# If you had to cut an Amtrak route, which one would you cut?



## railgeekteen (Mar 19, 2018)

I would cut one of the duplicate Illinois routes.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 19, 2018)

How are you defining a route? For example, would a route such as the Palmetto count even though it's entire route is covered by the Silver Meteor? If you were to cut the Carl Sandburg/Illinois Zephyr would both trains be lost or just one? Also, is this from a purely selfish perspective or should we consider Amtrak's point of view as well?


----------



## railiner (Mar 20, 2018)

A strange question to ask, but in light of the funding situation, it unfortunately may become a relevant one....

The obvious answer is which route cut would yield the best return to Amtrak's 'bottom line'....both now, in and the future.

However, the societal effect would also have to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Mar 20, 2018)

Personally, I would not cut a single train. The shorter trains have state funding so would not be likely to be cut unless state funding were lost. The long distance routes in both the East and the West have their own support groups so would be difficult to single one out. Many people say the Sunset Ltd., but in reality, many think the daily TE extended to LA would be well traveled compared to the Sunset Limited. Bottom Line, I can not target one LD train as needing to be cut. To me the Amtrak map needs to be grown in both route miles and passengers. The more paying passengers, the more profit potential there is.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2018)

^^^ what he said


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 20, 2018)

Ryan said:


> ^^^ what he said


I agree, but my post did say if you had to cut one.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 20, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> How are you defining a route? For example, would a route such as the Palmetto count even though it's entire route is covered by the Silver Meteor? If you were to cut the Carl Sandburg/Illinois Zephyr would both trains be lost or just one? Also, is this from a purely selfish perspective or should we consider Amtrak's point of view as well?


Named route. Car Sandburg and Illinois Zephyr count as separate routes.


----------



## cirdan (Mar 20, 2018)

I would say cut all Amtrak service to Hawai. And then as a next step to Alaska.

Cutting those wouldn't hurt Amtrak at all.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Mar 20, 2018)

cirdan said:


> I would say cut all Amtrak service to Hawai. And then as a next step to Alaska.
> 
> Cutting those wouldn't hurt Amtrak at all.


Don't forget about Amtrak de Puerto Rico too!


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2018)

There is Guam to consider too




And then there is Wyoming and South Dakota too, coming back to continental locations.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 20, 2018)

I don't know what the intentions of the OP (who BTW wasn't me) but certainly you'd rather cut a frequency than the one route of a given train.

Most of the state supported routes come out of state budgets so if you only consider LD routes the one "extra" one would be the Palmetto. To me, that's a Florida route without Florida. That's like if you took the LSL and terminated it in Albany or the California Zephyr and terminated it in Reno. You may point out the financials of the train but most of that is NEC traffic, when the train did not allow passengers between NYP-WAS it was a totally different story. Replace that train with another NER and you'd get half the R&R and less than half the cost.

Other than that, obviously the Cardinal (Byrd Crap). I'd love to be able to keep Cincinnati if I could but they have the lowest ridership of the major cities I would potentially be losing if I had to cut any other route. If you cut the Sunset Limited, you lose Houston and they are much bigger. My hope always is retain CHI-CIN and cut the rest (well CVS-NYP would obviously still be covered anyway). Maybe if you cut the SL you could extend the Crescent to San Antonio to make up for Houston. If you extend Hiawatha Service to Minneapolis, you can get rid of the rest of the Empire Builder (maybe Washington state can pick up Seattle to Spokane). Maybe the 750 mile rule can be dropped. Tell the federal government would you rather pay for 400 miles between CHI-MSP or 2000 miles between CHI-SEA when the CHI-MSP has probably 1/3 of the ridership and revenue of the entire route and 1/5 of the cost? You shouldn't have to run a train 2000 miles just to serve Minneapolis.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 20, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I don't know what the intentions of the OP (who BTW wasn't me) but certainly you'd rather cut a frequency than the one route of a given train.
> 
> Most of the state supported routes come out of state budgets so if you only consider LD routes the one "extra" one would be the Palmetto. To me, that's a Florida route without Florida. That's like if you took the LSL and terminated it in Albany or the California Zephyr and terminated it in Reno. You may point out the financials of the train but most of that is NEC traffic, when the train did not allow passengers between NYP-WAS it was a totally different story. Replace that train with another NER and you'd get half the R&R and less than half the cost.
> 
> Other than that, obviously the Cardinal (Byrd Crap). I'd love to be able to keep Cincinnati if I could but they have the lowest ridership of the major cities I would potentially be losing if I had to cut any other route. If you cut the Sunset Limited, you lose Houston and they are much bigger. My hope always is retain CHI-CIN and cut the rest (well CVS-NYP would obviously still be covered anyway). Maybe if you cut the SL you could extend the Crescent to San Antonio to make up for Houston. If you extend Hiawatha Service to Minneapolis, you can get rid of the rest of the Empire Builder (maybe Washington state can pick up Seattle to Spokane). Maybe the 750 mile rule can be dropped. Tell the federal government would you rather pay for 400 miles between CHI-MSP or 2000 miles between CHI-SEA when the CHI-MSP has probably 1/3 of the ridership and revenue of the entire route and 1/5 of the cost? You shouldn't have to run a train 2000 miles just to serve Minneapolis.


Get rid of most of the Empire Builder? Whitefish, Montana has more riders than Indianapolis.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 20, 2018)

"..There you go again..!"

Let's just eliminate all the stops @ 30th St Station and go back to stopping @ the Magnificent North Philly Station!

It'll save tons of money for Amtrak!


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 20, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I don't know what the intentions of the OP (who BTW wasn't me) but certainly you'd rather cut a frequency than the one route of a given train.
> 
> Most of the state supported routes come out of state budgets so if you only consider LD routes the one "extra" one would be the Palmetto. To me, that's a Florida route without Florida. That's like if you took the LSL and terminated it in Albany or the California Zephyr and terminated it in Reno. You may point out the financials of the train but most of that is NEC traffic, when the train did not allow passengers between NYP-WAS it was a totally different story. Replace that train with another NER and you'd get half the R&R and less than half the cost.
> 
> Other than that, obviously the Cardinal (Byrd Crap). I'd love to be able to keep Cincinnati if I could but they have the lowest ridership of the major cities I would potentially be losing if I had to cut any other route. If you cut the Sunset Limited, you lose Houston and they are much bigger. My hope always is retain CHI-CIN and cut the rest (well CVS-NYP would obviously still be covered anyway). Maybe if you cut the SL you could extend the Crescent to San Antonio to make up for Houston. If you extend Hiawatha Service to Minneapolis, you can get rid of the rest of the Empire Builder (maybe Washington state can pick up Seattle to Spokane). Maybe the 750 mile rule can be dropped. Tell the federal government would you rather pay for 400 miles between CHI-MSP or 2000 miles between CHI-SEA when the CHI-MSP has probably 1/3 of the ridership and revenue of the entire route and 1/5 of the cost? You shouldn't have to run a train 2000 miles just to serve Minneapolis.


I'm trying to understand why the Cardinal should get the axe, considering it has low operating costs (one locomotive, diner-lite manned by one person, runs three days a week, etc.) and is the only train providing any service to 15 STATIONS. Last year a total of more than 71,000 passengers went through those stations, meaning ditching the Card would deny train service to 71,000 people (yes, I know some people rode more than once).

And the Builder has zero redundancy and is very profitable, as well as offering spectacular scenery. Chopping it to MSP would deny train service to hundreds of thousands of people. The EB does not exist for corridor service. It is to offer LD service between Seattle/Portland and Chicago, via that specific route. With it cut to Minneapolis, Seattle passengers now have to take the CS down to Sacramento, and then take the Zephyr across. That's a total travel time of 75 hours 5 minutes, and requires you a five hour early morning layover. Does that sound like something you'd want to do. And then you have the the majority of the other stations, which have no service at all.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 20, 2018)

cpotisch, if you HAD to cut something and if it had to be an LD route, no matter what you choose someone is going to be screwed and you can make an argument for every LD route. When past LD routes were cut there was hardship too and other people had to make adjustments or simply lost service as well. Is there any other route that you think would cause less damage?


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 20, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what the intentions of the OP (who BTW wasn't me) but certainly you'd rather cut a frequency than the one route of a given train.
> ...


Philly has been told 1000000 times that the Empire Builder is very profitable and still does not get it. Would he care to explain?


----------



## JayPea (Mar 20, 2018)

Here's some facts about the Empire Builder Philly might be interested in:


Note that 6 of the top 9 city pairs on the EB in terms of ridership involve cities west of St. Paul and 8 of the top 9, including the top two, in revenue include cities west of St. Paul. So, yeah, let's cut all that dead weight west of St. Paul. See how well that works for ya.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 20, 2018)

Since it is under 750 miles, devolve the NEC costs (including capital and overhead) onto the states served.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. My state taxes are required to support the Cascades, and my federal taxes go to support the Builder and the Starlight. Why should NY, PA, etc be any different?


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 20, 2018)

zephyr17 said:


> Since it is under 750 miles, devolve the NEC costs (including capital and overhead) onto the states served.
> 
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander. My state taxes are required to support the Cascades, and my federal taxes go to support the Builder and the Starlight. Why should NY, PA, etc be any different?


New York contributes a tremendous amount to rail infrastructure and a lot to Empire Corridor and NEC equipment. PA, that's another story...


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Mar 21, 2018)

Thanks for the EB fact sheet, for some reason or other I found it very interesting. I was surprised how low Milwaukee ridership was, but of course, it's part of corridor service so there are plenty of options between Chicago and Milwaukee. But it definitely looks like both ends of the route are crying out for another train or two, and probably corridor service.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 21, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ what he said
> ...


Related thread: If you had to cut off one of your fingers, which one would you cut off?

Answer: That would be dumb. Don't cut your fingers off.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 21, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...



Define profit, because, generally speaking, long-distance trains run deficits every year (even the best performing ones).


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 21, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > cpotisch said:
> ...


Aren’t most east coast LDs profitable?


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 21, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> cpotisch, if you HAD to cut something and if it had to be an LD route, no matter what you choose someone is going to be screwed and you can make an argument for every LD route. When past LD routes were cut there was hardship too and other people had to make adjustments or simply lost service as well. Is there any other route that you think would cause less damage?


The Palmetto does seem like a good choice, as it is 100% redundant (in terms of stops). I want to emphasize that the Builder and Cardinal are the only trains providing service to most of their respective stations.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 21, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Aren’t most east coast LDs profitable?


Not according to Amtrak, they aren't: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2017/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2017-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf

(See last page for route-by-route performance)


----------



## jis (Mar 21, 2018)

And immediately cue in the arguments about allocated costs etc.






Depending on which part of the accounting you are looking at using which lens, most of them are cash positive above the rails before allocated costs, which are somewhat arbitrary, are thrown in. After you throw all allocated costs including capital costs and remove all government sourced funds, nothing is profitable, naturally almost.

If Amtrak did its accounting like a private company, like VIA does, it would count all government grants as income, and then almost everything will be profitable, even after depreciation possibly.

So it all depends on which axe one wants to grind in a particular conversation.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Mar 21, 2018)

That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 21, 2018)

Lonestar648 said:


> That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?


Amtrak already posts their audited GAAP financial statements (i.e. "like a typical corporation") on their website, audited by Ernst & Young LLP in January for FY17 (ended September 30, 2017).


----------



## jis (Mar 21, 2018)

Ryan said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Yeah, pretty dumb question to start with. But that is pretty par for the course too.


----------



## jis (Mar 21, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?
> ...


No Amtrak does not report their finances like a private corporation. If it reported like a private corporation it would place the federal government grant on the earnings side of the ledger like VIA does with their government grant, or Boeing does for their defense contracts. Amtrak reports its finances like a transit agency of the government. Just because GAAP is used by corporations as required by law, does not mean anyone who uses GAAP report like a private corporation.

Amtrak's accounting practices are mostly forced on them by Congress and FRA. They don't do most of what they do as a matter of choice. They are required to report things in the form that they do, except for a few minor variations.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 21, 2018)

Amtrak treats the federal subsidy as an equity investment, not revenue, as the federal government owns the company.

Amtrak isn't selling service to the federal government (which is different from Boeing and defense contracts, as they are selling something that the federal government is buying). They are providing service, as directed by their owners, who then put up money to cover losses.

I suppose one could look at it as two sides of the same coin, but if a private corporation got money from its owners to cover an operating loss, it generally shouldn't be recorded as revenue.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 21, 2018)

The real problem with this thread is that the question “Which route would you cut?”, can mean a million things. It could be whatever has low ridership, high operating costs, high redundancy, lack of support, etc. Depending on how you interpret the question, basically any route could be the ideal candidate to get the ax.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 21, 2018)

Ryan said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


As a middle-aged middleclass adult I'm sure you've already had to make dozens if not hundreds of "lesser evil" choices in your life, whether you wanted to or not. In the case of Amtrak I'd probably choose the Sunset Limited. In the case of my fingers I'd probably choose my pinky. But then I'm not beholden to some silly idea that indecision and lack of participation leads to a more favorable outcome.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 21, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


Yeah last time I let someone else choose which LD train to cut I lost my train. So throw someone else under the bus or you could lose your train.

Hey, if you don't want to participate in this thread, no one's forcing you.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 21, 2018)

You don't save your train by putting other trains down.

You save your train by advocating for it.


----------



## jebr (Mar 21, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So throw someone else under the bus or you could lose your train.


Okay, sounds good. Let's get rid of all the Northeast Regional and Acela trains. If the states want the corridor to exist, they can fund it themselves.





From an advocacy standpoint, it's generally pretty dumb to advocate killing train routes just because someone has a personal vendetta against specific trains or specific segments. (It's generally dumb for an Amtrak fan to advocate cutting any routes, but if you do at least pick the least profitable ones and/or ones that have the lowest amount of political support.)

With that in mind, were I forced to choose a train to kill, it'd be the Sunset Limited. It's economic performance isn't great, it currently only run three days a week, and there's not a whole lot of political support for it along its route. (In fact, if I remember correctly there was a Senator who forgot that train even ran through his state!) Ideally it'd be better to put some money into it and make it better and more frequent, but if we had to cut one route that would be the one I'd cut.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 21, 2018)

Ryan said:


> You don't save your train by putting other trains down. You save your train by advocating for it.


Let's drop the soothing but irrational Pollyanna mindset and get real for a moment. Over a long enough timeline most if not all of Amtrak's long distance routes are likely to succumb to the growing stress of increasing costs and reduced funding. Our federal government abandoned any meaningful opportunity to save all of Amtrak's long distance network with [the] latest round of tax cuts. Tax changes this big (and sloppy) are a generational move. Most of us won't live long enough to see another massive tax plan enacted. What we have now is what we will continue to have for a very long time, and there simply won't be enough federal money or support for Amtrak to remain this large forever.

Some may hope that state funding will pick up the shortfall but states that are the most pro-rail (in both direct funding and usage) are the states that are likely to suffer the greatest financial harm from the new federal tax structure. With billions more being earmarked for even more border guards and stations, more Berlin walls, more surveillance systems, and wartime weaponry there won't be enough money left over to keep everything we had before. You can vote out the people who did this but you cannot realistically expect to vote in another major federal tax structure in our lifetimes. Which means that, at some as yet unknown point in the future, we will likely have to start picking and choosing which routes to save and which routes to abandon. Or we can simply ignore the problem and let someone else decide for us.

[Edited for grammar and formatting]


----------



## Ryan (Mar 21, 2018)

Right.

And when that time comes, stand up for your train and make the case for why it should be kept.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 21, 2018)

From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.

If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.

However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 22, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.
> 
> If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.
> 
> However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.


The Auto Train is very profitable though. I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 22, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.
> 
> If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.
> 
> However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.


I would very much agree that Auto Train is pretty much it's own thing: no shared stations, special equipment, meals in coach, take your car, only two stations, etc. It's very much on it's own in the Amtrak system. However, it manages to be frequently sold out (and bear in mind it's a huge train) despite tickets being pretty pricey. The Auto Train has very high demand and I _believe _it's very profitable, as railgeekteen said.

Also bear in mind that since the AT runs such weird equipment (lounge car, Deluxe Sleeper), some cars might have to be modified before they could be put on other routes. For example, an AT lounge wouldn't work great on the CZ, for example. And the Deluxe Sleepers would be overkill for almost any normal train.


----------



## jis (Mar 22, 2018)

Autotrain also operates under a completely different union contract, which has interesting positive effects on its finances too.


----------



## railiner (Mar 22, 2018)

Indeed, if the long distance Amtrak trains were discontinued, the Auto Train could well return to its roots, as a privately operated entity.

I doubt if any other Amtrak long distance train could do that....


----------



## jebr (Mar 22, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.


In terms of any discussions where trains would have to be cancelled from the nationwide system, though, the Illini wouldn't be on the list; it's a state-sponsored train so any operational loss is paid for by the State of Illinois (from my understanding, anyways.) Thus, Amtrak wouldn't have the power to cut it other than to cancel the contract with the State of Illinois, which would be a bad move for Amtrak since Illinois makes sure Amtrak is made whole on that train. In a situation where Amtrak had to cut a route for finances, it'd be a long distance train route (it's possible that cuts would happen with the NER and Acelas as well, but that's less likely to completely go away as Amtrak is generally under the impression that the NEC trains are profitable where the LD trains aren't.)

That's why I think, if we were to reach a situation where Amtrak had to cut routes, the Sunset Limited would be top of the list and probably the one I would vote to cut.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 22, 2018)

jebr said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.
> ...


A big problem with the Sunset Limited (but by no means the only problem), is that every connection in NOL requires an overnight. Thus Chicago is the only useful hub to/from the west. If connections to the CONO and Crescent were made same-day, the Sunset Limited could be a pretty useful train. Now, however, anyone wanting connect in New Orleans needs to spend an extra day of their vacation, and pay for a hotel, which is less than appealing.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 22, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


Also ridiculous westbound departure time in San Antonio (graveyard shift) and arrival time in LAX (before 6am), that's two of the biggest markets on the route. Plus, there's always the "it's not daily" argument.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Mar 22, 2018)

I suspect that UP has a lot to do with the times in SAS. If the TE, a daily train, moved its termination to LAX, the need for switching would not exist, then maybe with some negotiating with UP for the daily LAX run, the times could be adjusted for SAS. The TE already arrives at 9;55 PM, maybe that could get pushed a bit earlier, so the arrival in LAX could be late evening. That does away with the SL NOL/SAS portion, so is there enough traffic if the daily Crescent was extended to NOL. This is getting rid of the SL but maintaining the current stations. I believe there is a savings by going daily with extending existing routes adding passengers, and extending some passengers time on the train..


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 22, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > A big problem with the Sunset Limited (but by no means the only problem), is that every connection in NOL requires an overnight. Thus Chicago is the only useful hub to/from the west. If connections to the CONO and Crescent were made same-day, the Sunset Limited could be a pretty useful train. Now, however, anyone wanting connect in New Orleans needs to spend an extra day of their vacation, and pay for a hotel, which is less than appealing.
> ...


No joke. Westbound calling at SAS is from midnight until 2:45AM. In LA you could be arriving as early as 4:30 AM. Combine the poor calling times and connections with the three times weekly schedule and it’s a route that struggles to find a reason or purpose for continued existence, even among spendthrift pro-rail passengers like me.


----------



## neroden (Mar 23, 2018)

Trogdor said:


> Define profit, because, generally speaking, long-distance trains run deficits every year (even the best performing ones).


That's down to bad accounting. If you look at revenues vs. marginal cost of operation, which for some reason Amtrak and Congress want to avoid doing, I am quite sure that the LSL, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, Auto Train, Crescent, Coast Starlight, and Empire Builder are profitable. The Cardinal would be profitable if it ran daily; it has many of the costs of a daily train without the corresponding revenues.

Amtrak prefers to use "allocations", which means arbitrarily dumping random parts of the cost of operating the central reservations system and Beech Grove backshops on particular trains with no rhyme or reason. This is best described as BS.


----------



## neroden (Mar 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> The real problem with this thread is that the question “Which route would you cut?”, can mean a million things. It could be whatever has low ridership,


Out of the non-state-supported trains, that's the Sunset Limited


> high operating costs,


Sunset Limited


> high redundancy,


Palmetto


> lack of support,


Sunset Limited


> etc.


Sunset Limited 


> Depending on how you interpret the question, basically any route could be the ideal candidate to get the ax.


No, it's pretty much always the Sunset Limited.
There seems to be zero political support west of *Beaumont*, for some reason. The three-a-week situation kills ridership and revenue while expenses stay high, but it performs far worse than the Cardinal which has a similar crippling limitation. Much of the route has absolutely no potential for growth -- from San Antonio to El Paso it's not clear that it's worthwhile even putting platforms at the nowheresville stations, and frankly Houston to San Antonio has shown no interest in stations. Houston barely uses the train at all. The cities it does stop in can't even be bothered to fix up their stations, and Phoenix can't be bothered to even have the train run through it, despite decades of Arizona rail advocates attempting to get them to do so.

When I look at the Sunset Limited, I see a train which runs from Los Angeles, with a non-functional stop outside Phoenix, to Tucson, then nonstop to El Paso, then stopping at pointless stations until San Antonio, then nonstop to Houston... this is a bad train route, because there's nothing on the way. East of Houston, it's a better route, and it does have some political support in Louisiana, but apparently not much -- and the Louisiana section will frankly be underwater as Louisiana sinks and sea level rises.

It would still be OK if it could be run daily, but with Union Pacific insisting on maintaining its crippled status, it's hopeless. Unlike pretty much every other route in the country, the Congressmen representing the districts it passes through routinely vote *against* funding Amtrak.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 23, 2018)

Amtrak is now running a Thruway Bus from Phoenix to Maricopa, the Maricopa station is only 45 min-1 hour away from the airport and 1.5 hours from the Phoenix Metro Center.

https://media.amtrak.com/2017/04/new-amtrak-thruway-shuttle-service-maricopa-maricopa-connecting-sunset-limitedtexas-eagle-passengers-phoenix-tempe/

I wonder if that could help with ridership at Maricopa and the SL in general. You do arrive westbound in LAX early (as Devil's Advocate said as early as 4:30am) but Maricopa-LAX) is almost a perfect overnight trip between the Phoenix metro and Los Angeles in both directions. Unfortunately you can't arrive in LA on Saturday or Sunday (just MWF). The best case would be to spend a Wednesday or Friday in Los Angeles and come back the same day.

The schedule going east unfortunately forces you to leave Phoenix during the graveyard shift (3:15/3:45am) to catch the eastbound SL #2 so if Phoenix residents wanted to go east or anyone east of Phoenix wanted to visit there I don't know if that's much better than just having a train there.

I posted a report from the 1970's about the PM/TM about most LD train lines. Most of the trains still running have better PM/TM than back then but the SL's PM/TM is a lot lower (and back in the 70's I believe it was also 3x/week). If the SL had the PM/TM it had today back then, it would have been canceled (unless some Senator demanded it run of course). The biggest difference I would think between the 70's and today would have to be not serving Phoenix.


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 23, 2018)

It would be great for the Sunset to serve SAS during the day, as that would allow TE through-pax to explore San Antonio and see the sights. Most people don't want to wake up at 2:00 AM or whatever and tour San Antonio in the middle of the night. It would also make life easier for pax transferring from the westbound TE to the eastbound SL (and vice versa). Currently those passengers need to spend the night in SAS, which is less than ideal.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 23, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> It would be great for the Sunset to serve SAS during the day, as that would allow TE through-pax to explore San Antonio and see the sights. Most people don't want to wake up at 2:00 AM or whatever and tour San Antonio in the middle of the night. It would also make life easier for pax transferring from the westbound TE to the eastbound SL (and vice versa). Currently those passengers need to spend the night in SAS, which is less than ideal.


I agree that it would probably help a lot to fine tune the schedule a bit. Most people are resistant to traveling in the dead of night and it's a bit of a social overreach to request pickups and drop-offs between 10PM and 8AM. Unfortunately Union Pacific was reported to have demanded 700 million dollars in return for a single one time schedule change. When a host is so hostile that they'll hold a schedule change hostage with absurd levels of punitive funding it's no longer in Amtrak's interest to continue fighting them. Better to abandon the line and use those limited resources to help shore up other routes with more support and less resistance. Every time you read about some mentally challenged cowboy logic truck driver causing yet another collision Amtrak needs to take any damaged hardware offline, allow detectives/lawyers/regulators time to inspect it, and finally repair it again. Having the Sunset Limited hardware ready and waiting might help other routes recover quicker and more dependably from adverse events and conditions.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Mar 23, 2018)

Not a route, but a train. I have never liked the idea of the Acela (a fast business train for the corporate well-to-do and the heck with the rest of us), and I would like to see that discontinued.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Mar 23, 2018)

If Amtrak were to extend the Crescent to SAS, they could schedule the additional service roughly...

19: NOL: 11:00pm, HOS: 8:18am/8:55pm, SAS: 2:05pm

20: SAS: 2:25pm, HOS: 7:10pm/8:10pm, NOL: 5:40am

They'd need two additional sets. I would feel better about canceling the SL if the Crescent is extended to San Antonio to make up for it so Houston maintains service (hopefully with a Crescent extension, daily service).


----------



## cpotisch (Mar 23, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Not a route, but a train. I have never liked the idea of the Acela (a fast business train for the corporate well-to-do and the heck with the rest of us), and I would like to see that discontinued.


I'm pretty sure Acela is very profitable because of its high ridership and high fares. Additionally, Amtrak has thrown so much money at the banked tracks and everything, so I don't feel like it makes much sense to throw that away. That said, AE is a bit of a gimmick, given it only reaches its (not _that_ impressive) top speed of 150 mph for a couple miles of the trip, so it's not much faster than NER (and in fact Acela is sometimes slightly slower). People take Acela because it seems fancier and faster, but it's really not that special. But the fact is that it doesn't matter how stupid a route is, just that it makes money.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 24, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Not a route, but a train. I have never liked the idea of the Acela (a fast business train for the corporate well-to-do and the heck with the rest of us), and I would like to see that discontinued.
> ...


At a great expense. I say cut the whole North East Corridor. Imagine what you could do with the money you saved on infrastructure expenses alone!! You could finance a ton of trains to people without a lot of public transportation options. The Cardinal and Sunset could operate daily, we could hourly service to Albany, we could cut time off the B&A and probably but the line.

We could have tons of supplements to the LD network!

Clip the catenary, grab some Chargers and power up!


----------



## railiner (Mar 24, 2018)

Regardless of what happens to the rest of Amtrak, or if Amtrak ever followed the above example, rest assured, the Northeast Corridor Region would survive, in one form or another....

Either a new Federal entity, or a consortium of the local transit agencies that operate upon it.....


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 24, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Mystic River Dragon said:
> ...


The anti Philly Amtrak fan


----------



## Eric S (Mar 26, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > How are you defining a route? For example, would a route such as the Palmetto count even though it's entire route is covered by the Silver Meteor? If you were to cut the Carl Sandburg/Illinois Zephyr would both trains be lost or just one? Also, is this from a purely selfish perspective or should we consider Amtrak's point of view as well?
> ...


So in this strange scenario Illinois can avoid having one of its "duplicate routes" cut by renaming both of those trains the "Sandburg Service" and renaming the Illlini and Saluki to both be either "Illini Service" or Saluki Service" and no longer being duplicates?


----------



## Eric S (Mar 26, 2018)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Thanks for the EB fact sheet, for some reason or other I found it very interesting. I was surprised how low Milwaukee ridership was, but of course, it's part of corridor service so there are plenty of options between Chicago and Milwaukee. But it definitely looks like both ends of the route are crying out for another train or two, and probably corridor service.


Anecdotally, I can report that although there is fairly significant awareness of the Hiawatha in the Milwaukee market, there is much, much less awareness of the Empire Builder. To many in Milwaukee Amtrak=Hiawatha.


----------

