else as well. 265 miles is a rather long drive for a weekend in Vegas, and given the tendency for CA's gas prices to be a bit on the high side (You're over $3 everywhere up until you get to LV, and even there the best you're getting is about $2.90 for unleaded)...the LA-LV run is going to be about 10 gallons of gas each way, so your base cost is $30-50 (depending on your car) each way. Rail isn't _quite_ competitive with that alone, but if you can make it competitive on the timing as well (4-5 hours), I think you've got a winner if you avoid airport security and can get the station as close to the Strip and McCarran as possible (why McCarran, you ask? Oddly enough, if you get good on-time ratings for the train, there are enough cheap-due-to-casino-demand seats in and out of Las Vegas that I wouldn't be surprised if a canny traveler couldn't use a train-plane link to actually save money between the two, in the vein of driving to DC to save money versus Richmond...the difference is close to $100 in some cases). Granted, a lot of this is going to come down to your per-ticket cost, but seeing as there's only one "real" stop to be had between Las Vegas and the LA metro (Barstow)? I think it's a winner if they can keep the trip time sane.


----------



## leemell (Nov 27, 2010)

Spokker said:


> Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.
> 
> I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.
> 
> ...


There is at least one other reason: alternative long distance transportation. We discovered that on 9/11. With airlines grounded there was only one LD public transportation and it was instantly completely booked. This actually has strategic importance.


----------



## leemell (Nov 27, 2010)

Anderson said:


> Well, I think it's increasingly obvious that there _is_ the demand for an LA-LV service of some kind, preferably HSR but possibly something else as well. 265 miles is a rather long drive for a weekend in Vegas, and given the tendency for CA's gas prices to be a bit on the high side (You're over $3 everywhere up until you get to LV, and even there the best you're getting is about $2.90 for unleaded)...the LA-LV run is going to be about 10 gallons of gas each way, so your base cost is $30-50 (depending on your car) each way. Rail isn't _quite_ competitive with that alone, but if you can make it competitive on the timing as well (4-5 hours), I think you've got a winner if you avoid airport security and can get the station as close to the Strip and McCarran as possible (why McCarran, you ask? Oddly enough, if you get good on-time ratings for the train, there are enough cheap-due-to-casino-demand seats in and out of Las Vegas that I wouldn't be surprised if a canny traveler couldn't use a train-plane link to actually save money between the two, in the vein of driving to DC to save money versus Richmond...the difference is close to $100 in some cases). Granted, a lot of this is going to come down to your per-ticket cost, but seeing as there's only one "real" stop to be had between Las Vegas and the LA metro (Barstow)? I think it's a winner if they can keep the trip time sane.


There is another reason for HSR on this route: time. On busy weekends, the nominal six hour drive frequently turns into 8 or 12 or 15 hour nightmares. This something a train does not have to deal with. This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.


----------



## dlagrua (Nov 27, 2010)

> Sleeping cars are like the airplanes that the car companies flew to testify in DC. They are only for rich people. The vast majority of the common folk have no use or need for any of it.


Ride the Autotrain and see who uses the sleepers. At times you will see mostly seniors ("snowbirds") comuting to and from their Florida winter residence. For the $200 cost of a roomette, you can hardly call the sleepers only for the rich. The seniors that ride this train DO have need to sleep in a bed during the journey.

Secondly attacking Amtrak is just political posturing. With a service that uses less than two percent of the total transportation budget its rediculaous to believe that any real federal deficit reduction can be achieved by cutting Amtrak. It costs the governemnt far more than the entire Amtrak budget just to fund TSA the criminals, thugs and hoodlums who feel you up in the name of airport security.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Nov 27, 2010)

leemell said:


> Spokker said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.
> ...


Until the airlines got a bailout to help them get back in the air.


----------



## Rail Freak (Nov 27, 2010)

leemell said:


> . This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.


How many lanes??? The last time I was there was in 1979!


----------



## leemell (Nov 27, 2010)

Rail Freak said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > . This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.
> ...


Depends on where you are at. Between San Bernardino and Barstow it is mostly 6-8 lanes. East of Barstow 4-6 lanes. But it is always changing.


----------



## Rail Freak (Nov 27, 2010)

My God, I bet a rear ender would cause a little havoc!!!


----------



## Anderson (Nov 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Sleeping cars are like the airplanes that the car companies flew to testify in DC. They are only for rich people. The vast majority of the common folk have no use or need for any of it.
> 
> 
> Ride the Autotrain and see who uses the sleepers. At times you will see mostly seniors ("snowbirds") comuting to and from their Florida winter residence. For the $200 cost of a roomette, you can hardly call the sleepers only for the rich. The seniors that ride this train DO have need to sleep in a bed during the journey.
> ...


I'd like to second this. Those in the sleepers may be a bit more upper middle class than those in coach, but based on my experience, I'd hardly call it a "reserve of the wealthy" even in the same way that one might arguably call first class on the Acela such. Moreover, particularly on the runs from the East Coast to Chicago, I can actually make the case that the train is more efficient, in dollar terms, than flying to O'Hare or Midway, catching a cab, and spending the night in a hotel...I did this math back in 2009 when going to a conference, and I know the only difference was the trip to the airport vs. to Union Station.


----------



## ThayerATM (Nov 27, 2010)

Anderson said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > > Sleeping cars are like the airplanes that the car companies flew to testify in DC. They are only for rich people. The vast majority of the common folk have no use or need for any of it.
> ...


You folks can call 'em what you want to call 'em, but we consider sleepers the only way to go on Amtrak. We'll continue to use the bedrooms. If we're helping Amtrak, Great!! If we're hindering Amatak --- Oh Well. Coach is out of the question. :excl:


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 28, 2010)

Rail Freak said:


> My God, I bet a rear ender would cause a little havoc!!!


Yesterday the California Agricultural inspection on I-15 caused about a 30 mile parking lot between Vegas and LA. Wed. as I drove, because there is no train, the traffic moved but was very full and I would say the spacing between cars was less than ideal. The LA - Vegas traffic at mid day Saturday was light.

Aloha


----------



## JoanieBlon (Nov 28, 2010)

> You folks can call 'em what you want to call 'em, but *we consider sleepers the only way to go on Amtrak.* We'll continue to use the bedrooms. If we're helping Amtrak, Great!! If we're hindering Amatak --- Oh Well. Coach is out of the question. :excl:


*AMEN!* We would only consider going coach or Buisness Class when the trip is less than 8 hours.


----------



## leemell (Nov 28, 2010)

Rail Freak said:


> My God, I bet a rear ender would cause a little havoc!!!


Hence the sometimes 10-15 hour trip time. There are very few alternatives and none are very good.


----------

