# The future of Amtrak and the long distance trains



## Green Maned Lion

I apologize in advance for the political nature of this post. I will try to confine my politics to the needed amount to discuss the key points I’m trying to bring out in this post. I ask the mod team, and not antagonistically, to contact me and discuss these points if they have objections, because I think the overall content of this post is essential for a free discourse among the members of this forum discussing the future of Amtrak and also evaluating their opinions in view of some important facts that many of them might not have considered, and I’d rather ‘clean up’ any problems then end the discussion.

I have always found this forum interesting for many reasons, but one in particular relates to this post. There has long been a feeling among transit advocates that “liberals” tend to favor trains (i.e. Democrats) and that ‘conservatives’ do not (i.e. Republicans). But this forum isn’t a bunch of foaming liberals. This forum is, for the most part, a decently representative microcosm of the American political landscape.

You do have some ‘foaming liberals’, (Hi, Ryan!) and I certainly lean left of center myself. But you also have some conservatives here, some of which I’d almost call foaming right wingers. You have urbanites, and people who live in the middle of nowhere. People who clearly have huge amounts of institutional education and relevant degrees, and people who have practically none. I criticize or consider negativity to none of this. I think the main thing I learned in higher education is that higher education is often a huge waste of time.

That is to say, Amtrak, transit, and travel is not a partisan wish. It might be a partisan issue in Congress, but it really isn’t in the reality of the American landscape.

But like a microcosm if the American public, this forum also shows a lot of the misconceptions of money, management, labor, unions, financing, accounting, politics, and realities that pervade our society and tend to make fixing its problems nearly impossible. In order to fix this country’s myriad problems, we must first understand what those problems are. The biggest problem with this country, though, ultimately, is that most of its problems are of great benefit to a select few people, and those people hold a great degree of power. It is in that group’s best interest to obfuscate all problems as carefully as possible, and that group also controls the means to do so.

When I said almost everything you read in media is inaccurate, I meant it. Media is not just stupid about reporting the honest facts about railroading and Amtrak; you just notice it because you happen to know enough about the subject to tell when someone is wrong. I find media is wrong in every subject I know enough about to judge them on; I am not particularly special and my areas of expertise are not all obscure- ipso facto, media is wrong almost always. You can get the basic gist of what went wrong from a story (E.G. a train and a car had a collision at a grade crossing and 2 people were killed) but almost all details reported are inaccurate either by design or incompetence (E.G. the train apparently had a death wish for the car, the conductor drove the train into it, the engineer reassured the passengers, etc.).

One of the distinct themes of American politics I see here most clearly is the backbone of our current financial problems. Americans have voted for a distinct government, and have mostly got it. They want a hell of a lot of service from their government. I include supposed small government proponents- they generally want “SMALLER GOVERNMENT” but fight any attempt to take away particular areas of said government they use. They ALL want to pay as little tax as possible. The poor and middle class either don’t want tax increases, or if they do, they want it only on the ‘1%’ they keep harping about. The wealthy either don’t want tax increases or want the middle class to ‘pay their share’.

You’ve got what you want, folks. Lots of services. An impressively small amount of tax (any objections to this statement better be backed up with sources showing me what developed countries have substantially lower tax rates!). And the resultant huge deficit that is currently less of an immediate problem than people scream about, but will eventually drive this country onto the rocks. (I bring this subject specifically up because it is relevant later in the topic.)

That is the basic background into which I launch into this discussion. I don’t intend to insult anyone here, beyond that point that almost all decision making on the point of anybody is done either on the basis of their self-interest, or the basis of what they think their self-interest will or should be.

Amtrak is in a point of transition. A major point of transition, and whether it will be of benefit or detriment, or both, depends on many factors, some of which we can affect, and some we can’t. If you want to contradict things I state as facts, please first consult the monthly and yearly financial reports and the current Strategic Vision Plan.

*Facts:*


A point we need to consider is the greatly aging ridership on the Long Distance Trains. It is aging, and we can’t ignore that, either in short term marketing, or long term effect. One of my single focal points as a transit advocate in New Jersey is trying to figure out ways to fight the fact that the advocacy is aging into the grave. I can’t count the number of times I have pissed off other members by asking them to look around the room and think about who in the room will be physically able to be there ten years hence.


The food service losses in the long distance dining cars represent, according to an OIG report, 99% of the food service losses on Amtrak. In most cases (only Auto Train and Palmetto differ), labor costs alone are higher than the revenue from the car. Then we can add “commissary” (cost of actually providing the food) and equipment costs to that. In the current political climate, this is untenable. Also, it is unreasonable for anybody to postulate prices on a menu that fail to even cover labor costs are a ‘rip-off’. 


Equipment is wearing out. The Heritage cars are reaching the point of total structural failure (anyone referencing VIA’s similarly aged fleet can shove it- you are comparing a daily driver to a pampered classic) But assuming the Viewliner II order comes through, that problem is self-solving. The Amfleet I’s, however, are 38 years old (although admittedly almost completely rebuilt about 10 years ago), the Superliner Is are 35 years old (and have never received thorough overhauls), and the Amfleet IIs are 32 years old. Both their builders are long out of business, parts availability will be increasingly expensive. They still have some years of service ahead of them, including a period where they will be used as booster fleets. But Amtrak’s ability to maintain long distance service relies on replacing the Superliner Is and Amfleet I’s and either replacing or throughly reconfiguring the Amfleets into a from the ground rebuilt long distance shell. 


To maintain and expand service on the Northeast Corridor and its relevant feeders (Downeaster, Empire Service, Virginia Service, Keystone Service, Springfield Service) at its current levels of ridership and growth, Amtrak needs to purchase approximately 600 single level coaches to replace the Amfleet Is. There really is nothing wrong with the current equipment in effective design and function, nor would their be with a reconfiguration of the Viewliner shell into an Amfleet I style double-vestibule auto-door layout with similar facilities, so we are talking about 600 cars at about 2.5 million a piece, or $1.5 billion. I doubt Amtrak will have trouble getting congress to agree to that investment, or funding it internally.


To preserve western Long Distance service cars approximating the functionality of Superliners will need to be ordered in the form of 150 coaches, 60 food service/lounge cars, and 70 sleepers, or 280 cars at… $3.5 million each? Call it a billion dollar investment.


To preserve functionality and allow for capacity expansion on the single level long distance routes, Amtrak needs to have effectively new single level cars configured for long distance service. This requires cars with at least 3 restrooms, adequately large windows (if they are completely rebuilt, I’d assume they have to meet current regulations) and seating for about 60 passengers, with I’d say 250 coaches available for service, and 50 light duty food service cars. Amtrak could either order new coaches built on Viewliner shell specifications (forget the extra windows, though- that would obviously have to be sacrificed on the alter of overhead luggage storage), or take the aggregate of the Amfleet I and Amfleet II fleets and rebuild them into a single specification long distance car. You are either talking about 1.5 million a car or 2.5 million a car, or 450 million to 750 million. I personally suspect the logical approach is a fully replaced car. Therefore:


Amtrak’s capital outlay on long-distance trains over the next ten years needs to be $1.75 billion. 




*Disconnected Opinion Points:*


If Amtrak is to run a long distance network of attractiveness to more than rail foamers and people who are stuck, it needs to offer a dining service substantially superior to the current cafe car.


Long Distance trains require lounge space for passengers to utilize for relaxation.


Lounges DO NOT NEED TO BE STAFFED OR SERVE ANYTHING.


Traditional full service dining cars are not required. I’m talking about sit down, order all of it, be waited on, with linen table clothes and fresh flowers, grand china, gourmet meal service. 


Dining car service can and should be profitable, but will require a total rethink as to how to operate it. 




*Problems:*


The current Strategic Vision Plan and funding requests outline an intention to operate long distance trains using the same funding matrix put into place for the state supported corridors, only federally supported. This would provide funding for the Long Distance trains on a sustainable level, but would also give Congress the opportunity to manage exactly what is on those trains.


Railfans/foamers are an important reason Amtrak exists. They also represent the single largest problem Amtrak faces. The old-school train riders who rode before Amtrak want Amtrak to be what they were familiar with. Luxury trains, providing full service dining cars, staffed lounge cars, full bar service, first class lounges, old fashioned sleeping car service, dome cars, and so on. If we are going to save the transportation functionality of the long distance network, something I consider of paramount importance, we need to change our point of view on that. Certain facilities are important for travel, but the point of this must be fundamentally functional transportation. Every step above that must be either financially self-supporting, or be as financially prudent as possible.


Which leads into my rant up above about Americans and taxes. Americans want everything, so long as they don’t have to pay for it. That attitude has to fundamentally change among those who wish to go to the wall supporting Amtrak/Long Distance trains.




While it is my intention to answer my own postulated points in another post, so as to differentiate how I want to do things with the realities (My opinions shown are what I think the realities are, not how I wish to deal with them) with the points I am trying to lay out to allow for a free discourse on those realities, I want to expound a little further with my last point.

Iowa Pacific, American Orient Express, and others have ran luxury trains priced in such a way to make a reasonable profit, that is, have their passengers pay the cost of offering the luxury services provided. I don’t know what Iowa Pacific’s Pullman service is doing, but Orient Express’s limited service behind existing trains was a dismal failure.

The cost of offering a $27.00 AmSteak on the Lake Shore Limited’s dining car is above $27. As I reasoned elsewhere the cost of offering labor for that steak is at least $10 a plate. The steak, its accouterment, as well as the Amsalad, sodas, coffee, and accompanying desert, is probably another $12-15. The cost to haul and maintain that dining car is probably another $6-7 a plate. I don’t know the cost of food spoilage, but I know its a huge cost for land-based restaurants. The variable cost of cheaper meals is probably no more than 10, and is probably directly accounted for by the price. Since the steak costs Amtrak $38-43 a plate to serve you, we can assume that Amtrak loses $11-15 a plate on long distance food.

Yes, traditional full service dining cars have always been a loss leader. Granted. But that is the whole point of this post. Innovative solutions must be found. We have to come to grips with the reality that the current model, if we stick to it, will result eventually in the death of the long distance network. We are not here to cling to long held ideals of how railroads used to be run and how you’d like them to be. That long held ideal costs money, such that the last real attempt to provide it long-term (American Orient Express) failed. If you want that kind of service, be prepared to spend a few grand a night per person or more. But we are not here to discuss that.

We are here to discuss how Amtrak can position its long distance service in a way that does the following:


Satisfies Congress. 


Provides a reasonable level of service and comfort for coach passengers.


Provides an onboard experience that is reasonably enjoyable.


Provides adequate facilities and amenities to cover a journey the length the trains run.


Provides a level of upgrade in service for sleeping car passengers such to justify the cost of their tickets, GRANTING that the cost of providing sleeping car service is relatively high and the passengers don’t think that a reasonable price is the price of plane fare plus the price of a room at a cheap hotel plus the price of the food served.




*Political climate:*

We need to consider the basic political climate we currently reside in, which I will sum up with the following list.


Amtrak is, in the grand scheme of things, basically irrelevant. It costs a basically irrelevant sum of money to operate, and is booted around as a political whipping boy because it costs very little, is not a significant source of political funding, and can be cut and boosted a little each year to either please financial hawks or rail using constituents without effecting anything important to congress critters. Its a low hanging fruit to use as a bi-partisan punching bag to direct peoples attention from real issues and the real problems that those who have power would rather the great unwashed not know about, or at least think about much.


The Tea Party, largely funded and controlled by the Koch brother oil money, is in Congress and has a bizarre amount of control and power for something with a relatively fringe level of popular support. The Tea Party, being heavily oil funded, would naturally object to large rail projects that would actually get significant amounts of traffic off the road. That being said, I don’t think they view the long distance network under that guise because:


The long distance network is, as far as driving and spending of oil money is concerned, less than irrelevant. A large number of the long distance network passengers would either ride the dog or stay home if the network was canned. Its affect to their bottom line, or anyones bottom line besides Amtrak’s, would be lost in the noise.


Obama’s health care rollout and effectiveness, and especially popularity, has been a disaster. This has removed whats left of Obama’s basic power base, and increased the polarity of non-liberals against the democrat point of view.


So with all the above in mind, and before you respond to my response to my own post, lets discuss solutions to Amtrak’s problems, and the general future of Amtrak’s long distance network.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Reads the post, scratches head, moves on.

Yes that is the underlining problem. People don't care enough to do something. Sorry we have no follow up. Only the nut jobs care enough to get things to change, the rest just move on to the next topic.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Reads the post, scratches head, moves on.
> 
> Yes that is the underlining problem. People don't care enough to do something. Sorry we have no follow up. Only the nut jobs care enough to get things to change, the rest just move on to the next topic.


Indeed.


----------



## rrdude

I'm interested in your "solutions". While I may be on the fringe of the "old geezer brigade" I do realize things will never go back (nor should they) to the pre-Amtak days.

It just seems i there has to be a way to cater to BOTH the "Basic Necessity Traveling Public", and those who want a bit more "Luxury or First Class".... Amtrak will never rival a cruise ship or private rail charter, nor should it. But if the train is pulling out of the station _anyway, _it seems logical to be able to charge more, for better services, food, amenities, and seating/sleeping arrangements.


----------



## CHamilton

I'm sure that we could quibble about some of the details of your post, but I think that most of us would agree with the broad outline of the issues you raise. Now, how do we solve them? 

In my opinion, we need to reframe the discussion completely. 


The calls for "making a profit" need to be shot down. Amtrak, like every other form of transportation, is a public good, and should be evaluated as such. It will never make money, just like highways and the air traffic control system.
The world of the 21st century is a very different place than the 20th century's "world of the automobile." As fossil fuels run out and we deal with climate change, our auto-dependent culture and infrastructure will undergo huge revisions, and we'll need a robust passenger rail system.
Until very recently, support for passenger rail was bipartisan. The current political situation is, let's hope, an aberration, but we need to work to ensure that it goes away soon.
Let's continue the conversation, and develop strategies to make a better rail system happen!


----------



## tonys96

One thing to remember: Population ages across the board. As we die out, others age. So saying that only the current oldsters will be proponents of Amtrak travel, while discounting that those who will follow us in time will not , is disingenuous.

I was not an avid Amtrak rider until I was 50. My g/f had never been on a train until she was 53.

I will respond more to this missive later, however I will now say that I do not agree that all written above as "Facts" are indeed "Facts" and not just opinion.


----------



## Ryan

/me waves back at GML.

Overall, well said. That's a pretty good depiction of the situation.

Also, what Charlie had to say is spot on. The "how" we do those things is the reason the Rail Advocacy forum exists.

Incidentally, I just got a (form letter, sadly) email response to the last time I contacted my Representative agreeing that spending money on infrastructure improvements is something we need to do as a nation.

If only that sentiment was shared by the other 434 of his compatriots.


----------



## PaulM

The only "fact" that I would question is the aging of the LD rider. I realize it's just anecdotal, but based on quite a few LD trips in the last few years (14 nights in 2013 alone), I've noticed more and more younger passengers during all seasons; and I'm talking sleepers.


----------



## henryj

GML the problem with your analysis is the basic question, what is the role of an LD train, particularly the western trains. It takes five to six sets of equipment to basically haul one plane load of passengers a day and it takes them two days and nights to get there. As you surmise, LD trains are irrelevant to today's travel. Regardless of how the 'foamers' on here think, an LD train is a cruise train catering to vacationers. Yes it does provide basic transportation to some coach passengers and the elderly and those afraid to fly. So the trains, particularly the western LD trains that take two days to traverse their route, need to provide cruise train amenities. Dining cars, and trains enthusiasts on here seem obsessed with food, have never made any money and never will. They are an amenity , along with lounge cars, provided to attract cruise train vacationers. The problem with their costs is basically labor, not food. Food costs are irrelevant to the cost structure of these trains. The trains just have too many highly paid people on board. And the longer it takes for a train to make it's journey, the higher these labor costs are. So the lengthening of the EB schedule, for instance, will just cost Amtrak more and they won't be charging any more for the trip. The other 'controllable cost' is actually revenue. Amtrak charges Greyhound rates for coach seats, but provides luxury amenities, such as on board dining and sight seeing lounge cars. The other large costs such as track rent, fuel, equipment maintenance are not as controllable as the above mentioned two. Running on time would help also, of course. In any case this is why successful trains like the CZ, EB, SWC and CS are also perennially among the biggest losers. These trains are actually national treasures like the Canadian, and like the Canadian should be treated as such regardless of whether they break even or not. The Florida trains actually provide a modicum of transportation sense and if handled right, should break even or even make money. The Crescent makes sense are far as Atlanta. It could save a lot of money by dropping unnecessary cars and staff there before continuing to New Orleans as basically a coach train. The remainder are a mixed bag. The Eagle, for instance, is really replacing three or four trains that used to run to Texas. The Sunset no longer goes to Florida which provided a lot of it's revenue. The CONO......is it still nicknamed the 'chicken bone run'? And you would think the Capitol and LSL serving the nations largest cities would be self supporting. Perhaps those trains are the ones you are thinking about changing to European style Spartan overnights. Anyway, my two cents worth.

jf


----------



## AmtrakBlue

RyanS said:


> /me waves back at GML.
> 
> Overall, well said. That's a pretty good depiction of the situation.
> 
> Also, what Charlie had to say is spot on. The "how" we do those things is the reason the Rail Advocacy forum exists.
> 
> Incidentally, I just got a (form letter, sadly) email response to the last time I contacted my Representative agreeing that spending money on infrastructure improvements is something we need to do as a nation.
> 
> If only that sentiment was shared by the other 434 of his compatriots.


I got my form letters too. Of course, living on the NEC, my guys are pro-rail since they use it themselves.


----------



## jis

One thing that I notice is that in other transportation modes, the infrastructure - its construction, management and operation - is clearly separated from the operation of services using the infrastructure. The infrastructure is subsidized at some significant level for all, some using proxy taxes trying to masquerade around as user fees, some direct user fees, and some outright grants from general ledger + of course bonding etc. the usual techniques for financing long term capital costs.

The general expectation of making money appears to apply to the operation of services using the infrastructure. I am not really sure that it is worth fighting that head to head, because that sentiment does force some level of discipline in the system. So I suppose I am not quite ready to dump the "making money" part completely. I would like to see the domains more clearly spelled out and funding/money making roles more clearly specified in the new "contract".

One fundamental problem in the US is the fact that most of the infrastructure for rail is neither publicly owned nor is there adequate regulations giving reasonable access to the same for the use of public good. This appears to be a problem unique to this country - neigh this continent due to historical factors. This in and of itself will force the notion of the infrastructure needing to make money to support itself or come up with a new "contract" where the difference is adequately made up from public sources in lieu of corresponding ceding of some control/access to the public for public use. While we are already seeing certain examples of this taking place in small steps I have no idea how we get to a general social contract of this nature without running afoul of "taking of property".


----------



## SanAntonioClyde

Enjoyed the post. Have similar thought on some items. My travel experience on several LD trains leads me to following points.

1. My frequent travel on Texas Eagle has proven time and time again that a significant number of travelers use it for short trips.

2. The thought of running the Sunset Ltd coast to coast needs to be put to rest. Instead run a separate train from New Orleans to Florida. No clue as to where you get the train sets in either case.

3. Increased train frequency always seems to be a key component in increasing public "coming into the fold" of accepting and willing to have public funding for rail transportation.

4. While I have supported NARP for years have always been disappointed in their reluctance in assisting state organizations. An example in having a means of allowing my info released to others in my state so we could be better organized.

This forum is enjoyable since it does cover many facets of those who have an interest in rail travel. Unfortunately we do have a second rate service despite the thousands of dedicated employees who work hard to bring the best they can with limited resources


----------



## mfastx

The problem with long distance trains is that it just isn't a realistic travel option for most people. A Houston - New Orleans run time of _9_ hours just isn't going to entice lots of people to ride. I don't think long distance trains are going to die out by any means, but there's a limit to how utilized they will be in the long run unless Amtrak starts corridor service with multiple trains a day and faster runtimes.


----------



## Eugene S

So yesteryear is gone! Well yes and well no, Look at the equipment, even the new cars are built on the same format as the old cars, Stop and think how would I like the train to be different than the cross country bus and why do I hate having to take the Airplane. example- you are a parent with 3,4, or 5 small children and the ol" clunker won't make it on a 1500 mile journey and destination is 200 miles from nearest airport ,but the train stops at the destination. The cars need to be built on need as well as function--notice hotels/motels are now providing a lite self serve breakfast. You are on the train for several hours, but desire and willing to pay for first class accommodations (not food), you realize that sitting that long of time is not good for your health, A little leg exercise goes a long way and makes the trip seem shorter. Or Maybe I'm just a business man to see my customers-wouldn't it be nice if I could spread my work material without someone looking over my shoulder. Do you see the a perceived need? This does not even get into the sleeper and dining car area. example for First Class would be a 3 car set with end cars being the sitting cars with plush swivel recliners (one per window) the center car would be the activity car with various kinds of exercise equipment. These cars would be joined by articulated bogies with wide passageways. Do you see and understand the direction of my thought, For the rider the train needs to be different , Such as I have described would make the train different and a joy to ride.


----------



## Ryan

henryj said:


> Regardless of how the 'foamers' on here think, an LD train is a cruise train catering to vacationers. Yes it does provide basic transportation to some coach passengers and the elderly and those afraid to fly.


[citation needed]

This doesn't square with all of the people that I've met and talked to over the course of my trips. The vast majority of them were using the train to get from point A to point B. Given that I was talking to them in the diner, most of them were sleeper passengers, and of all ages. Also the vast majority of them weren't traveling endpoint to endpoint, so your comments about the 2 days to make the trip aren't relevant.


----------



## JayPea

Granted my sample size is small, but my observations about the typical Amtrak passenger squares with Ryan's. The vast majority are using Amtrak to get from one spot to another, and the majority are not going endpoint to endpoint. The trips I take with my uncle are largely endpoint to endpoint and I know in the sleepers, I see lots of turnover enroute with the sleepers.  And I would say that based on my observations of the trips I take, the majority of those in the coaches are younger folk. Granted, at age 54, what I consider young (and old, for that matter) may be skewed :lol: and granted we travel in the summer when those families with children are much more likely to be traveling but I see a lot of young folk aboard Amtrak.


----------



## afigg

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of how the 'foamers' on here think, an LD train is a cruise train catering to vacationers. Yes it does provide basic transportation to some coach passengers and the elderly and those afraid to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> This doesn't square with all of the people that I've met and talked to over the course of my trips. The vast majority of them were using the train to get from point A to point B. Given that I was talking to them in the diner, most of them were sleeper passengers, and of all ages. Also the vast majority of them weren't traveling endpoint to endpoint, so your comments about the 2 days to make the trip aren't relevant.
Click to expand...

The ridership statistics provided by NARP and in the PIP reports show that the majority of passengers are taking the train short to medium distances and are not traveling end to end on a "land cruise". The most common distance traveled on the Empire Builder is 100 to 199 miles. The east coast trains such as the Capitol Limited and LSL have a higher percentage of passengers traveling end to end between WAS-CHI and NYP-CHI, but is it still a minority of the passengers. The LD trains are used for all types of personal travel, not just "land cruises" for the well off on vacation. The posters on this forum are not a representative cross-section of the Amtrak LD train customer base.


----------



## VentureForth

I wish I could find more recent data. Perhaps it just isn't there. John Cornyn - a very conservative (though NOT Tea Party by any means) voted in FAVOR of a $16.71 BILLION appropriation for Amtrak back in 2008 which was then signed by Dubya. My current House representative, Jack Kingston, on the other hand voted against it. Jack is very Tea Party.

I need to make this clear. The Tea Party stands for one major issue - T.E.A. It stands for Taxed Enough Already. The major belief of the TEA party is that the government spends way more money that it needs to, and thus taxes us way more than it needs to. This has nothing to do with oil, energy, etc. Sure, there are those factions in its funding, but even the most liberal of issues source major funding, ie: George Soros, etc. Shall we disdain the moral depravity of our country, blaming Big Media and the billions is pumps into corrupting or liberating our minds?

To make the conservative argument as simple as possible, it comes down to this. Should the government be in the business of business? I would argue that in its purest essence - meaning the absence of government control or regulation - if there is a demand for a product or service, private enterprise would find a way to meet the demands of the population. In fact, often private enterprise _creates_ a demand for their products.

So what has happened? Most transportation systems that were in existence in the earlier part of the 20th century were privately owned. From the streetcars of Los Angeles to the El in Chicago to the vast commuter rail network around New York, private enterprise created wealth by offering a product that people needed and could afford. However, most went bankrupt with the advent of the private automobile and affordable airfare. Some lost out to another big private enterprise player - the bus. Today, most of what remains of these legacy companies are owned and operated by local and state governmental cooperatives. Most have absurdedly low fares and are heavily subsidized.

Today, Amtrak exsists purely as a gift to the Americans from Congress.

Many would be affected, but few would care, if service outside the NEC and California was terminated. The fact is that over the past 40 years, we've witnessed an incredible amout of mismanagment, apathy, corruption, and theft. If the people charged to manage and run Amtrak don't care (and even if it's only 10% of the ranks), why should the 10% of Americans who actually ride the train be expected to care?

So, yes. Amtrak is a political football. Yes, it's something we all like very much. Yes, it could be funded better. Yes, it could be managed better. Yes, it could do more to increase it's bottom line. But no, we don't need it. We want it. If we needed it, someone other than the government would make it happen.


----------



## jis

Amtrak got an *appropriation *of $16.71 BILLION in 2008? How did we miss that?


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> However, most went bankrupt with the advent of the private automobile and affordable airfare.


What you meant to say here is "most went bankrupt, unable to compete with the massive government subsidies given to other modes of transportation".


----------



## henryj

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of how the 'foamers' on here think, an LD train is a cruise train catering to vacationers. Yes it does provide basic transportation to some coach passengers and the elderly and those afraid to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> This doesn't square with all of the people that I've met and talked to over the course of my trips. The vast majority of them were using the train to get from point A to point B. Given that I was talking to them in the diner, most of them were sleeper passengers, and of all ages. Also the vast majority of them weren't traveling endpoint to endpoint, so your comments about the 2 days to make the trip aren't relevant.
Click to expand...

So then Ryan, you support running Spartan coach like trains rather than luxury type long distance trains.? I fail to see your point so far. What do you think the LD trains should look like? Couchettes instead of sleepers? Automats in place of diners? I don't know what you mean by the VAST majority. I have ridden plenty of trains, particularly the western LD trains. I am not looking for a yesteryear experience, just a nice trip. If I wanted a bus ride I can take Greyhound. If I want to be stuffed into a too small seat and body searched I can fly. Do you want a series of fast coach trains spaced end to end to cross the country? The LSL could be just that. Why have sleepers at all. The Europeans have replaced most sleeper trains with high speed trains. But you have to change trains multiple times to make a long trip. No through service. Is that what you want here? I think your point is to just take the opposite view no matter what it is. I too have ridden these LD trains and talked to passengers on board. Yes they are also going to intermediate points. Some are even using them for real transportation. But the western trains are still cruise trains. If you make them something else then they lose all their value. You live in the East. Eastern and Western LD trains are two different animals and serve different clientele. And even in your territory the trains are vastly different from one market to another. This is a huge country. I just don't see generic one of a kind trains serving all these different markets. We are not Europe or Japan.


----------



## Ryan

Wow, that's like the king of all strawman posts there, Henry. Well done.

My point is your entering assumption of western train = land cruise and not "real transportation" is false, and all of your arguments based on it are invalid.

I think that the trains should continue to run as-is. In a perfect world, Amtrak would have the money to invest in far more rolling stock to increase capacity. Part of that capacity increase could come in the form of an "in between" class of cars containing seats similar to what you see in international first class on an airliner.

My LD Amtrak mileage is pretty evenly split between "western" and "eastern" trains, so you can drop the "you're from the east and don't understand" bit.


----------



## jebr

By the way, I'm also waiting for a citation that most people on the western long distance trains use it as a land cruise instead of transportation. Because that's not my experience, and most of the PIPs show that the vast majority of people are not going from endpoint to endpoint on the western long distance trains.

Oh, and as but one example, here's an article talking about the life of people "commuting" to Williston every few weeks to work in the oil fields. Note the method of transportation they're using on their commute.


----------



## jis

RyanS said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, most went bankrupt with the advent of the private automobile and affordable airfare.
> 
> 
> 
> What you meant to say here is "most went bankrupt, unable to compete with the massive government subsidies given to other modes of transportation".
Click to expand...

Actually, really affordable airfares happened after the _Airline Deregulation Act 1978_. That was way after the proverbial goose of the railroads, and passenger railroads in general was cooked. Most of it was due to subsidized highways construction and proliferation of personal automobiles and trucks, together with what some would argue over-regulation of railroads, and had relatively little to do with affordable air fares, but had more to do with the mere availability of a mode that allowed trans-continental trips to be completed within a single day or less instead of several days, and still does irrespective of fare levels, TSA pains and all that. As you may recall, the railroads had already shed their passenger services through the creation of _Amtrak _in 1971.

Incidentally, the railroads were finally, fully deregulated two years later by the _Staggers Act 1980_, starting a gradual but definite resurgence of the railroads. On the way to Staggers there were the _3R Act 1973_ which created Conrail, and the _4R Act 1976_ which put Conrail into operation and conveyed the NEC spine and related assets to Amtrak.


----------



## henryj

jebr said:


> By the way, I'm also waiting for a citation that most people on the western long distance trains use it as a land cruise instead of transportation. Because that's not my experience, and most of the PIPs show that the vast majority of people are not going from endpoint to endpoint on the western long distance trains.
> 
> Oh, and as but one example, here's an article talking about the life of people "commuting" to Williston every few weeks to work in the oil fields. Note the method of transportation they're using on their commute.


You guys have it your way. I live in Houston. We have one LD train three times a week. I don't see anything changing on LD trains other than less amenities and more cost cutting with the current Amtrak management. You can site all the PIP;s you want and make all the foamer points you want. Nothing is going to change.


----------



## NE933

Amtrak is NOT a gift from Congress. Enough of us have cast our votes that we want the taxes we pay to help pay for trains to take us anyplace we wish to go, just in the same way I want our government to make sure the water I get from the tap is safe and clean.

A gift is something that is freely given without struggle or pleading; every dime Amtrak gets from Congress is paid for with hard work and careworn faces.

It is up to Amtrak, and us, to ensure the money is wisely spent on things that will ensure there will be a network of fast ontime trains, with appropriate accomodations, to carry ticketed passengers where they need to go or leave from.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Actually, really affordable airfares happened after the _Airline Deregulation Act 1978_. That was way after the proverbial goose of the railroads, and passenger railroads in general was cooked.


Valid point. For aviation, I was thinking less of the infrastructure and more the government spending on military aviation that allowed companies like Boeing to exist and be profitable enough to turn out civilian airliners. The steady flow of military-trained aviators into airliner cockpits was also a huge benefit to the industry.

While not direct subsidies, they were certainly of great benefit to the industry.


----------



## SarahZ

henryj said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I'm also waiting for a citation that most people on the western long distance trains use it as a land cruise instead of transportation. Because that's not my experience, and most of the PIPs show that the vast majority of people are not going from endpoint to endpoint on the western long distance trains.
> 
> Oh, and as but one example, here's an article talking about the life of people "commuting" to Williston every few weeks to work in the oil fields. Note the method of transportation they're using on their commute.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have it your way. I live in Houston. We have one LD train three times a week. I don't see anything changing on LD trains other than less amenities and more cost cutting with the current Amtrak management. You can site all the PIP;s you want and make all the foamer points you want. Nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...

So, you'd rather ignore actual, factual citations and believe what you want, based on your limited viewpoint from Houston? This has come up with you before, and I'll say it again:

Houston =/= the rest of the U.S.


----------



## Ryan

Never let so called "facts" get in the way of a sincerely held opinion.


----------



## SanAntonioClyde

Highway trust fund received $9.7 billion from general fund last year, aviation receive around $4+ billion! yet rail is the only conservative topic on their agenda. I believe one function of government is to promote commerce and mobility; our history reflects this role. Rail travel deserves a place across the nation and not just on our two coasts.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> Amtrak got an *appropriation *of $16.71 BILLION in 2008? How did we miss that?





> HR 2095
> 
> Vote to concur with House amendments and pass a bill that authorizes $16.71 billion in appropriations for Amtrak and railroad safety measures.
> 
> Highlights:
> 
> •Authorizes appropriations for Amtrak for the next five years, including $5.32 billion for capital grants, $2.95 billion for operation grants, and $1.9 billion for intercity passenger rail services (Div. B).
> 
> •Authorizes $1.5 billion over the next ten years for capital and preventive maintenance projects for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Div. B, Sec. 601).
> 
> •Provides $1.63 billion for rail safety programs (Div. A).
> 
> •Allocates $18 million for 2009-2013 to design, develop, and construct the Facility for Underground Rail Station and Tunnel in Colorado to test and evaluate above-ground and underground rail tunnels to prevent accidents, mitigate and remediate the consequences of any such accidents, and to provide a realistic scenario for training emergency responders (Div. A, Sec 3).
> 
> •Limits the consecutive workday of train employees to twelve hours and requires ten hours off before resuming duty (Div. A, Sec. 108).
> 
> •Requires providers of intercity commuter rail passenger transportation to develop a plan to implement a positive train control system, which is a system designed to prevent various types of train accidents, by December 31, 2015 (Div. A, Sec. 104).


So, yes $16 Bil. However, only $10 Bil was directly to Amtrak over 5 years.


----------



## VentureForth

SanAntonioClyde said:


> Highway trust fund received $9.7 billion from general fund last year, aviation receive around $4+ billion! yet rail is the only conservative topic on their agenda. I believe one function of government is to promote commerce and mobility; our history reflects this role. Rail travel deserves a place across the nation and not just on our two coasts.


And I am a huge advocate of toll roads to pay for their own maintenance. If I don't want to pay for a toll road, I'll find an alternative path if the added time and gas makes sense vs paying up.

We can also moan and groan all day about how Greyhound and the airlines reap benefits from government subsidies. The point there, though is that WE, the taxpayers paid for airports, air traffic control, highways, etc. The railroads are still mostly owned by private corporations.

Interestingly, whereas the government has developed the highway infrastructure and air infrastructure, as a private citizen, I am generally allowed to enjoy driving on the highway and as a commercial pilot, I'm entitled to flying in our national airspace without additional taxes (toll roads, excepted). I cannot buy a Hi-Rail and go riding on any railroad owned by Amtrak or true government entity.


----------



## Ryan

How exactly do you think that those alternative routes are built and maintained?

I'm not moaning and groaning about the subsidies air and roads get. They're awesome and we should spend more on them. Having nice things is cool.

But we should also extend that same amount of support to rail, instead of treating it like the ******* stepchild that we do.


----------



## tonys96

One thing left out of this discussion in the "common carrier" status of rail companies. In exchange for right of way across America the rail companies were required to provide a service to all Americans. Part of that was passenger service, which the rail companies handed off to Amtrak in the early 1970s.

IMHO, that social contract is still valid and should be complied with.


----------



## VentureForth

RyanS said:


> I'm not moaning and groaning about the subsidies air and roads get. They're awesome and we should spend more on them. Having nice things is cool.


Didn't say you did. Others have. But if I get to allocate where MY taxes go, I'd put 97c of every dollar for transport into roads, 2c into trains, and 1c into air based on my usage. Like it or not, though, it's the representative government that allocates funding for the benefit of the most. If we could allocate our taxes where we wanted them to go, we'd likely lose our military and be invaded by Ukraine.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak got an *appropriation *of $16.71 BILLION in 2008? How did we miss that?
> 
> 
> 
> ... elided for the sake of brevity....
> 
> So, yes $16 Bil. However, only $10 Bil was directly to Amtrak over 5 years.
Click to expand...

It's an *Authorization*, not *Appropriation*. There is a huge difference. _Authorization _does not provide any real money. The money has to be _Appropriated _as part of annual budget process for it to be actually spendable. _H.R. 2095 (110th): Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008_ cannot "appropriate" money from years 2009 to 2013 budget years. It can only "authorize" such. You have to dig through the individual year appropriations bills to see what was actually appropriated, and thus was actually money that Amtrak could spend according to the language in the authorization bill
Read the actual text in the bill if it interests you.... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2095/text

Digging into said bill here are the Amtrak authorizations:



> (a) Operating grants
> 
> There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the use of Amtrak for operating costs the following amounts:
> 
> (1) For fiscal year 2009, $530,000,000.
> 
> (2) For fiscal year 2010, $580,000,000.
> 
> (3) For fiscal year 2011, $592,000,000.
> 
> (4) For fiscal year 2012, $616,000,000.
> 
> (5) For fiscal year 2013, $631,000,000.


Just as an example for FY 2012 only $466 million was appropriated, not the authorized $616 million. The amount for 2013 is even lower, though the authorization is higher.

If we look at the Capital grants authorization we find:



> (c ) Capital grants
> 
> There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the use of Amtrak for capital projects (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 24401(2) of title 49, United States Code) to bring the Northeast Corridor (as defined in section 24102 of such title) to a state-of-good-repair and for capital expenses of the national rail passenger transportation system the following amounts:
> 
> (1) For fiscal year 2009, $715,000,000.
> 
> (2) For fiscal year 2010, $975,000,000.
> 
> (3) For fiscal year 2011, $1,025,000,000.
> 
> (4) For fiscal year 2012, $1,275,000,000.
> 
> (5) For fiscal year 2013, $1,325,000,000.


Again for FY 2012 only $657 million was appropriated from the authorization of $1.275 billion. In FY 2013 Amtrak is asking for $1.435 billion which is more than the authorization, but in effect they are asking for a smaller amount for operations thus keeping the total within the join authorization for capital and operations. I think they will be lucky to get 2/3rds of what they are asking for. They will probably get less.

So see what I means when I say that just because something has been authorized does not mean Amtrak gets all the money authorized?

So bottom line is beware of the phrase "authorized to appropriate". That indicates that you have exactly $0 in hand to spend. And that is why Congress Critters and Senators blithely vote away on Authorization Bills knowing full well that when comes to appropriation time, they may have no intention to appropriate anything close to what appears in the authorization bill. So in general how someone votes on an authorization bill is a much weaker predictor of what they really wish to see happen than how they vote on a appropriation bill. Still it is better to have a friendly vote on an authorization bill than an unfriendly one.


----------



## Eric S

EDIT: Never mind. Jis beat me to it (distinction between authorization and appropriation bills).


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not moaning and groaning about the subsidies air and roads get. They're awesome and we should spend more on them. Having nice things is cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say you did. Others have.
Click to expand...

Who?

Did they look like this?


----------



## VentureForth

Oh brother. And back down into the sewers we swim.


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> In order to fix this country’s myriad problems, we must first understand what those problems are. The biggest problem with this country, though, ultimately, is that most of its problems are of great benefit to a select few people, and those people hold a great degree of power. It is in that group’s best interest to obfuscate all problems as carefully as possible, and that group also controls the means to do so.
> 
> When I said almost everything you read in media is inaccurate, I meant it. Media is not just stupid about reporting the honest facts about railroading and Amtrak; you just notice it because you happen to know enough about the subject to tell when someone is wrong. I find media is wrong in every subject I know enough about to judge them on; I am not particularly special and my areas of expertise are not all obscure- ipso facto, media is wrong almost always.


I'm just going to say -- this is spot on. "Me too". I've noticed that in any area where I have even a little bit of expertise, I can see susbstantial inaccuracies in "general interest" media reporting (as opposed to specialist publications with small circulation). If there's some vested interest which makes money off confusing the issue (and there often is), then there are *gross* inaccuracies, and with a consistent tilt to them.



> An impressively small amount of tax (any objections to this statement better be backed up with sources showing me what developed countries have substantially lower tax rates!).


I really should dig up the data again, but I've read long and well-sourced papers which argue that the US has unusually high taxes *on the working poor*, due to the tax structure: an unusual number of government services come with substantial flat fees in the US, and flat fees are the most regressive form of taxation. In many countries you don't have to pay a large filing fee just to get your day in court, but in the US you do. This doesn't change the general point about low taxation of course, as this is made up for by extremely low tax rates on the idle rich. Um... or does it change the point? You decide.
Anyway... the relevance of this to Amtrak is this. This situation, where a lot of the taxes are highly regressive, creates, for any given service (from housing to transportation to communications) a large political lobby which complains that they're being priced out of that service. And they have a point: they are being systematically priced out. The trouble is, the typical proposed solutions aren't holistic: they involve saddling the providers of the housing/transportation/communications with a deficit, rather than solving this at the level of the legislature's fundamental economic choices about taxes and spending and monetary policy (and minimum wages and protectionism vs. free trade and so on and so forth), which would deal with the housing, transportation, and communications problems simultaneously.

Amtrak is one of the agencies stuck with this: a certain lobby demands lower fares and complains "what is Amtrak worth if I can't afford it". Their problem, however, is not really with Amtrak. Their problem is with government policy which has made them poor in the first place. They don't need lower Amtrak prices; they need higher take-home pay. Anyway.


----------



## neroden

VentureForth said:


> If we could allocate our taxes where we wanted them to go, we'd likely lose our military and be invaded by Ukraine.


Um... that seems unlikely. We could shrink our military to the size of Russia's -- clearly large enough to avoid being invaded by anyone -- and save, oh, roughly 90% of our military budget.
Anyway, if we could allocate our own tax money, I'd spend 0% of it on Interstates. Other roads, useful; Interstates, not useful.


----------



## tonys96

VentureForth said:


> Oh brother. And back down into the sewers we swim.


Ditto.


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> Oh brother. And back down into the sewers we swim.


I take that to mean you're not going to be forthcoming with backing up your statement that "other people" are calling for an end to subsidies for roads and aviation?

You can bemoan a return "into the sewers" and try to throw another pissing contest, or you can engage in thoughtful debate and back up your statments. Your choice.


----------



## mfastx

I know many of us enjoy the LD trains, but a much more effective rail network would be corridor service with hubs in major cities and many trains per day with dedicated tracks. LD trains exist because it's the best Amtrak can do since they have no capital funding for their own rail and higher quality/more rolling stock.

For most of the developed world, LD trains are an excursion type deal, most people don't consider them as an option to get from point A to point B.


----------



## The Whistler

The Green Manned Lion makes some really good points and I believe that most all have been addressed here. As a political independent I can relate to positions on the left and on the right, but if you examine political positions all of them are self serving. Add in the propaganda by the big business corporate media and we are told nightly what to think, how to feel and what we should believe in. I am equally distrustful of both political parties and this is how it works. .

If Amtrak serves a town in a district, the politician who represents that district most probably supports passenger rail. If you look at states that have no passenger rail service, the politicians there are anti-rail. It all comes down to a position that works best for the politician. Unfortunately the public interest is secondary, if a concern at all..


----------



## jis

As Tip O'Neill said: "All politics is local". There is even a Wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local



neroden said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could allocate our taxes where we wanted them to go, we'd likely lose our military and be invaded by Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> Um... that seems unlikely. We could shrink our military to the size of Russia's -- clearly large enough to avoid being invaded by anyone -- and save, oh, roughly 90% of our military budget.
Click to expand...

Specially considering that Ukraine hardly has the capability to run over Moldova next door which has no armed forces to talk about either.



henryj said:


> This is a huge country. I just don't see generic one of a kind trains serving all these different markets. We are not Europe or Japan.


Really?
US land area: 3.794 million sq miles

Europe land area: 3.931 million sq miles

If you look at what the air transport and road transport experience is like, we are actually amazingly similar to Europe. It is more than likely that our rail service, the part that survives, will progressively evolve to look more and more like the European one too.


----------



## amamba

henryj said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of how the 'foamers' on here think, an LD train is a cruise train catering to vacationers. Yes it does provide basic transportation to some coach passengers and the elderly and those afraid to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> This doesn't square with all of the people that I've met and talked to over the course of my trips. The vast majority of them were using the train to get from point A to point B. Given that I was talking to them in the diner, most of them were sleeper passengers, and of all ages. Also the vast majority of them weren't traveling endpoint to endpoint, so your comments about the 2 days to make the trip aren't relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then Ryan, you support running Spartan coach like trains rather than luxury type long distance trains.? I fail to see your point so far. What do you think the LD trains should look like? Couchettes instead of sleepers? Automats in place of diners? I don't know what you mean by the VAST majority. I have ridden plenty of trains, particularly the western LD trains. I am not looking for a yesteryear experience, just a nice trip. If I wanted a bus ride I can take Greyhound. If I want to be stuffed into a too small seat and body searched I can fly. Do you want a series of fast coach trains spaced end to end to cross the country? The LSL could be just that. Why have sleepers at all. The Europeans have replaced most sleeper trains with high speed trains. But you have to change trains multiple times to make a long trip. No through service. Is that what you want here? I think your point is to just take the opposite view no matter what it is. I too have ridden these LD trains and talked to passengers on board. Yes they are also going to intermediate points. Some are even using them for real transportation. But the western trains are still cruise trains. If you make them something else then they lose all their value. You live in the East. Eastern and Western LD trains are two different animals and serve different clientele. And even in your territory the trains are vastly different from one market to another. This is a huge country. I just don't see generic one of a kind trains serving all these different markets. We are not Europe or Japan.
Click to expand...

What luxury long distance trains currently operate?

Because I just got back from a 5 day cross country trip on the CS, CZ & LSL and those were not luxury trains. I would - gasp - call them spartan already. Eating in the dining car is not a luxury experience to me at all.

Eating at a place like this is a luxury experience: http://le-bernardin.com/

ETA: I'm not advocating that we need that on the train. Frankly I am happy with the dining car. But it is what it is, and I go into it with tempered expectations. Anyone searching for a land-cruise and has been on a real cruise - even a lower quality one - would not call them comparable at all.


----------



## andersone

hence the platitude "all politics are local" and ain't that the truth


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> A point we need to consider is the greatly aging ridership on the Long Distance Trains. It is aging,


Citation needed. I say the ridership isn't aging -- I say it's getting younger! The ridership is rising continuously among the under-30s.
The work I've seen indicates that there is a continuous drop in ridership by age bracket until you get to the children of the 1970s, and then ridership starts going up again as you get younger.



> One of my single focal points as a transit advocate in New Jersey is trying to figure out ways to fight the fact that the advocacy is aging into the grave.


Now, THAT's true. The advocates are aging out. Youth are in different advocacy groups -- usually pushing for local train service. Or even for *sidewalks*. (Gotta start with the basics.)
But the younger people ARE taking the trains from Chicago to Cleveland, upstate NY, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, DC, New Orleans, Little Rock, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, California, Minneapolis, Chicago, Portland, and Seattle. Which are referred to as "long distance trains" for whatever reason. (And I can come up with similar examples not starting in Chicago.)

There may be some weird demographic effects. Certain *states* are becoming aged. Florida -- the most aged state -- seems to have particularly undeveloped youth support for train service. (A number of the other "oldest states" are in the Northeast, and accordingly have substantially more support for train service than average for the country.)

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/26/real_estate/americas_oldest_states/

I wouldn't be hopeful about West Virginia.

In addition, some of the states with the most young people have essentially no Amtrak service for them to take.

Utah: Salt Lake City built a light rail system with six branches, an intercity "commuter" railroad running 88 miles, and a streetcar line, all in the last 15 years. They obviously want passenger rail service. But the one-a-day, middle-of-the-night, slower-than-driving California Zephyr isn't the service they want. (I'm not sure if a viable service can be established from Salt Lake to anywhere outside Utah, but I think the only reasonable possibility would be Salt Lake to Denver via Wyoming -- which of course isn't regularly served.)

Texas: Again, Texas has built a *lot* of passenger rail recently, though not quite as fast as Utah. The Texas Eagle is getting a lot of ridership considering its situation, and apparently the ridership just keeps growing, but it's extremely slow and unreliable. (And often cancelled!) The demand is present in Texas; it's the supply which is missing. Texas demographics mean Texas is going to hit a political sea-change point sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure exactly when.



> Obama’s health care rollout and effectiveness, and especially popularity, has been a disaster. This has removed whats left of Obama’s basic power base, and increased the polarity of non-liberals against the democrat point of view.


You're read the politics wrong here. I've spent years following this.
Obama's powerbase effectively doesn't matter because he isn't running for re-election. It's not the same as the Democratic Party powerbase. (Which seems to be falling apart independently... see below...)

Right-wingers didn't change their views on Obama due to ACA... more the other way around, from what the polls said. They changed their views on ACA (aka Romneycare) because Obama supported it.

The political pattern I've seen is this:

- the Republican Party is going more and more doctrinaire and adding more and more things where they say "You must support/oppose this particular thing fanatically or we will cast you out, heretic". As a result, people are abandoning it in droves, from all political wings of the party.

- the Democratic Party is seizing parts of the former territory of the Republican Party -- the "corporate welfare" and "military industrial complex" positions. This is causing frustrated left-wingers to abandon *it*.

- so the percentage of the population identifying as independents increases every year

- but because of Duverger's Law, the two-party duopoly creaks onward and will continue to do so until there is an even larger critical mass of independents. At which point US politics will suddenly get even more unstable than it is now. Our first-past-the-post election system is very problematic because it does not handle more than two parties well.

- Personally I advocate approval voting, which is simple and comprehensible and eliminates the "spoiler" problem.


----------



## neroden

mfastx said:


> I know many of us enjoy the LD trains, but a much more effective rail network would be corridor service with hubs in major cities and many trains per day with dedicated tracks. LD trains exist because it's the best Amtrak can do since they have no capital funding for their own rail and higher quality/more rolling stock.
> 
> For most of the developed world, LD trains are an excursion type deal, most people don't consider them as an option to get from point A to point B.


Utter, arrant nonsense from someone who hasn't researched the trains in India, Russia, China, or even Western Europe.

Trains running the length of the LSL, Silver Service, CONO, Crescent, etc. are quite common and are used for real transportation.


----------



## henryj

The only real answer to the original question is Amtrak has no future in it's current form. The NEC needs to be a separate entity with it's huge costs and overhead and it can just be supported by the states through which it runs..............Oh yeah, I forgot, it makes money. Blahhahahahah. State supported corridor service can be bid on by any operator, including whatever becomes of Amtrak, but not with Federal tax money. The Long Distance trains should then be operated by a separate, private third party which may or may not be subsidized by the Feds. It's the only way we will ever really find out where all that bloated overhead belongs and which trains really break even or whatever.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> mfastx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know many of us enjoy the LD trains, but a much more effective rail network would be corridor service with hubs in major cities and many trains per day with dedicated tracks. LD trains exist because it's the best Amtrak can do since they have no capital funding for their own rail and higher quality/more rolling stock.
> 
> For most of the developed world, LD trains are an excursion type deal, most people don't consider them as an option to get from point A to point B.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter, arrant nonsense from someone who hasn't researched the trains in India, Russia, China, or even Western Europe.
> 
> Trains running the length of the LSL, Silver Service, CONO, Crescent, etc. are quite common and are used for real transportation.
Click to expand...

This is true. I can indeed see an evolution paralleling what has happened in Europe with overnight and somewhat extended overnight service on select heavily traveled routs augmenting daytime corridor service.


----------



## jis

henryj said:


> The only real answer to the original question is Amtrak has no future in it's current form. The NEC needs to be a separate entity with it's huge costs and overhead and it can just be supported by the states through which it runs..............Oh yeah, I forgot, it makes money. Blahhahahahah. State supported corridor service can be bid on by any operator, including whatever becomes of Amtrak, but not with Federal tax money. The Long Distance trains should then be operated by a separate, private third party which may or may not be subsidized by the Feds. It's the only way we will ever really find out where all that bloated overhead belongs and which trains really break even or whatever.


If anyone ever bothered to read PRIIA 2008 in detail they'd find that almost all of those are currently allowed, and so far in the period since PRIIA 2008 became law (5.5 years now), no one has stepped forward to use any of the provisions in that bill to move towards this direction. One had to drag the states kicking and screaming into taking responsibility for their own service. Somehow all those that were supposed to jump with joy and form a line to take over services have not materialized. I have no idea why not. Just stating what is currently observed.
Surprisingly Boardman's 2015 proposal tries to move further exactly in this direction, separating NEC accounts from everything else, and have clearly identified subsidies in the budget for each of the three segments of Amtrak, and it is the LD train aficionados that are screaming blue murder louder than anyone else. I wonder why. Perhaps the thought of the Acela and Regional revenue gravy train getting constrained for use only on the NEC is scary, I don't know. Afterall the average ticket price on an Acela is now higher than an average LD sleeper ticket price, and the darned things still keep getting sold out!


----------



## guest_nj_2

The government needs to take over train dispatching from private railroads.

Make it similar to the air traffic control system.

Imagine FedEx and UPS owning air traffic control systems -- passenger planes would

never leave the ground while cargo planed would take off/land continuously.

After this takeover, the on-time performance of Amtrak trains will improve dramatically,

and as one of the forum members said already, increase in on-time performance and

reliability of Amtrak trains is the first key step in enhancing the system.

Also, very little in the discussion so far centered on the Amtrak's *REALLY BLOATED

OVERHEAD*. Read: management. 24 "revenue managers", really ??? 4 well-qualified

ones would probably do a better job. In the recent weeks we got a nice information

about salaries at the top of Port Authority of NY and NJ (operating PATH trains, so

there is some relevance here). 150K+ for a person not even remotely qualified for

a job ??? Wonder what the situation at Amtrak management is, but won't be surprised if it is

similar to PANYNJ.


----------



## jis

It will take Amtrak a long time to get to the pure political patronage machine that PANYNJ is. You really have no idea how screwed up that outfit, which is viewed as a piggybank by both Governors, is.

Here is some interesting info about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/nyregion/report-traces-port-authoritys-flaws-to-a-crumbling-business-model.html?_r=2

But this is getting way off topic, suffice it to say that PATH is but a minor part of what PANYNJ does.


----------



## mfastx

neroden said:


> Utter, arrant nonsense from someone who hasn't researched the trains in India, Russia, China, or even Western Europe.
> Trains running the length of the LSL, Silver Service, CONO, Crescent, etc. are quite common and are used for real transportation.


It's not just about length. It's about frequency, speed and reliability as well, which Amtrak's LD trains do not have. And anyway, I was thinking of the LD trains that go through vast stretches of nothingness, arrive at major cities at like 2:00am, frequently are multiple hours late, and take 10 hours to go the same distance that you can drive in half the time.

The trains you listed don't fit into that classification quite as often as routes like the SL, EB, CZ, etc. I never meant to come off as saying LD trains in general can't be used for "real" transportation, but it would be a stretch to consider some of Amtrak's current LD routes viable for "real" transportation.


----------



## afigg

guest_nj_2 said:


> Also, very little in the discussion so far centered on the Amtrak's *REALLY BLOATED
> 
> OVERHEAD*. Read: management. 24 "revenue managers", really ??? 4 well-qualified
> 
> ones would probably do a better job. In the recent weeks we got a nice information
> 
> about salaries at the top of Port Authority of NY and NJ (operating PATH trains, so
> 
> there is some relevance here). 150K+ for a person not even remotely qualified for
> 
> a job ??? Wonder what the situation at Amtrak management is, but won't be surprised if it is
> 
> similar to PANYNJ.


Train dispatching over privately owned freight railroad lines is a very different situation than air traffic control of public airspace. Better to nudge the freight railroads to do a better job of dispatching Amtrak and commuter trains and sweeten the pot with public capital investments for track improvements where it benefits the total transportation infrastructure.

As for PANYNJ, Amtrak can only dream of having the capital funds and revenue that flows through the Port Authority. Which is why the PANYNJ has morphed into a political piggybank for the Governors of both states, as jis notes. There is really no comparison between the two.


----------



## Ryan

Unless you've got budget numbers and a solid plan for how you would do it better (and proof that it would work), talk of "bloated overhead" is nothing more than uninformed bloviating.


----------



## RCrierie

*"What you meant to say here is "most went bankrupt, unable to compete with the massive government subsidies given to other modes of transportation"."*

Actually, what you both meant to say is "most went bankrupt, unable to change their schedules or timetables because the government wouldn't let them." -- both in the pax/freight spheres.

Hell, look at CSX; they weren't profitable until the Staggers Act that allowed CSX to abandon thousands of miles of low traffic, high maintenance lines.


----------



## guest_nj_2

And constantly deflecting any suggestion that Amtrak can be "at fault" of anything is also nothing

else than a pure cheerleading.

The bottom line is that nobody (except a few "chosen ones") knows how much Amtrak managers

make, what their qualifications are and if their salaries are commensurate with the work they are

doing. You can get salary info for many Federal and State employees (Asbury Park Press database,

for example

http://php.app.com/fed_employees13/search.php),

but not about Amtrak managers.

The ultimate "judge" of the efficiency of the management system is the competition (which Amtrak does not have).

Until Amtrak is the only player in the field, there is no way to figure out if its management team is efficient or

not, "bloated" or not, etc. There is no question that Amtrak makes a lot of mistakes (taking certain amenities away

from trains is the most recent one), so constantly repeating "Amtrak is always right" is disingenuous at best.


----------



## henryj

jis said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only real answer to the original question is Amtrak has no future in it's current form. The NEC needs to be a separate entity with it's huge costs and overhead and it can just be supported by the states through which it runs..............Oh yeah, I forgot, it makes money. Blahhahahahah. State supported corridor service can be bid on by any operator, including whatever becomes of Amtrak, but not with Federal tax money. The Long Distance trains should then be operated by a separate, private third party which may or may not be subsidized by the Feds. It's the only way we will ever really find out where all that bloated overhead belongs and which trains really break even or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone ever bothered to read PRIIA 2008 in detail they'd find that almost all of those are currently allowed, and so far in the period since PRIIA 2008 became law (5.5 years now), no one has stepped forward to use any of the provisions in that bill to move towards this direction. One had to drag the states kicking and screaming into taking responsibility for their own service. Somehow all those that were supposed to jump with joy and form a line to take over services have not materialized. I have no idea why not. Just stating what is currently observed.
> Surprisingly Boardman's 2015 proposal tries to move further exactly in this direction, separating NEC accounts from everything else, and have clearly identified subsidies in the budget for each of the three segments of Amtrak, and it is the LD train aficionados that are screaming blue murder louder than anyone else. I wonder why. Perhaps the thought of the Acela and Regional revenue gravy train getting constrained for use only on the NEC is scary, I don't know. Afterall the average ticket price on an Acela is now higher than an average LD sleeper ticket price, and the darned things still keep getting sold out!
Click to expand...

Jis, out here In 'fly over country' I can tell you there is no such screaming. People here believe the LD trains are loaded up with unnecessary overhead to make the NEC look better. And that is supported by rail critics and journalist again and again. I am all for the Acela and Regional money being spent solely on the NEC. Do it now. But take your expenses with you too. Like I said, spin off the LD trains to a separate entity and let it run on it's own. Congress can support it or let it die. But lets end the charade. If the LD trains have to be privitazed then they will cease to be daily transportation options and become truly nothing but trains for tourist that only run at certain times. That would be sad indeed. But lets get these completely different businesses separated. The LD trains may end up in completely separate entities like western, Florida, and the rest. My guess on why hardly anyone is competing with Amtrak on the state corridor trains is equipment availability which will be solved gradually as the states buy their own equipment and of course, Amtrak can bid the job lower by cooking the books which an independent company can not do. Once the businesses are separate, they will not be able to do that.


----------



## jebr

And yet, as far as I have ever seen, you have failed to provide even a speck of concrete evidence to support your cooking the books claim. Or really, any of the claims you make around here.

I'm interested in seeing concrete evidence to back up your claims. Until then, your rantings are nothing more than rantings of a random person on the internet, which may or may not have any relation to actual reality.


----------



## Paulus

There are about 1,855 track-miles in the NEC that Amtrak owns, including Philadelphia to Harrisburg. At a high order expense of $200,000 per mile, that's only $371 million in MOW costs, including both labor and materials. The idea that the LDs are loaded down with the NEC is ridiculous.


----------



## Ryan

jebr said:


> And yet, as far as I have ever seen, you have failed to provide even a speck of concrete evidence to support your cooking the books claim. Or really, any of the claims you make around here.
> 
> I'm interested in seeing concrete evidence to back up your claims. Until then, your rantings are nothing more than rantings of a random person on the internet, which may or may not have any relation to actual reality.


Don't hold your breath. I've been here for 5 years and still haven't seen any.


----------



## henryj

jebr said:


> And yet, as far as I have ever seen, you have failed to provide even a speck of concrete evidence to support your cooking the books claim. Or really, any of the claims you make around here.
> 
> I'm interested in seeing concrete evidence to back up your claims. Until then, your rantings are nothing more than rantings of a random person on the internet, which may or may not have any relation to actual reality.


I am a retired CPA and as far as Amtrak will let us know, I used their own numbers to come up with my conclusions. You can dispute it all you want, but neither you, Ryan or any of the other foamers on here know anything about Amtrak accounting nor can you produce any evidence to support your claims or rantings. You just don't like my ideas nor any others like me that want the NEC spun off to a separate entity. You just want to continue soaking the rest of the country for your little trains. I think it's high time it stopped.


----------



## jebr

henryj said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, as far as I have ever seen, you have failed to provide even a speck of concrete evidence to support your cooking the books claim. Or really, any of the claims you make around here.
> 
> I'm interested in seeing concrete evidence to back up your claims. Until then, your rantings are nothing more than rantings of a random person on the internet, which may or may not have any relation to actual reality.
> 
> 
> 
> I am a retired CPA and as far as Amtrak will let us know, I used their own numbers to come up with my conclusions. You can dispute it all you want, but neither you, Ryan or any of the other foamers on here know anything about Amtrak accounting nor can you produce any evidence to support your claims or rantings. You just don't like my ideas nor any others like me that want the NEC spun off to a separate entity. You just want to continue soaking the rest of the country for your little trains. I think it's high time it stopped.
Click to expand...

I like ideas that have some concrete evidence that I can see. Not just ideas backed by a retired CPA using Amtrak's numbers in some way, but not in a way that we can actually see the actual math that you're using to come to this point, that concludes that Amtrak cooks the books to make the NEC profitable.

By the way, the NEC are about as much "my trains" as they are yours. My only Amtrak train within 250 miles of here is the Empire Builder.


----------



## The Whistler

Lets get back to the facts that air travel and road travel are heavily subsidized by the government. You ride on roads right? The tax payer funds the bulk of the repair work. If you make the argument that government is supposed to turn a profit or else discontinue service, there would be no form of transportation available. Many people who live in small cities and towns along Amtrak routes have no other option available for long distance travel. Isn't government there to serve the public interest in these areas?


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Surprisingly Boardman's 2015 proposal tries to move further exactly in this direction, separating NEC accounts from everything else, and have clearly identified subsidies in the budget for each of the three segments of Amtrak, and it is the LD train aficionados that are screaming blue murder louder than anyone else. I wonder why.


I'm only complaining because I think it's unfair and unreasonable to lump the Lake Shore Limited in with the Sunset Limited. I think the market segmentation is artificial and poorly thought out.
I am genuinely worried that attacks on "long distance trains" will be targeted at the Sunset Limited or Empire Builder or California Zephyr west of Salt Lake City... but will result instead in cuts to the Lake Shore Limited or Silver Service. Which would be, bluntly speaking, dumb.


----------



## CHamilton

Boardman is making the case for support of long-distance trains in local communities like Jackson, MS, and Tuscaloosa, AL. The decision to support passenger rail is increasingly being made in city councils and state legislatures. It's all very well to argue the minutia of Amtrak's budget here, but it would help if all of us spent some time with our local officials, so that they know we want them to support a robust national passenger rail network.


----------



## jis

Amen. Now only if someone can get our resident retired CPA off his attack horse we would be all set. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

A big problem I see is that Amtrak makes RFP's and give them to any companies from any country and tells them to build the deisgn. The thing is, Morrison-Knudson built the Viewliner I, but now CAF is trying to build the Viewliner II, presumably because Morrison-Knudson went bankrupt.

Pullman bult the Superliner I, Bombardier built the Superliner II, but who's gonna built a possible Superliner III? Well Bombarbier is alive, they surely could built it, but the design might end up going to the lowest bidder. What the heck is all this? This is like taking 777 blueprints and giving them to Tupolev, saying "Hey Tupolev, built this 777 with a bit of minor changes." Really?

And why don't Amtrak try good ways to appeal to Congress? For example, Chicago-Denver is quite popular and could use added capacity (Denver Zephyr, anyone?). Amtrak could first go to BNSF and see if they can offer another slot. Then they could go up to Congress and appeal to them, play around with language and graphics, show them why Amtrak deserves $150 million in capital to "double-up" from Chicago to Denver. Maybe even ask UP if they'd be willing to allow an extra frequency all the way to SLC. Seriously, $150 million isn't that much. Streamline service, and Amtrak can get it done. Amtrak needs to appeal to Congress, make good points and they'll get the money sooner or later. Right now Amtrak isn't even trying, they think they should just depend on expanding SD's and asking states to fund them. At least they should try to do something about the LD's!

Yeah, I know I just got some hate for that rant, but you'll hate me even more when I tell you that Amtrak's not exciting or interesting at all, drivng away younger riders like me. I know some even younger railfans who have dropped Amtrak just because in this changing world, Amtrak's not changing enough.

JMO.


----------



## JayPea

Swadian Hardcore said:


> A big problem I see is that Amtrak makes RFP's and give them to any companies from any country and tells them to build the deisgn. The thing is, Morrison-Knudson built the Viewliner I, but now CAF is trying to build the Viewliner II, presumably because Morrison-Knudson went bankrupt.
> 
> Pullman bult the Superliner I, Bombardier built the Superliner II, but who's gonna built a possible Superliner III? Well Bombarbier is alive, they surely could built it, but the design might end up going to the lowest bidder. What the heck is all this? This is like taking 777 blueprints and giving them to Tupolev, saying "Hey Tupolev, built this 777 with a bit of minor changes." Really?
> 
> And why don't Amtrak try good ways to appeal to Congress? For example, Chicago-Denver is quite popular and could use added capacity (Denver Zephyr, anyone?). Amtrak could first go to BNSF and see if they can offer another slot. Then they could go up to Congress and appeal to them, play around with language and graphics, show them why Amtrak deserves $150 million in capital to "double-up" from Chicago to Denver. Maybe even ask UP if they'd be willing to allow an extra frequency all the way to SLC. Seriously, $150 million isn't that much. Streamline service, and Amtrak can get it done. Amtrak needs to appeal to Congress, make good points and they'll get the money sooner or later. Right now Amtrak isn't even trying, they think they should just depend on expanding SD's and asking states to fund them. At least they should try to do something about the LD's!
> 
> Yeah, I know I just got some hate for that rant, but you'll hate me even more when I tell you that Amtrak's not exciting or interesting at all, drivng away younger riders like me. I know some even younger railfans who have dropped Amtrak just because in this changing world, Amtrak's not changing enough.
> 
> JMO.


There certainly seems to be a lot of younger riders on the trains I've ridden. A very large percentage of the passengers on any train I've ridden fall into what I'd term the "younger" category. And even though I can't offer detailed statistic analysis, from what I remember and what I have observed, there have been more and more of the younger age riding Amtrak.


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> A big problem I see is that Amtrak makes RFP's and give them to any companies from any country and tells them to build the deisgn. The thing is, Morrison-Knudson built the Viewliner I, but now CAF is trying to build the Viewliner II, presumably because Morrison-Knudson went bankrupt.
> 
> Pullman bult the Superliner I, Bombardier built the Superliner II, but who's gonna built a possible Superliner III? Well Bombarbier is alive, they surely could built it, but the design might end up going to the lowest bidder. What the heck is all this? This is like taking 777 blueprints and giving them to Tupolev, saying "Hey Tupolev, built this 777 with a bit of minor changes." Really?


It is nothing like that at all.
Amtrak gives requirements in RFP's that may include some details like "use the FRA standard shell specification". The responders respond with proposals on how they will meet the requirements and at what cost and then Amtrak chooses what it considers to be the best offer, and places an order with the vendor making that winning proposal.

it is more like United Airline selecting between Airbus and Boeing to provide aircraft that meet the requirements specified in United's RFP. If Boeing wins United buys 737, if Airbus wins it buys A320 or something like that. That is how competitive bid based procurement works everywhere, and it should for Amtrak too. It helps keep arms length separation between vendors and consumers and is generally considered a good thing in terms of avoiding formation of cartels which eventually leads to vendor lock in and price gouging down the line.

There is no guarantee that Morrison-Knudsen would have got this round of order even if they existed, and actually through M&A they do still exist in the form of Alstom USA, at least the part of Morrison-Knudsen that became Amerail and manufactured all but the first four Viewliner Is, looking at builder's plates. All their assets were acquired by Alstom. Of course Alstom did not get the contract for the Viewliner IIs.

As for Superliner IIIs, the company building the Corridor bilevels definitely would appear to have the inside track on that rather than Bombardier. Afterall those cars are compliant with the FRA bilevel specification, the Superliners are not quite so. Technology has moved on a bit in 30 years, and it would be unfortunately if we simply reverted back to the old times without taking advantage of technological advances.


----------



## neroden

CHamilton said:


> Boardman is making the case for support of long-distance trains in local communities like Jackson, MS, and Tuscaloosa, AL. The decision to support passenger rail is increasingly being made in city councils and state legislatures. It's all very well to argue the minutia of Amtrak's budget here, but it would help if all of us spent some time with our local officials, so that they know we want them to support a robust national passenger rail network.


My local county is burning money trying to promote its airport. It's going to be hard to convince them that they should instead be advocating to restore passenger service. :-( I'll give it a TRY...


----------



## Jackson Whole

The Whistler said:


> Lets get back to the facts that air travel and road travel are heavily subsidized by the government. You ride on roads right? The tax payer funds the bulk of the repair work. If you make the argument that government is supposed to turn a profit or else discontinue service, there would be no form of transportation available. Many people who live in small cities and towns along Amtrak routes have no other option available for long distance travel. Isn't government there to serve the public interest in these areas?


Road construction and maintenance are backed by high fuel taxes and a trust fund. Similarly, airports are supported by rather high passenger fees (look at a recent ticket), landing fees, aviation fuel taxes, and there is a trust fund. I'm not claiming use of these tax revenues are prudent and the trust funds are well-managed, they are not, but the mechanisms for self-funding are there.
Passenger trains? Oh yeah, there's a trust fund, for retirement pensions. Sorry, there's no there there.


----------



## Ryan

What fantasyland do you live in where fuel taxes are sufficient to pay for all road construction and maintenance?


----------



## Paulus

RyanS said:


> What fantasyland do you live in where fuel taxes are sufficient to pay for all road construction and maintenance?


Fuel and related taxes should be enough to account for maintenance, that's pretty cheap (Wisconsin is about $5,000 per lane mile; about 2,500 cars per day at 14 cents per gallon and 25 miles to the gallon). Construction is another matter entirely, but subsidy complaints are generally in relation to operations, not capital investment.


----------



## boxcarsyix

Jackson Whole said:


> The Whistler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets get back to the facts that air travel and road travel are heavily subsidized by the government. You ride on roads right? The tax payer funds the bulk of the repair work. If you make the argument that government is supposed to turn a profit or else discontinue service, there would be no form of transportation available. Many people who live in small cities and towns along Amtrak routes have no other option available for long distance travel. Isn't government there to serve the public interest in these areas?
> 
> 
> 
> Road construction and maintenance are backed by high fuel taxes and a trust fund. Similarly, airports are supported by rather high passenger fees (look at a recent ticket), landing fees, aviation fuel taxes, and there is a trust fund. I'm not claiming use of these tax revenues are prudent and the trust funds are well-managed, they are not, but the mechanisms for self-funding are there.
> Passenger trains? Oh yeah, there's a trust fund, for retirement pensions. Sorry, there's no there there.
Click to expand...

A lot of airport construction/upgrades are paid for by federal USDOT grants.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

First of all, before I begin with my reply, I need to apologize for the length of time my reply to my own questions have taken. I had some answers, which have changed a little with your response, but I have also been so far unable to fully rid myself of what I caught on my trip (actually, since my father has been ill with the same problem since well before my trip and has in fact contracted pneumonia, I suspect I got it from my parents. But whatever.) and thus have have not had the chance to reply.

Another quick point I want to make is to tell you not to try too hard to interpolate my general political positions either from my original post in this topic, or my reply here. You won’t succeed, mostly because my general political viewpoints do not particularly influence my positions on this job. I learned very quickly as an advocate in New Jersey that if I want to fight one war effectively, I can’t attempt to fight other wars in the process. So, as I remind some of my colleagues, I am in the business of fixing transit in New Jersey. I really don’t fight battles on behalf of national rail. I don’t fight other problems in New Jersey either, such as political corruption. I can try to fight for better New Jersey transit or I can fight the New Jersey political machine- I can’t do both. 

Therefore, as in my New Jersey advocacy, I have learned to simply accept the reality in which I fight. Much of what Neroden outlined is pretty accurate about the changing facets of the parties. The political reality is this country is basically dysfunctional, with the vast majority of the public siding with the public image of one party or the other, many without either realizing its mostly a public face, or realizing that supporting that public image is generally more to their detriment than their benefit. I am not going to change that. You are not going to change that. Amtrak is not going to change that.

I do like traditional railroading myself. I wish there was a way to sustain and grow the system into a functional transportation network with many more trains and better coverage while maintaining Santa Fe Super Chief onboard levels of service, or even the pale facsimile of it Amtrak has been trying to provide since its inception. But there isn’t. This is a congress that likes attacking anything that might possibly be seen as an excess that serves the public. Living with that political reality, the purpose of this post was to try to sustain Amtrak’s Long Distance service through it in the best way possible. 

Aging ridership on the long distance trains is a statistical reality, especially in the sleepers. Please don’t make the mistake of interpreting what you see with your own eyes- your eyes only see whats in front of you, and your brain only interprets it through the filter of your own beliefs. Your eyes are often bigger liars than the statistics Mark Twain was complaining about. We are not talking about the idea that as people get older they have a bigger chance of affording riding the train, especially in sleeper. That thinking almost killed General Motors. Oh, and by the way Neroden, I AM a state advocate, not a national one. I know some national people, but my focus is local and has been for years. Local New Jersey organized advocacy is aging into the grave.

My answer to aging ridership? Amtrak needs to recognize certain youth trends and recognize, for instance, that they don’t expect certain things that older people do, and cut those amenities in order to free up money for the amenities that younger people do want and expect. Younger people do expect free wi-fi on the trains, including long distance ones. (No, I don’t like it anymore than a lot of us would, but it is the truth!) Younger people consider the food on Amtrak absolutely fine. Concentrating on it is silly. Younger people, however, do not like the lack of cleanliness of long distance equipment, and especially the lack of showers for coach passengers. They don’t remember that trains never had trains in the past, or the traditions surrounding that. All they know is they want to take a shower and they can’t. More things along those lines are also relevant. Reconfiguring the “Ladies Lounge” in the Superliner coach might be a good idea. 

The next point is food service losses on Long Distance trains. I thought about it. The Cross Country Cafe may have been a badly executed, poorly thought out idea that was nonetheless stabbing in the right direction. The Texas Eagle’s early model for Sightseer Lounge (I dunno if they still do it) of not staffing the lounge car might hit it right on the head. The big problem is labor. Another big problem is that in a lot of trains there is not enough lounge space.

Lets take the design of the Cross Country Cafe and play around with it a little. We replace the missing dumbwaiter, the removal of which was unquestionably a bad idea. We reconfigure the kitchen, allowing us to move the dumbwaiter all the way to one end of the kitchen (possibly less than idea, but with careful reconfiguration of the kitchen it may be possible to actually improve flow in the kitchen- I’m not sure, I’m not a chef). In doing this, we move the upstairs preparation all the way to one end of the car. We use the design of the CCCs preparation station, or something similar to it, to provide a snack counter facing the lounge car. We lose one set of seats, unfortunately. Some of the kitchen can probably be reconfigured for storage- with the modern food preparation, some of it is likely redundant. I have also redesigned the single level diner along similar lines, to show it can be done on the single level trains, too, and have provided redesigns of the lounge cars as well. 

First of all lounge seating on Single Level trains goes up from 50 to 74 (almost 50% increase) and on Sightseers from the current configuration of 84 to 107. Diner space on single levels remains the same, and you lose 8 seats in the Superliner diner, same as a current CCC configuration. But this also allows for a complete change of the diner ordering and serving mechanism. 

Sleeping car passengers are still be provided a meal with their rooms, however that meal (there is no reason that meal has to change from its current style/configuration/pricing under this model, by the way) will be ordered at the time of the dinner reservation, which will be done by the SCA and delivered to the dining car. That dinner reservation will include a table number. When that table is ready, their number will be called. They will go into the diner and sit at the table number according to their reservation. The meal will be delivered to the passenger. At the conclusion of the meal, the passenger leaves. Coach passengers will be served the same way, except they will order from the snack counter, and be given a similar reservation with table number and time.

There are huge advantages to this configuration. Since the meal will be delivered on trays, the dining crew does not need to set the table. They don’t need to take orders. All they have to do is deliver the food, and clear the table (no table cloth, easy clean surface, fast table clean). So you will have one food service car, staffed by three people. A chef, who will cook the food. An SA, who will serve the food. And an LSA who will staff the snack bar. This eliminates the lounge car LSA and one or two SAs. This should cut the labor cost for food service on long distance trains in half or better. For a few of those trains it will let the trains turn a profit on food service, and on others it will greatly reduce loss. I think it will in fact decrease loss by as much as $50 million a year. 

But it should also largely preserve the bulk of the passenger experience. It should maintain reasonable food preparation on the trains. It should allow for sit-down meals in the dining car that we are all so fond of to continue for many years to come. It will be, perhaps, a little cut down in experience. But it will also cost a hell of a lot less money to operate. It does not require the implementation of unreliable technology. It does not exclude coach passengers from the meal experience. It should, in fact, increase diner throughput a little bit. And it should improve the lounge car seating and availablilty. And by the way, solutions like this were the kind of out of the box thinking I had in mind. 

It also ties in to ordering the new cars for long distance services. It requires replacing dining cars with Diner/Cafe cars, and it requires designing lounge cars that are pure lounge cars. Since the lounge cars won’t have food equipment in them, and perhaps shouldn’t have bathrooms in them either, they should be cheap to maintain- no more expensive then a nice commuter coach. It also, of course, decreases the price of building these lounge cars. The cheaper they are, the easier they are to sell to Congress, or the easier it is for Amtrak to manage to afford self-funding it. 

I also looked into that really fond idea of a bunch of people- the mid-priced/halfway sleeper. I don’t think they are economically viable. First of all, the only logical configuration for such a car is a sectional sleeper. Otherwise, the capacity of the car is not going to be high enough to ever justify. A pure section sleeper Superliner would have a capacity of 52 passengers, but the way the bed would have to be configured would leave an upper section that would be extraordinarily undesirable, and therefore probably not sell well. A pure section Viewliner sleeper, configured somehow to allow for unattended sleeper turndown (again required for economic viability) has a capacity of 40, and could be configured so it is desirable, but it would have to charge a minimum of 50% more for a ticket than a coach ticket. Feel free to debate this. 

Here’s the important point- Amtrak claims that the long distance trains cost them $600 million a year in losses. I have also heard from several sources I trust that the actual cost savings of removing them from service is about $500 million a year. For various reasons, I choose to believe them, not that it matters. With sleeping car increases and coach car increases on the long distance trains, plus a cut in some of their losses, I think it is possible to bring the shorter long distance trains (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, Crescent, and City of New Orleans) to profitability. The Auto Train, by the way, is not capable of being profitable, nor is the concept. Allocating its full costs to it (including having its own stations and the cost of handling the damned automobiles) makes it one of the biggest money losers in the system. I advocate for its discontinuance. They could add a sleeper apiece to the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and Capitol Limited, and coaches to a bunch of trains with better chances of operational success.

IF WE CAN MAKE THOSE TRAINS PROFITABLE we can then convince congress that there is viability for 1000-1500 mile long distance trains. E.G. a third Florida frequency, a Broadway route train, a Denver Zephyr, a Spirit of California, a night train to Minneapolis, a night train to Montreal, a night train to Toronto, a Texas Chief, etc. That would be wonderful.


----------



## tonys96

Green Maned Lion said:


> First of all, before I begin with my reply, I need to apologize for the length of time my reply to my own questions have taken. I had some answers, which have changed a little with your response, but I have also been so far unable to fully rid myself of what I caught on my trip (actually, since my father has been ill with the same problem since well before my trip and has in fact contracted pneumonia, I suspect I got it from my parents. But whatever.) and thus have have not had the chance to reply.
> 
> Another quick point I want to make is to tell you not to try too hard to interpolate my general political positions either from my original post in this topic, or my reply here. You won’t succeed, mostly because my general political viewpoints do not particularly influence my positions on this job. I learned very quickly as an advocate in New Jersey that if I want to fight one war effectively, I can’t attempt to fight other wars in the process. So, as I remind some of my colleagues, I am in the business of fixing transit in New Jersey. I really don’t fight battles on behalf of national rail. I don’t fight other problems in New Jersey either, such as political corruption. I can try to fight for better New Jersey transit or I can fight the New Jersey political machine- I can’t do both.
> 
> Therefore, as in my New Jersey advocacy, I have learned to simply accept the reality in which I fight. Much of what Neroden outlined is pretty accurate about the changing facets of the parties. The political reality is this country is basically dysfunctional, with the vast majority of the public siding with the public image of one party or the other, many without either realizing its mostly a public face, or realizing that supporting that public image is generally more to their detriment than their benefit. I am not going to change that. You are not going to change that. Amtrak is not going to change that.
> 
> I do like traditional railroading myself. I wish there was a way to sustain and grow the system into a functional transportation network with many more trains and better coverage while maintaining Santa Fe Super Chief onboard levels of service, or even the pale facsimile of it Amtrak has been trying to provide since its inception. But there isn’t. This is a congress that likes attacking anything that might possibly be seen as an excess that serves the public. Living with that political reality, the purpose of this post was to try to sustain Amtrak’s Long Distance service through it in the best way possible.
> 
> Aging ridership on the long distance trains is a statistical reality, especially in the sleepers. Please don’t make the mistake of interpreting what you see with your own eyes- your eyes only see whats in front of you, and your brain only interprets it through the filter of your own beliefs. Your eyes are often bigger liars than the statistics Mark Twain was complaining about. We are not talking about the idea that as people get older they have a bigger chance of affording riding the train, especially in sleeper. That thinking almost killed General Motors. Oh, and by the way Neroden, I AM a state advocate, not a national one. I know some national people, but my focus is local and has been for years. Local New Jersey organized advocacy is aging into the grave.
> 
> My answer to aging ridership? Amtrak needs to recognize certain youth trends and recognize, for instance, that they don’t expect certain things that older people do, and cut those amenities in order to free up money for the amenities that younger people do want and expect. Younger people do expect free wi-fi on the trains, including long distance ones. (No, I don’t like it anymore than a lot of us would, but it is the truth!) Younger people consider the food on Amtrak absolutely fine. Concentrating on it is silly. Younger people, however, do not like the lack of cleanliness of long distance equipment, and especially the lack of showers for coach passengers. They don’t remember that trains never had trains in the past, or the traditions surrounding that. All they know is they want to take a shower and they can’t. More things along those lines are also relevant. Reconfiguring the “Ladies Lounge” in the Superliner coach might be a good idea.
> 
> The next point is food service losses on Long Distance trains. I thought about it. The Cross Country Cafe may have been a badly executed, poorly thought out idea that was nonetheless stabbing in the right direction. The Texas Eagle’s early model for Sightseer Lounge (I dunno if they still do it) of not staffing the lounge car might hit it right on the head. The big problem is labor. Another big problem is that in a lot of trains there is not enough lounge space.
> 
> Lets take the design of the Cross Country Cafe and play around with it a little. We replace the missing dumbwaiter, the removal of which was unquestionably a bad idea. We reconfigure the kitchen, allowing us to move the dumbwaiter all the way to one end of the kitchen (possibly less than idea, but with careful reconfiguration of the kitchen it may be possible to actually improve flow in the kitchen- I’m not sure, I’m not a chef). In doing this, we move the upstairs preparation all the way to one end of the car. We use the design of the CCCs preparation station, or something similar to it, to provide a snack counter facing the lounge car. We lose one set of seats, unfortunately. Some of the kitchen can probably be reconfigured for storage- with the modern food preparation, some of it is likely redundant. I have also redesigned the single level diner along similar lines, to show it can be done on the single level trains, too, and have provided redesigns of the lounge cars as well.
> 
> First of all lounge seating on Single Level trains goes up from 50 to 74 (almost 50% increase) and on Sightseers from the current configuration of 84 to 107. Diner space on single levels remains the same, and you lose 8 seats in the Superliner diner, same as a current CCC configuration. But this also allows for a complete change of the diner ordering and serving mechanism.
> 
> Sleeping car passengers are still be provided a meal with their rooms, however that meal (there is no reason that meal has to change from its current style/configuration/pricing under this model, by the way) will be ordered at the time of the dinner reservation, which will be done by the SCA and delivered to the dining car. That dinner reservation will include a table number. When that table is ready, their number will be called. They will go into the diner and sit at the table number according to their reservation. The meal will be delivered to the passenger. At the conclusion of the meal, the passenger leaves. Coach passengers will be served the same way, except they will order from the snack counter, and be given a similar reservation with table number and time.
> 
> There are huge advantages to this configuration. Since the meal will be delivered on trays, the dining crew does not need to set the table. They don’t need to take orders. All they have to do is deliver the food, and clear the table (no table cloth, easy clean surface, fast table clean). So you will have one food service car, staffed by three people. A chef, who will cook the food. An SA, who will serve the food. And an LSA who will staff the snack bar. This eliminates the lounge car LSA and one or two SAs. This should cut the labor cost for food service on long distance trains in half or better. For a few of those trains it will let the trains turn a profit on food service, and on others it will greatly reduce loss. I think it will in fact decrease loss by as much as $50 million a year.
> 
> But it should also largely preserve the bulk of the passenger experience. It should maintain reasonable food preparation on the trains. It should allow for sit-down meals in the dining car that we are all so fond of to continue for many years to come. It will be, perhaps, a little cut down in experience. But it will also cost a hell of a lot less money to operate. It does not require the implementation of unreliable technology. It does not exclude coach passengers from the meal experience. It should, in fact, increase diner throughput a little bit. And it should improve the lounge car seating and availablilty. And by the way, solutions like this were the kind of out of the box thinking I had in mind.
> 
> It also ties in to ordering the new cars for long distance services. It requires replacing dining cars with Diner/Cafe cars, and it requires designing lounge cars that are pure lounge cars. Since the lounge cars won’t have food equipment in them, and perhaps shouldn’t have bathrooms in them either, they should be cheap to maintain- no more expensive then a nice commuter coach. It also, of course, decreases the price of building these lounge cars. The cheaper they are, the easier they are to sell to Congress, or the easier it is for Amtrak to manage to afford self-funding it.
> 
> I also looked into that really fond idea of a bunch of people- the mid-priced/halfway sleeper. I don’t think they are economically viable. First of all, the only logical configuration for such a car is a sectional sleeper. Otherwise, the capacity of the car is not going to be high enough to ever justify. A pure section sleeper Superliner would have a capacity of 52 passengers, but the way the bed would have to be configured would leave an upper section that would be extraordinarily undesirable, and therefore probably not sell well. A pure section Viewliner sleeper, configured somehow to allow for unattended sleeper turndown (again required for economic viability) has a capacity of 40, and could be configured so it is desirable, but it would have to charge a minimum of 50% more for a ticket than a coach ticket. Feel free to debate this.
> 
> Here’s the important point- Amtrak claims that the long distance trains cost them $600 million a year in losses. I have also heard from several sources I trust that the actual cost savings of removing them from service is about $500 million a year. For various reasons, I choose to believe them, not that it matters. With sleeping car increases and coach car increases on the long distance trains, plus a cut in some of their losses, I think it is possible to bring the shorter long distance trains (Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, Crescent, and City of New Orleans) to profitability. The Auto Train, by the way, is not capable of being profitable, nor is the concept. Allocating its full costs to it (including having its own stations and the cost of handling the damned automobiles) makes it one of the biggest money losers in the system. I advocate for its discontinuance. They could add a sleeper apiece to the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and Capitol Limited, and coaches to a bunch of trains with better chances of operational success.
> 
> IF WE CAN MAKE THOSE TRAINS PROFITABLE we can then convince congress that there is viability for 1000-1500 mile long distance trains. E.G. a third Florida frequency, a Broadway route train, a Denver Zephyr, a Spirit of California, a night train to Minneapolis, a night train to Montreal, a night train to Toronto, a Texas Chief, etc. That would be wonderful.


None of this will happen.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

*Citation needed.


----------



## tonys96

Will be withdrawn_* IF*_ any of this ever happens. Fair enough?


----------



## the Other Mike

No matter how hard I try to read this topic, all I hear is an argument in a pet shop about a dead parrot :giggle:


----------



## tonys96

the Other Mike said:


> No matter how hard I try to read this topic, all I hear is an argument in a pet shop about a dead parrot :giggle:


----------



## henryj

GML, I will give you some answers. First of all, all you want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding yes , yes, yes to everything you, Ryan and the rest post. You really don't want any other ideas. Second, you are obsessed with food. Third your ideas are bogus and will never happen. Fourth, Amtrak's citation of over 600 million in losses in 2013 are mainly bogus and that has been documented by many writers and rail analyst. There is no way trains running on some one else's track incur that much overhead. The largest expenses are maintenance of equipment, T&E labor, OBS labor, fuel and rent in that order. The LD trains incurred operating loses of around 120 million last year. Auto train is the biggest money maker Amtrak has in the LD market, not the biggest loser as you surmise. Food service costs are a minor irritant in all this and can easily be fixed. My suggestion is stick to fixing up New Jersey........it needs it, and forget LD trains. You don't know anything about them.

jf



Green Maned Lion said:


> *Citation needed.


----------



## JayPea

henryj said:


> GML, I will give you some answers. First of all, all you want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding yes , yes, yes to everything you, Ryan and the rest post. You really don't want any other ideas. Second, you are obsessed with food. Third your ideas are bogus and will never happen. Fourth, Amtrak's citation of over 600 million in losses in 2013 are mainly bogus and that has been documented by many writers and rail analyst. There is no way trains running on some one else's track incur that much overhead. The largest expenses are maintenance of equipment, T&E labor, OBS labor, fuel and rent in that order. The LD trains incurred operating loses of around 120 million last year. Auto train is the biggest money maker Amtrak has in the LD market, not the biggest loser as you surmise. Food service costs are a minor irritant in all this and can easily be fixed. My suggestion is stick to fixing up New Jersey........it needs it, and forget LD trains. You don't know anything about them.
> 
> jf
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Citation needed.
Click to expand...


I was saving my last bag of microwave popcorn for a special occasion, and I think I have found just such an occasion.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

henryj said:


> GML, I will give you some answers. First of all, all you want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding yes , yes, yes to everything you, Ryan and the rest post. You really don't want any other ideas. Second, you are obsessed with food. Third your ideas are bogus and will never happen. Fourth, Amtrak's citation of over 600 million in losses in 2013 are mainly bogus and that has been documented by many writers and rail analyst. There is no way trains running on some one else's track incur that much overhead. The largest expenses are maintenance of equipment, T&E labor, OBS labor, fuel and rent in that order. The LD trains incurred operating loses of around 120 million last year. Auto train is the biggest money maker Amtrak has in the LD market, not the biggest loser as you surmise. Food service costs are a minor irritant in all this and can easily be fixed. My suggestion is stick to fixing up New Jersey........it needs it, and forget LD trains. You don't know anything about them.
> 
> jf


The last thing I want in this topic is bobble heads going yes. What I want, Henry, is valid arguments for or against my specific points, with valid data to back them up. Fine, my ideas are bad, in your opinion. Excellent. You think the LDs only lose $120 million? Excellent.

Fine then. First, cite some data to back up that which you are stating. Second, since my ideas are invalid and will never happen, I invite you to come up with your own ideas. The reports I have read state the loss is at $600 million. The internal information states the loss at $500 million. So, Mr. Accountant, if you can't back up your statement, I give you $500 million in losses. If you can back up your information, than you give me the loss numbers you have, specifically, backed up, and then you take those loss numbers and give me ideas on how to close them.

I want disagreement, yes. I want backed up disagreements and new ideas to supplement them. I'm totally and honestly serious here. Lets come up with some ideas for Amtrak's future given the actual political parameters we live in and the facts as they stand (I feel I laid them out correctly, but feel free to cite information that disputes them, and then sort it out using the facts you have found). We both have accounting backgrounds, Mr. J. I can read the data you provide. But fight with facts, not vitriol.

If my supplier and I can argue civilly over a $25,000 balance disagreement, and solve it by trading paperwork back and forth, than I see no reason why intelligent, reasonable people can't have an unemotional debate about Amtrak and back up each point with facts and citations.


----------



## tonys96

_"The internal information states the loss at $500 million." *_

** Citation Needed.*


----------



## tonys96

Goals like “operational self-sufficiency,” “profit” or “minimize federal operating support” are neither reasonable nor sound public policy objectives. Their effect is to block improvements needed to modernize the nation’s intercity passenger train system and rejuvenate our increasingly expensive and dysfunctional transportation system. The driving purpose should be to harvest the public benefits that trains produce for the communities they serve and for the nation as a whole.


----------



## henryj

Ok, GML I will try this one more time just for you. I gave you my two cents worth a few pages back and I got no reaction nor response from you then. You want specifics and ‘citations’. Good luck with that. Amtrak doesn’t publish operating costs nor avoidable costs. To get those you have to extract specific costs from various Amtrak reports and extrapolate them to the different trains. To get that ‘ball park’ close you have to know what equipment is being used on each train and how many OBS and T&E personnel are on board. I try to get as close as I can for each train. That is how I get the operating loss of $120 million. Amtrak says these trains cost $634 million a year to run. If you read Trains magazine or Railway Age or other railroad related periodicals or web sites, then you have surely noticed that everyone doubts Amtrak’s allocation of overhead and everyone believes it is overstated for the LD trains for whatever reason. Then you have Amtrak’s accounting system, which by all evaluations is junk science. Amtrak allocates 80% of it’s costs. The industry standard is more like 20%. What this means is Amtrak does not really know what it costs to run these 15 trains. To do the PIP’s I am sure they had to do special studies and analysis to get the numbers in those. It also means that for a troubled train like the EB those extra costs will never be reflected on that train specifically. They will just be spread across all Amtrak’s operations. Revenue, if affected, might be shown on the reports, but expenses will not. What my analysis shows is to have any effect on costs for these 15 trains you have to do something dramatic. Adding or subtracting a car here and there does nothing. Same for personnel. Food service, for instance, is small potatoes. So what is the answer?

In my opinion, and it is just that, you have to separate the operation of these trains from the whole of Amtrak. Why? Because Amtrak is pre-occupied with running the NEC and always will be. It’s a busy railroad and takes most of their time and effort and incurs most of their overhead expenses. Amtrak is three very different animals. The NEC, the State operated corridor services and the long distance trains. Once the LD trains are under different management that is dedicated to only those trains, you will get better reports, evaluations, service and results. And this may be where Boardman is trying to take Amtrak, who knows. In conjunction with this re-organization you would have to remove the Superliners from the CONO and the Capitol and replace them with single level equipment and make the other changes I have recommended. That frees up enough superliner equipment to serve the remaining western trains and make the Sunset daily without having to order any new equipment for the immediate future. Since most of these train operate out of Chicago, I would move the main maintenance base to some western suburb there or perhaps to a non-union, right to work state. The Eastern trains would have their own maintenance base somewhere else, maybe where it is now. If the demographics are deteriorating as you state, then you will have to start advertising to attract younger people. I never see an Amtrak add in this area. Congress will have to fund these changes for some time, so getting them on board is important. However, with dedicated management these trains can be successful and if they are the route structure could even be expanded. As for the trains themselves, surely you can see that each train is different. They have to be designed to cater to the market they serve and the markets can be very different. This discussion could go on forever. But the first step is to separate operation of these 15 trains from the rest of Amtrak. To trash these trains you are talking about throwing away almost $570 million in revenue and laying off thousands of employees. I believe that is unacceptable to even a tea party congress.


----------



## haolerider

hanryj: in all your discussions you have indicated you calculate costs based on assumptions you have made regarding staffing on individual long distance trains; however I have never seen your figures for these individual trains, nor do I think you have accurate numbers. I have also never seen any figures for the operational support staff for these long distance trains, such as train foreman, station staff, operational management, maintenance staff, etc. do you have this information specifically for each long distance train? What about your assumptions regarding headquarters staff dedicated to long distance trains? Do you have these figures? how do you make your assumptions for your allocation of marketing and advertising for these trains or for customer service/reservations staff? Assumptions are sometimes OK if you have some real figures to back them up, but if you claim long a several million dollar difference in losses, that is a pretty big gap that seems to be made up of lots of assumptions. Please for once, give us real figures for individual trains and then maybe we can begin to fill in the gaps and have an intelligent discussion


----------



## neroden

haloerider: This is a good point. You can't estimate staffing per train, you have to count. I managed to dig out train staffing information from various people's comments: the "blue book" gives sleeping car attendants, coach attendants, cafe attendants; others have given the union rules for allocation of assistant conductors and the exact number of dining car staff in use at any given time on a particular train.

The station support staff is much harder to figure -- I think you'd have to stop at each station and assess its staffing.

The maintenance staff *isn't actually assigned to specific trains*, meaning it's impossible to *really* figure out how much is appropriately allocated to a particular train. The same staff in Chicago does running maintenance on the Hoosier State and the Cardinal and the Empire Builder and the Hiawatha and the Southwest Chief and the Wolverine.

Amtrak seems to use a particularly half-assed method to wildly guess how much of their time is spent on the long-distance trains, but there's no *good* method, without knowing a great deal of the internals of the staffing procedures. But given what's come out about operations at Chicago, with workers slacking off and lying to their bosses, it doesn't make sense to penalize ANY of the trains for the high cost of running maintenance at Chicago; this is a problem of Chicago yard operations, period!

Which is why I have said in other places that the overhead -- including things like Chicago yard operations -- needs to be simply broken out separately, NOT allocated to trains. It doesn't go away if you cancel the trains, unless you shut down ALL the trains (LD and corridor alike), which won't happen.

Overhead allocation is a *pricing* tool used by companies which have third-party contracts in order to attempt to make enough profits to cover overhead, and as such it can be a useful tool. It has nothing to do with the real cost of running an operation, and should NEVER be used as a tool for deciding what services to start or cancel; that way lies madness. Unfortunately, for decades Amtrak has been using this madness in all of its reports.

If you're trying to determine "how much route X costs to run", allocation of capital expenses to specific routes (which so far has not really been done) is a substantially more legitimate accounting maneuver than allocation of overhead.

Thankfully, Amtrak has given us actual direct costs for trains, two or three times. See below.

---

GML:

Page 69 of Amtrak's recent mega-report gives (revenue - costs) for the LD trains as a group, on a "direct costs" basis, in the middle of the page -- before loading them up with largely arbitrary allocations of overhead on the bottom half of the page.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/458/748/FY14-Budget-Business-Plan-FY15-Budget-Justification-FY14-18-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf

The cost of the entire LD system is estimated at $142.8 million for FY2014. The joke numbers of 600 million or more are all from overhead allocation.

Boardman broke down the direct costs picture more carefully in a presentation a year back:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/778/373/Amtrak-Covers-88-Percent-of-Operating-Costs-ATK-13-022.pdf

(Look at page 9.) These numbers are consistent with the numbers on page 69 of the megareport.

The California Zephyr *is* actually soaking up a lot of money on operations (~31 million), *before* overhead allocation. The Palmetto is operations-profitable before overhead allocation (~5 million), while the Auto Train is breaking even.

I believe (though I cannot of course prove it) that an even more careful analysis would reveal that the Chicago-Denver operations of the California Zephyr cost relatively little to operate, while the Denver-California operations are eating the bulk of that ~$31 million / year. (Chicago-Denver would use 1/3 of the equipment, with no mountains to eat fuel or slow the train down, and has over half of the passengers.)

The PIPs gave direct costs numbers in some cases as well.

---

The recent mega-report had a lot of meaningless corporate-speak in it. But here are two things they said about the "long distance business unit" which I actually hope they do, though I seriously doubt that they will (given that they've ignored the PIPs):



> We will identify opportunities to serve new groups of customers and existing customers better, through a review and refurbishment of existing Long-Distance services, potentially including new routes, more frequent routes, or additional on-board services.





> Long-Distance will develop services for city pairs less than 750 miles aboard Long-
> 
> Distance trains to serve markets not currently served by a State-Supported Corridor.


Consider that Buffalo (NY) - Chicago, Rochester (NY) - Chicago, and Syracuse (NY) - Chicago are all under 750 miles, and you may see why I think that the distinction between "long distance" and "corridor" trains is artificial and misleading. If Amtrak figures this out themselves, it would be nice. Yes, I'd take a second frequency from Syracuse to Chicago -- a day train.


----------



## jis

The 750 mile number was dreamed up between FRA (the Executive Branch of the government) and the Legislature, when putting together PRIIA 2008. I am not sure Amtrak was given an opportunity to actually challenge and fix that in any reasonable way, without having something worse foisted on them in exchange in some other area like LD trains. Remember PRIIA Section 209 was part of a deal to maintain funding for LD trains AFAIR. But I could be wrong of course.

Similarly, many of the odd accounting and cost allocation rules actually emanate from the FRA which was tasked to come up with such by Congress. So no amount of bad mouthing Amtrak will fix any of that.


----------



## neroden

So, GML, now that we know and agree that the LD trains cost $142.8 million to run as a group, here's my thoughts.

I believe that asking for Amtrak to be profitable is ridiculous, since we don't ask for the roads to be profitable. Or the airports (my local one is sucking up more and more tax money every year, money straight down the drain).

However, the tendency of the American public to elect idiots to Congress will continue for several more years at least, and so aiming for smaller losses seems useful simply to reduce the dependency on the whims of idiots in Congress.

THOUGHT ONE.

The LD trains are not the biggest problem at Amtrak. The biggest financial problem is, in fact.... the overhead!

Or, to be more accurate, the problem is that the fixed overhead is spread over *too few services*. In short, Amtrak needs to expand.

Specifically, Amtrak needs to expand those services which (after expansion) make a profit before overhead. At the moment, Amtrak doesn't even know which services make a profit before overhead, because Amtrak has no system of assigning capital costs or real depreciation on a route level. (!!!!) However, Amtrak is working on developing such a system, and it should be useful.

How to expand? Well, given our assumption that Congress is going to be unhelpful for the next few years, I see four ways to expand:

(1) State and local funding

(2) Borrowing money

(3) Competitive executive-branch grants (TIGER, etc.)

(4) Reassign equipment from cancelled segments of routes (I don't like this option)

Due to the many, many economies of scale in railroading, it is actually quite likely that one train a day will lose money before overhead, but two trains a day will make money before overhead. (Going from 1 train to 2 trains usually more-than-doubles ridership *and* increases ticket yields.)

THOUGHT TWO.

The so-called long-distance services provide connectivity -- if you sever the New York-Chicago link, you lose ticket sales on the "corridor trains" on both the New York and the Chicago ends. Accordingly, the "direct costs" profitability *understates* the degree to which these trains benefit Amtrak's bottom line: there is revenue which is not from tickets on the Lake Shore Limited, but if the Lake Shore Limited was cancelled, that revenue would go away.

THOUGHT THREE.

I have previously described the reroutes and service additions which I think would make for a better network. There are a number of characteristics of the current network which are historical artifacts and don't make sense.

- There are not nearly enough services in the NEC-Chicago region. Detroit-NYC is a glaring gap, as is Chicago-Philadelphia, and of course the lack of service to Columbus OH, and the three-a-week (should be daily) service to Cincy...

- Minneapolis - Chicago needs more frequencies and should stop in Madison (damn Scott Walker)...

- the SW Chief is on the wrong route and should be going via Wichita and Amarillo... and the Heartland Flyer should connect to Wichita... I do think that LA-Chicago is worth keeping for connectivity, but let's have some more connectivity there!

- The Sunset Limited needs to go daily or be cancelled, and it needs to stop in Phoenix, and arguably it should run directly from El Paso to Odessa/Abilene/Ft. Worth rather than via empty towns to San Antonio...

- there are a lot of routes which ought to exist in Texas...

- the ski service on the CZ ought to be separate from the service to Salt Lake City (which is much faster via Wyoming) and the Denver-Chicago service probably should be separate from both (to avoid delays), and the Denver-Chicago service runs on the wrong route through Iowa (which might be fixed if the Iowa legislature ever stops being run by anti-train lunatics)... and I doubt that service from Salt Lake to Reno makes sense at *all*. It's the biggest operational funds bleed in the system and it doesn't seem to be possible to drum up ridership.

- There are even more glaringly absent services in the Southeast and the Appalachians, but I don't think I'll go into that in detail now...


----------



## Paulus

> So, GML, now that we know and agree that the LD trains cost $142.8 million to run as a group, here's my thoughts.


Important distinction: As a group they collectively lose $142.8 million. As a group, they cost $720 million in direct costs to run, plus assorted shared costs. The Acela and Northeast Regional don't cost a negative amount to run after all.


----------



## The Journalist

A few thoughts...

The diners take a ridiculous amount of time between seatings. The "Auto Train Cuts" thread said they were reducing it to 90 minutes. Wow. The idea of using tray service seems like a good plan. Less time, less waste, less labor costs, more paying customers.

It can't be coincidental that the routes that seem to do best cost recovery-wise are the ones with lots of shared stations. Double up on routes where there's more demand, leave the whole Western LD's for connections. Even the whole Zephyr; everyone on that across Nevada is going to Chicago or further and breaking it loses a lot of connections.

And the simplest yet probably biggest in terms of actual improvement it would represent: Need WiFi. On all the routes. Most of the airlines, Greyhound, Megabus and even some transit agencies have WiFi now. I know it won't work everywhere. As mentioned by GML on the last page, the demographics of train ridership is aging. The future of Amtrak is attracting so-called "millenials" (side note: I hate this term), and for them not having WiFi can be an automatic deal killer.


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> Aging ridership on the long distance trains is a statistical reality, especially in the sleepers.


No, it isn't. You're pulling this claim out of your ass.
Unless you actually have statistical data by age for each individual train -- which you don't -- you can't claim that it's a "statistical reality". You don't have those statistics. Amtrak has never published them.

Probably it is aging on *some* trains. I'd *expect* it on the Silver Service with its Florida clientele, and aging ridership does match what I saw on the Coast Starlight and from Salt Lake City to California.

But it's certainly not true on the LSL, which seems to retain a thriving younger clientele, and it isn't what I saw from Chicago to Denver either, which also seemed to have a thriving younger clientele, including many families with young children.

(I wasn't paying attention from Chicago to Minneapolis. From LA to Chicago on the SW Chief... well, in midwinter, the ridership was a bit thin period, so I don't feel comfortable making an age assessment. I tend to ride the same routes over and over so I can't speak for the other routes.)

Again, I strongly believe that gobbledegook about "The Long Distance Trains" obscures more than it helps.

Each of these trains is an entirely different animal running through different regions with different demographics and serving different people.

The Sunset Limited is pretty much hopeless in its current (three-a-week, skipping Phoenix) form. The Lake Shore Limited has massive, booming potential. Talking about "the long distance trains" is *confusing*.

I seriously think that the trains should be examined by region. The LSL should be seen as a cooperative effort between New York region (the Empire Corridor) and Chicago Hub region (the unnamed corridor to Cleveland).

Better food service than the current Amtrak cafe car is necessary, and I'm not doctrinaire about how to operate it. The current system is a holdover from the Pullman Company (!!!) which is a real historical oddity.



> Oh, and by the way Neroden, I AM a state advocate, not a national one. I know some national people, but my focus is local and has been for years. Local New Jersey organized advocacy is aging into the grave.[/font][/size]


You're completely right about New Jersey from what I can tell.

There's quite lively advocacy in New York City, in Chicago, in San Francisco and the Bay Area, in Seattle and Portland, in Minneapolis, and *especially* in Los Angeles. There's identifiable advocacy by under-30s in Salt Lake City, in Philadelphia, in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, in several cities in Michigan, and even in parts of Texas. And there's a bunch more under-40s advocacy in the Rust Belt (which is aging, so you'd expect a somewhat older advocacy group). This is off the top of my head.

These advocates are *not* in the same organizations as the older folks, and they're always focused on local rail first. And they are often kind of disorganized. But they support and advocate for intercity Amtrak service as well.

New Jersey seems to have died as far as rail service advocacy and I'm not sure why. There hasn't been a new organization replacing the moribund NJARP. Maybe the sort of young people who advocate for rail service... have moved across the border from NJ to NY or Pennsylvania. Just a hypothesis. Or maybe they're happy with what they've got; if you live on the Newark City Subway, you're probably not agitating for a lot of extra service, unless you have family in Scranton or something.



> My answer to aging ridership? Amtrak needs to recognize certain youth trends and recognize, for instance, that they don’t expect certain things that older people do, and cut those amenities in order to free up money for the amenities that younger people do want and expect.


I can't argue with this, but be sure you get your analysis of younger people's tastes *right*!



> Younger people do expect free wi-fi on the trains, including long distance ones.


Absolutely true. I'd like it too.



> Younger people consider the food on Amtrak absolutely fine.


Well... they'll have some complaints. Perhaps not the ones you might think of, though. The sort of young people who are riding trains are often ecologically minded and often health conscious. They're not going to be offended by lack of flowers or tablecloths, but the thought of throwing out tons of plastic at every meal won't be popular.
And a bunch of people (obviously, never everyone, but always an important minority) are going to want balanced meals -- cutting side salads is a very questionable thing to do, as it forces those who want balanced meals to get only one of the menu options.

People of all ages are also budget conscious enough that the food prices will be an issue.

And the fixed mealtimes and short serving period are really bad -- younger people are used to eating when they want to eat, on their own schedule. Our society has changed: it's really abnormal for a family to "sit down to dinner" at the same time every day, and even if they do, it'll be different for different families.



> Younger people, however, do not like the lack of cleanliness of long distance equipment, and especially the lack of showers for coach passengers. They don’t remember that trains never had trains in the past, or the traditions surrounding that. All they know is they want to take a shower and they can’t.


Yeah, people have definitely requested showers on the overnight trains... particularly the multi-night ones. Going without a shower seems to be something most people will tolerate for 1 night, not 2.



> Here’s the important point- Amtrak claims that the long distance trains cost them $600 million a year in losses. I have also heard from several sources I trust that the actual cost savings of removing them from service is about $500 million a year.


I don't really believe your sources and I've explained why with citations to Amtrak's documents. I suppose they could be right if they're including savings like closing Beech Grove -- which means you only get those savings if you cancel *every single* Long Distance train (and quite likely some of the corridor trains as well). Keeping even *one* train means you don't get anywhere near this much savings.
The sort of people who claim this stuff... are the sort of people who caused the extremely stupid and counterproductive "Carter cuts". Supposedly of the "least profitable" trains -- but they cut the trains, and the overhead just got allocated to someone else.

Right now, that would mean that every LD train cut would increase the price charged to the state-sponsored corridor trains, by transferring overhead there. Looks great for Amtrak, not so great for the state budgets.

This may actually be the plan among some people -- force the states to pick up all the costs. Illinois would be saddled with most of the overhead costs (since Chicago handles most of the LD trains and a lot of trains paid for by Illinois), California would get quite a lot of the overhead costs, Washington State would get some of the overhead costs (full cost of the Seattle maintenance facility) New York would get some (Albany) and the NEC would get most of the rest of the overhead costs (for stuff done in NY, Boston, DC, Sunnyside, Bear, etc). The costs incurred in Florida and New Orleans would be the only ones which would actually go away.

In anticipation of this possibility, I think it's important to lobby governments such as Illinois, New York, Colorado, and Minnesota to preserve their key routes, such as Denver-Chicago, Minneapolis-Chicago, and New York-Chicago. If Congress decides to attack the so-called "long-distance" trains and cut off funding, point out to Illinois and New York that they'll be paying for most of the overhead anyway, and they should throw in the extra $5 million/year to keep the LSL running. State support saved the LSL once already according to my research.

It's true that some of the trains are significant money pits -- most of the ones running west of the Mississippi where *there are no people*. (Denver-Chicago should work because *Denver is huge* and the runtime is competitive with driving. For the same reason, Dallas-St. Louis-Chicago should work if it wasn't so slow.) A good rule of thumb for passenger train service is that it needs to run between densely populated places. (The Empire Builder "punches above its weight" due to the lack of Interstates along its route.) Trains thrive on volume: this is true of passenger service as well as freight service.

This basic fact about train service -- it needs volume and population density -- is why I find Amtrak's position on the rerouting of the Southwest Chief so aggravating. Rerouting the train would be an improvement even if it only had two stations (Wichita and Amarillo), as those two metro areas have more population than the entire existing route east of ABQ and west of Newton. The SWC may always be a money-loser, but it could be so much better if it actually stopped at cities along the way.


----------



## neroden

The Journalist said:


> It can't be coincidental that the routes that seem to do best cost recovery-wise are the ones with lots of shared stations.


It isn't coincidental!


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aging ridership on the long distance trains is a statistical reality, especially in the sleepers.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. You're pulling this claim out of your ass.
> Unless you actually have statistical data by age for each individual train -- which you don't -- you can't claim that it's a "statistical reality". You don't have those statistics. Amtrak has never published them.
Click to expand...

From the PIPs:

Crescent:

Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)

18-34 8%

35-54 23%

55+ 69%

Average Age 58

Employment

Employed 49%

Retired 41%

Lake Shore Limited

Age of Adult Passengers

(children not included)

18-34 11%

35-54 34%

55+ 55%

Average Age 54

Employment

Employed 53%

Retired 32%

Silver Star:

Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)

18-34 6%

35-54 26%

55+ 68%

Average Age 57

Employment

Employed 47%

Retired 41%

Silver Meteor:

Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)

18-34 6%

35-54 25%

55+ 69%

Average Age 58

Employment

Employed 43%

Retired 43%

Palmetto

Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)

18-34 9%

35-54 29%

55+ 62%

Average Age 56

Employment

Employed 50%

Retired 38%

Haven't seen any for the other long distance trains, but the corridor trains are available here, though you'll need to scroll aways down. It's immediately obvious that the long distance trains are significantly grayer than the corridors. Heck, look at the Empire Service, Route A. You claim the Lake Shore Limited "seems to retain a thriving younger clientele," with 11% of passengers being 18-35, while the corridor it runs over is 28% and the US census has 35% of the population in that range. 55% is 55 or older when only a third of the populace is and only 39% of the Empire Service.

Now, Chicago-Carbondale? 51% of that train is 18-34. _That's_ a thriving younger clientele.


----------



## tonys96

Anyone can figure out that a station with more than one route will cost less per train..........


----------



## tonys96

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aging ridership on the long distance trains is a statistical reality, especially in the sleepers.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. You're pulling this claim out of your ass.
> Unless you actually have statistical data by age for each individual train -- which you don't -- you can't claim that it's a "statistical reality". You don't have those statistics. Amtrak has never published them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the PIPs:
> 
> Crescent:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 8%
> 
> 35-54 23%
> 
> 55+ 69%
> 
> Average Age 58
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 49%
> 
> Retired 41%
> 
> Lake Shore Limited
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers
> 
> (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 11%
> 
> 35-54 34%
> 
> 55+ 55%
> 
> Average Age 54
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 53%
> 
> Retired 32%
> 
> Silver Star:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)
> 
> 18-34 6%
> 
> 35-54 26%
> 
> 55+ 68%
> 
> Average Age 57
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 47%
> 
> Retired 41%
> 
> Silver Meteor:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)
> 
> 18-34 6%
> 
> 35-54 25%
> 
> 55+ 69%
> 
> Average Age 58
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 43%
> 
> Retired 43%
> 
> Palmetto
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 9%
> 
> 35-54 29%
> 
> 55+ 62%
> 
> Average Age 56
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 50%
> 
> Retired 38%
> 
> Haven't seen any for the other long distance trains, but the corridor trains are available here, though you'll need to scroll aways down. It's immediately obvious that the long distance trains are significantly grayer than the corridors. Heck, look at the Empire Service, Route A. You claim the Lake Shore Limited "seems to retain a thriving younger clientele," with 11% of passengers being 18-35, while the corridor it runs over is 28% and the US census has 35% of the population in that range. 55% is 55 or older when only a third of the populace is and only 39% of the Empire Service.
> 
> Now, Chicago-Carbondale? 51% of that train is 18-34. _That's_ a thriving younger clientele.
Click to expand...

Care to share a link where you got this info?


----------



## retired CPA

neroden said:


> hhaloerider: This is a good point. You can't estimate staffing per train, you have to count. I managed to dig out train staffing information from various people's comments: the "blue book" gives sleeping car attendants, coach attendants, cafe attendants; others have given the union rules for allocation of assistant conductors and the exact number of dining car staff in use at any given time on a particular train.
> 
> The station support staff is much harder to figure -- I think you'd have to stop at each station and assess its staffing.
> 
> The maintenance staff *isn't actually assigned to specific trains*, meaning it's impossible to *really* figure out how much is appropriately allocated to a particular train. The same staff in Chicago does running maintenance on the Hoosier State and the Cardinal and the Empire Builder and the Hiawatha and the Southwest Chief and the Wolverine.
> 
> Amtrak seems to use a particularly half-assed method to wildly guess how much of their time is spent on the long-distance trains, but there's no *good* method, without knowing a great deal of the internals of the staffing procedures. But given what's come out about operations at Chicago, with workers slacking off and lying to their bosses, it doesn't make sense to penalize ANY of the trains for the high cost of running maintenance at Chicago; this is a problem of Chicago yard operations, period!
> 
> Which is why I have said in other places that the overhead -- including things like Chicago yard operations -- needs to be simply broken out separately, NOT allocated to trains. It doesn't go away if you cancel the trains, unless you shut down ALL the trains (LD and corridor alike), which won't happen.
> 
> Overhead allocation is a *pricing* tool used by companies which have third-party contracts in order to attempt to make enough profits to cover overhead, and as such it can be a useful tool. It has nothing to do with the real cost of running an operation, and should NEVER be used as a tool for deciding what services to start or cancel; that way lies madness. Unfortunately, for decades Amtrak has been using this madness in all of its reports.
> 
> If you're trying to determine "how much route X costs to run", allocation of capital expenses to specific routes (which so far has not really been done) is a substantially more legitimate accounting maneuver than allocation of overhead.
> 
> Thankfully, Amtrak has given us actual direct costs for trains, two or three times. See below.
> 
> ---
> 
> GML:
> 
> Page 69 of Amtrak's recent mega-report gives (revenue - costs) for the LD trains as a group, on a "direct costs" basis, in the middle of the page -- before loading them up with largely arbitrary allocations of overhead on the bottom half of the page.
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/458/748/FY14-Budget-Business-Plan-FY15-Budget-Justification-FY14-18-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf
> 
> The cost of the entire LD system is estimated at $142.8 million for FY2014. The joke numbers of 600 million or more are all from overhead allocation.
> 
> The PIPs gave direct costs numbers in some cases as well.
> 
> ---


Thanks for the link. I can use that to update some of my costs. I got $688 mil for op costs in 2013. They show $719 for 2014. I have not updated my numbers lately, mainly because I get trashed every time I post something here. I don't make this stuff up. It comes from Amtrak's own reports. You can see from their report that the biggest costs are labor with T&E leading the pack. The rest of the big costs are fuel, rent to the host RR's, car and locomotive maintenance. Revenue is little changed from 2013. I don't estimate OBS or T&E personnel, I use actual counts per train and I use the actual equipment count also for maintenance costs and the route miles for fuel. The shared costs are listed as $507 million. That's just bogus for most of these 15 trains. It's just an allocation. There are a lot of changes to operations that can be made and you and the rest are touching on some of those. I read it with interest.


----------



## Paulus

tonys96 said:


> Anyone can figure out that a station with more than one route will cost less per train..........


Also has to do with the fact that if it is shared, the cost is not a direct cost and has to be allocated. So if you are only looking at direct costs, and there are few to no exclusive stations on a route, that route is going to look a lot better.


----------



## haolerider

Actually, the last time I looked at the Auto Train figures, it had an allocation for shared stations, which it doesn't have. No other train uses Lorton or Sanford, although they do make a stop in Florence, SC for fuel and water & staff.


----------



## Paulus

haolerider said:


> Actually, the last time I looked at the Auto Train figures, it had an allocation for shared stations, which it doesn't have. No other train uses Lorton or Sanford, although they do make a stop in Florence, SC for fuel and water & staff.


And where did you see that allocation because I don't recall seeing it broken out on anything for the particular routes like that.

Edit: And when was it? They may have combined both Sanford stations into a single item for costs.


----------



## neroden

Paulus said:


> From the PIPs:


Woo hoo, data!
It's odd that they only did this data for some of the trains in the PIPs.

Several of the other PIPs don't have this data. I checked.



> Lake Shore Limited
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers
> 
> (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 11%
> 
> 35-54 34%
> 
> 55+ 55%
> 
> Average Age 54
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 53%
> 
> Retired 32%


Population demographics for upstate New York (as a percentage of the 18+ population):

18-34 ~27%

35-54 ~37%

55+ ~35%

OK, so there's roughly a 17-20% bias towards older people. I don't see this as indicative of a trend, because we don't have any trendlines. This is a single datapoint from 2010. For all *you* know, the ridership is getting younger over time.

In 2010, 35 == born in 1975, while 55 = born in 1955. Convenient numbers: most of the over-55 population (except for the youngest 10 years' worth) grew up with significant train service. The under-35 population grew up with nothing available, and would like some -- but is not interested in nostalgia and wants trains which run on time.

It's clear that sleeper ridership is biased wealthier, and being wealthy is biased older. It's also clear that ridership on trains which don't run on time is biased towards those with more free time. So I don't think the 17-20% bias on the LSL is significant, unless it constitutes a trend.

Does it constitute a trend? I don't know. Anecdotes indicate that there was an even *greater* bias toward aged ridership earlier in Amtrak's history, but I'd love to see some statistics. I remember riding the San Diegan as a kid, and my forty-year-old mother was probably the second youngest person on the train after me, but that's just an anecdote.

The southern-bound trains clearly bias even older than the LSL -- and much more retired, as well. Given the extremely aged population of Florida I'm not sure this is really that far off from the population distribution on the Silver Service routes.

But the Crescent/Palmetto demographic pattern is truly bad. Of course, these trains go to the states where there seems to be no youth rail advocacy whatsoever, and the stations are still decrepit shacks.



> Haven't seen any for the other long distance trains, but the corridor trains are available here, though you'll need to scroll aways down. It's immediately obvious that the long distance trains are significantly grayer than the corridors.


I won't argue with that. Longer, slower, less reliable trains are less attractive to people who are poorer and have less free time, and right now, that's correlated with "younger".
And right now, "longer, slower, and less reliable" is correlated with so-called "long-distance"... though it's far from a perfect correlation.

But that does NOT mean that the ridership is "getting older". How old was the ridership of these trains 20 years ago, or 30 years ago?



> Heck, look at the Empire Service, Route A. You claim the Lake Shore Limited "seems to retain a thriving younger clientele," with 11% of passengers being 18-35, while the corridor it runs over is 28% and the US census has 35% of the population in that range. 55% is 55 or older when only a third of the populace is and only 39% of the Empire Service.


OK, fine, it's a mild bias, but there's (a) no evidence as to what direction this is moving in, and (b) it's not honestly that large a bias, and is small enough to be explained by the usual things (younger people are poorer, older people are richer, younger people are more sensitive to on-time performance, etc.).

Empire Service is actually biasing old as well, with 46% in the over-55 range, at the expense of the 35-55 generation.

On the other hand, which one is corridor route Y, which also has 11% under age 34 and 60% over age 55? This could give us a better clue as to what's really going on. That's the Heartland Flyer, isn't it? And I can't think of any youth train advocacy in Oklahoma, either. Oklahoma and Texas also have *more youth* than average, unlike the Rust Belt, making this particularly noticeable.

That chart from LOSSAN is really annoying now that I don't have a copy of the 2012 data to figure out which route is which.

I'd like to find the Wolverines in the chart, given their horrible OTP in FY2012. Is that route H (28% under 35, 49% over 55)?

It would also be worth finding the Buffalo-Albany trains (which are treated as a separate corridor by Amtrak). Is that route G (35% under 35, 41% over 55)? This is a better point of comparison with the LSL than the "Empire Service" (NY-Albany), and it's interesting if I've found the right line, which I might not have.

Nearly all the routes are biasing old -- including the corridor routes.



> Now, Chicago-Carbondale? 51% of that train is 18-34. _That's_ a thriving younger clientele.


It is. It's largely college students (including grad students), AFAICT.


----------



## andersone

the Other Mike said:


> No matter how hard I try to read this topic, all I hear is an argument in a pet shop about a dead parrot :giggle:


I thought it was my pet fish Eric? Or do we just usher in the lumberjacks?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

henryj said:


> In my opinion, and it is just that, you have to separate the operation of these trains from the whole of Amtrak. Why? Because Amtrak is pre-occupied with running the NEC and always will be. It’s a busy railroad and takes most of their time and effort and incurs most of their overhead expenses. Amtrak is three very different animals. The NEC, the State operated corridor services and the long distance trains. Once the LD trains are under different management that is dedicated to only those trains, you will get better reports, evaluations, service and results. And this may be where Boardman is trying to take Amtrak, who knows. In conjunction with this re-organization you would have to remove the Superliners from the CONO and the Capitol and replace them with single level equipment and make the other changes I have recommended. That frees up enough superliner equipment to serve the remaining western trains and make the Sunset daily without having to order any new equipment for the immediate future. Since most of these train operate out of Chicago, I would move the main maintenance base to some western suburb there or perhaps to a non-union, right to work state. The Eastern trains would have their own maintenance base somewhere else, maybe where it is now. If the demographics are deteriorating as you state, then you will have to start advertising to attract younger people. I never see an Amtrak add in this area. Congress will have to fund these changes for some time, so getting them on board is important. However, with dedicated management these trains can be successful and if they are the route structure could even be expanded. As for the trains themselves, surely you can see that each train is different. They have to be designed to cater to the market they serve and the markets can be very different. This discussion could go on forever. But the first step is to separate operation of these 15 trains from the rest of Amtrak. To trash these trains you are talking about throwing away almost $570 million in revenue and laying off thousands of employees. I believe that is unacceptable to even a tea party congress.


I see your reasoning, and ask you to back it up with statistics, once again. That being said I think you don't understand the dogmatic stupidity of the tea party, for one thing.

Finally, any suggestion to take Superliners off of ANY train on which they can be run is an indication you have no idea about cost recovery. Trainsets will be freed up in a few years when the Sunset Limited gets put out of its misery. The Sunset Limited has been a perpetual thorn in Amtrak's side, and its useful life ended the day Union Pacific asked for three quarter's of a billion dollars to make the thing daily. It is run by Amtrak and their crew in a fashion that indicates none of them have much appreciation for the train (or their jobs, quite frankly). Its operation culture is toxic, and excluding Houston, San Antonio, and New Orleans, it serves no significant destinations. Of those destinations, Houston doesn't even count. Its a waste of taxpayer dollars, and always has been.



> I believe that asking for Amtrak to be profitable is ridiculous, since we don't ask for the roads to be profitable. Or the airports (my local one is sucking up more and more tax money every year, money straight down the drain).


Asking Amtrak to be overall profitable is ridiculous. Asking Amtrak to be operationally profitable is not so ridiculous. With expanded consist lengths to certain trains, decreased labor expenses in certain areas, and careful modulation of amenities and so forth, operational profitability on the LD trains at the current loss of $146 million is not unreasonable.



> THOUGHT ONE.
> The LD trains are not the biggest problem at Amtrak. The biggest financial problem is, in fact.... the overhead!
> 
> Or, to be more accurate, the problem is that the fixed overhead is spread over *too few services*. In short, Amtrak needs to expand.
> 
> Specifically, Amtrak needs to expand those services which (after expansion) make a profit before overhead. At the moment, Amtrak doesn't even know which services make a profit before overhead, because Amtrak has no system of assigning capital costs or real depreciation on a route level. (!!!!) However, Amtrak is working on developing such a system, and it should be useful.
> 
> How to expand? Well, given our assumption that Congress is going to be unhelpful for the next few years, I see four ways to expand:
> 
> (1) State and local funding
> 
> (2) Borrowing money
> 
> (3) Competitive executive-branch grants (TIGER, etc.)
> 
> (4) Reassign equipment from cancelled segments of routes (I don't like this option)
> 
> Due to the many, many economies of scale in railroading, it is actually quite likely that one train a day will lose money before overhead, but two trains a day will make money before overhead. (Going from 1 train to 2 trains usually more-than-doubles ridership *and* increases ticket yields.)


I agree with you entirely. But the idea of managing to come up with the capital investment and railroad operating agreements needed to actually achieve what you have in mind... I'm doubtful its possible.



> THOUGHT TWO.
> The so-called long-distance services provide connectivity -- if you sever the New York-Chicago link, you lose ticket sales on the "corridor trains" on both the New York and the Chicago ends. Accordingly, the "direct costs" profitability *understates* the degree to which these trains benefit Amtrak's bottom line: there is revenue which is not from tickets on the Lake Shore Limited, but if the Lake Shore Limited was cancelled, that revenue would go away.


While I agree with you in principle, I'm not really sure just how much that connectivity really improves the bottom line. I would tend to think (pure opinion, backed up by some common wisdom, which I know is not always accurate) that once a connection is made



neroden said:


> THOUGHT THREE.
> 
> I have previously described the reroutes and service additions which I think would make for a better network. There are a number of characteristics of the current network which are historical artifacts and don't make sense.
> 
> - There are not nearly enough services in the NEC-Chicago region. Detroit-NYC is a glaring gap, as is Chicago-Philadelphia, and of course the lack of service to Columbus OH, and the three-a-week (should be daily) service to Cincy...
> 
> - Minneapolis - Chicago needs more frequencies and should stop in Madison (damn Scott Walker)...
> 
> - the SW Chief is on the wrong route and should be going via Wichita and Amarillo... and the Heartland Flyer should connect to Wichita... I do think that LA-Chicago is worth keeping for connectivity, but let's have some more connectivity there!
> 
> - The Sunset Limited needs to go daily or be cancelled, and it needs to stop in Phoenix, and arguably it should run directly from El Paso to Odessa/Abilene/Ft. Worth rather than via empty towns to San Antonio...
> 
> - there are a lot of routes which ought to exist in Texas...
> 
> - the ski service on the CZ ought to be separate from the service to Salt Lake City (which is much faster via Wyoming) and the Denver-Chicago service probably should be separate from both (to avoid delays), and the Denver-Chicago service runs on the wrong route through Iowa (which might be fixed if the Iowa legislature ever stops being run by anti-train lunatics)... and I doubt that service from Salt Lake to Reno makes sense at *all*. It's the biggest operational funds bleed in the system and it doesn't seem to be possible to drum up ridership.
> 
> - There are even more glaringly absent services in the Southeast and the Appalachians, but I don't think I'll go into that in detail now...


-Detroit is over served as it is. Its a dead city, servicing the moribund traditional domestic car industry. GM and Ford are quite clearly not reading the writing Elon Musk sprayed on the wall, and when those two companies inevitably die, what is left of that city will make Rochester look like an overpopulated city. Northern Michigan is underserved, as are the communities in Michigan that are not depending on the former Big Two.

-Philadephia-Chicago is vastly underserved. It should have two trains running on it (Overnight to Pittsburgh, daytime to Chicago, daylight to Pittsburgh, overnight to Chicago), just as the water level route needs an overnight to Buffalo, daytime to Chicago train.

-I agree with you about Minneapolis. There should be at least three trains a day to Minneapolis in addition to the Empire Builder and possibly a North Coast Hiawatha.

- While I think I agree with you about the Southwest Chief, the utilization of the Sunset by Houstonites makes me wonder if the population characteristics along the transcon are deceiving vs the population density. But its a lingering fear brought on by a person I am beginning to think is somewhat mentally disturbed.

- The Sunset isn't going daily and needs to be cancelled.

- Texas needs to declare its secession from the union. I will host a going away party at my house. All are invited. If it doesn't do so, I agree with you.

- I disagree with you about the CZ. I really have the feeling that the whole operational merit of the California Zephyr west of Denver IS as a land cruise, and moving it from its historical route is misguided. There SHOULD be a day train from Denver to Salt Lake City on the Overland route.

- Service needs to be run from New York to Buffalo via both the former Lackawanna and Erie lines. Actually, I think if we brought back almost every route operating on April 30th 1971, we'd have a pretty good start, with modifications to improve efficiency.



> Each of these trains is an entirely different animal running through different regions with different demographics and serving different people.


That is a point lost on far too many people.



> New Jersey seems to have died as far as rail service advocacy and I'm not sure why. There hasn't been a new organization replacing the moribund NJARP. Maybe the sort of young people who advocate for rail service... have moved across the border from NJ to NY or Pennsylvania. Just a hypothesis. Or maybe they're happy with what they've got; if you live on the Newark City Subway, you're probably not agitating for a lot of extra service, unless you have family in Scranton or something.


NJARP is moribund mostly because the personalities involved in the New Jersey rail scene split into various camps over a few key issues a long bloody time ago and they honestly hate each others guts. Not for any meritorious reasons, just a bunch of half senile, half crazy (or fully crazy) grumpy, crotchety old men. I could go into lists of each personality and their problems, but they are irrelevant (and generally infantile).

I've been trying to reposition the Lackawanna Coalition into a state-wide organization to catch the new generation and provide a more coherent statewide organization. I have several reasons for believing this is the right move. First of all, I've managed to get myself, at 29, elected to an officership position. Joe Clift, a person with impressive credentials (former Director of Planning for the LIRR for one thing) couldn't manage to get elected to NJ ARPs board despite the fact that this failure left some of the boards seats empty. Secondly, we have certain institutional knowledge from our time period with the late, great, and deeply lamented James T. Raleigh. And thirdly, I've found a partner for doing this job who is working tirelessly to accomplish this goal.



> Well... they'll have some complaints. Perhaps not the ones you might think of, though. The sort of young people who are riding trains are often ecologically minded and often health conscious. They're not going to be offended by lack of flowers or tablecloths, but the thought of throwing out tons of plastic at every meal won't be popular.
> And a bunch of people (obviously, never everyone, but always an important minority) are going to want balanced meals -- cutting side salads is a very questionable thing to do, as it forces those who want balanced meals to get only one of the menu options.
> 
> People of all ages are also budget conscious enough that the food prices will be an issue.
> 
> And the fixed mealtimes and short serving period are really bad -- younger people are used to eating when they want to eat, on their own schedule. Our society has changed: it's really abnormal for a family to "sit down to dinner" at the same time every day, and even if they do, it'll be different for different families.


That is not an issue I am qualified to argue about. I'm an unusual type who does like to sit down to dinner at a formal time and food is one of the driving forces of my existence on this planet. I recognize I am weird- the very existence of places like Subway prove that most people don't think like I do. I recognize and appreciate that- and as such I don't try to weigh in on other peoples dining preferences when I make long term suggestions.


----------



## TWA904

Lets do this with respect for everyone. I don't care about the NEC. We all know it is a money loser.

I'm more interested in the Long Distance routes.

For Long Distance routes only -

1. Can we determine a full accounting of all rolling stock and locomotive power to come up with a picture of transportation assets and availability.

2. Can we determine how many pieces of equipment are now in storage, maintenance or wreck lines that can be quickly and reasonably returned to revenue service.

3. What about rollomg stock owned by other companies or individuals that could be leased for short terms until new rolling stock is available.


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> That chart from LOSSAN is really annoying now that I don't have a copy of the 2012 data to figure out which route is which.
> 
> I'd like to find the Wolverines in the chart, given their horrible OTP in FY2012. Is that route H (28% under 35, 49% over 55)?
> 
> It would also be worth finding the Buffalo-Albany trains (which are treated as a separate corridor by Amtrak). Is that route G (35% under 35, 41% over 55)? This is a better point of comparison with the LSL than the "Empire Service" (NY-Albany), and it's interesting if I've found the right line, which I might not have.
> 
> Nearly all the routes are biasing old -- including the corridor routes.


Pacific Surfliner

Empire Service (Route A)

San Joaquin (Route B)

Washington-Newport News (Route C)

Keystone (Route D)

Cascades (Route E)

Capitol Corridor (Route F)

Albany-Niagra Falls-Toronto (Route G)

Carolinian (Route H)

Wolverine (Route I)

Hiawatha (Route J)

Chicago-St. Louis (Route K)

New Haven-Springfield (Route L)

Washington-Lynchburg (Route M)

Pennsylvanian (Route N)

Chicago-Carbondale (Route O)

Downeaster (Route P)

Adirondack (Route Q)

Blue Water (Route R)

Chicago-Quincy (Route S)

Kansas City-St. Louis (Route T)

Vermonter (Route U)

Pere Marquette (Route V)

Piedmont (Route W)

Ethan Allen (Route X)

Heartland Flyer (Route Y)

Hoosier State (Route Z)


----------



## SarahZ

Green Maned Lion said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> - There are not nearly enough services in the NEC-Chicago region. Detroit-NYC is a glaring gap, as is Chicago-Philadelphia, and of course the lack of service to Columbus OH, and the three-a-week (should be daily) service to Cincy...
> 
> 
> 
> -Detroit is over served as it is. Its a dead city, servicing the moribund traditional domestic car industry. GM and Ford are quite clearly not reading the writing Elon Musk sprayed on the wall, and when those two companies inevitably die, what is left of that city will make Rochester look like an overpopulated city. Northern Michigan is underserved, as are the communities in Michigan that are not depending on the former Big Two.
Click to expand...

A point, if I may.

When people refer to "Detroit", they're often including the suburbs, which contain upward of three million people. It can also include Ann Arbor (not technically metro Detroit, but close enough). Ann Arbor has the highest ridership numbers in Michigan.

By opening up a Detroit-NYC route, you're also grabbing those of us in Kalamazoo (#2 ridership in Michigan) who don't like backtracking to Chicago and spending most of a day there or the option of transferring in TOL at 3:00 AM. Besides, that transfer involves a bus, so it's actually two transfers. Some people drive, but again, that defeats the purpose.

I believe, when people say, "Detroit to NYC," they're talking about a corridor moreso than a city.


----------



## jis

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> That chart from LOSSAN is really annoying now that I don't have a copy of the 2012 data to figure out which route is which.
> 
> I'd like to find the Wolverines in the chart, given their horrible OTP in FY2012. Is that route H (28% under 35, 49% over 55)?
> 
> It would also be worth finding the Buffalo-Albany trains (which are treated as a separate corridor by Amtrak). Is that route G (35% under 35, 41% over 55)? This is a better point of comparison with the LSL than the "Empire Service" (NY-Albany), and it's interesting if I've found the right line, which I might not have.
> 
> Nearly all the routes are biasing old -- including the corridor routes.
> 
> 
> 
> Empire Service (Route A)
> 
> Albany-Niagra Falls-Toronto (Route G)
Click to expand...

The Empire Corridor is split into two because operationally A is under NEC and G is under LD. Go figures.


----------



## VentureForth

Green Maned Lion said:


> I want disagreement, yes. I want backed up disagreements and new ideas to supplement them. I'm totally and honestly serious here. Lets come up with some ideas for Amtrak's future given the actual political parameters we live in and the facts as they stand (I feel I laid them out correctly, but feel free to cite information that disputes them, and then sort it out using the facts you have found). We both have accounting backgrounds, Mr. J. I can read the data you provide. *But fight with facts, not vitriol.*
> 
> If my supplier and I can argue civilly over a $25,000 balance disagreement, and solve it by trading paperwork back and forth, than I see no reason why intelligent, reasonable people can't have an unemotional debate about Amtrak and back up each point with facts and citations.





Green Maned Lion said:


> That being said I think you don't understand the *dogmatic stupidity of the tea party*, for one thing.


ROLFOL

_- A Nitwit_


----------



## afigg

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> That chart from LOSSAN is really annoying now that I don't have a copy of the 2012 data to figure out which route is which.
> 
> I'd like to find the Wolverines in the chart, given their horrible OTP in FY2012. Is that route H (28% under 35, 49% over 55)?
> 
> It would also be worth finding the Buffalo-Albany trains (which are treated as a separate corridor by Amtrak). Is that route G (35% under 35, 41% over 55)? This is a better point of comparison with the LSL than the "Empire Service" (NY-Albany), and it's interesting if I've found the right line, which I might not have.
> 
> Nearly all the routes are biasing old -- including the corridor routes.
> 
> 
> 
> Pacific Surfliner
> 
> Empire Service (Route A)
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation of the LOSSAN presentation route codes. Useful to see the variations in ridership age and sex across the corridor routes. Would be interesting to see the age distribution for the NE Regional and Acela; I would guess the Acela would be dominated by 25 to 64 blocks and the NE Regionals as more evenly distributed in age than most of the other corridors.
With the growth in ridership over the past 10 years, I think the belief posted here that the ridership is getting older may be wrong. Compared to 10 years ago, the 18-24 and 25-34 percentages are likely larger for the corridor trains than they were.

Looking at the LOSSAN presentation age distribution, looks like Route I Wolverine and Route L NHV-SPG are roughly the closest to the 2010 census age distribution.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

VentureForth said:


> ROLFOL
> 
> _- A Nitwit_


Any group that seems to stick to their ideals no matter what information is presented to them has dogmatic stupidity. I don't call that vitriol. That's just a statement. Look up the actual definition of "stupid" and apply that to my statement literally instead of assuming the insult and what I said will make more sense.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> Joe Clift, a person with impressive credentials (former Director of Planning for the LIRR for one thing) couldn't manage to get elected to NJ ARPs board despite the fact that this failure left some of the boards seats empty.


The bit about Board seats being left vacant is factually incorrect. There were more candidates than there are seats and Joe just did not happen to get elected. But all seats were filled in that election.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

*shrugs* then I was misinformed and stand corrected.


----------



## VentureForth

Green Maned Lion said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROLFOL
> 
> _- A Nitwit_
> 
> 
> 
> Any group that seems to stick to their ideals no matter what information is presented to them has dogmatic stupidity. I don't call that vitriol. That's just a statement. Look up the actual definition of "stupid" and apply that to my statement literally instead of assuming the insult and what I said will make more sense.
Click to expand...

An assumption that it is used as an insult is defaulted based on previous behavior. If you decide to go back to a dictionary use of the word, a notation stating such would be appropriate at the time it is made. 
Finally, please quote a "neutral" publication that shows that the T.E.A. Party is dogmatically stupid with regards to the topic at hand. Something that doesn't materially fit into their platform of reducing taxes and encouraging private enterprise would be appreciated.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

I'm posting late for this, but in my opinion discontinuing any route isn't a good idea, even if it runs three times a week. Any time a route is discontinued or "suspended", it's very costly and difficult to restore. Look at the Pioneer, North Coast Hiawatha, and the cheapest one to restore the Sunset Limited's route east of New Orleans, to name a few. 

Amtrak should focus on maintaining and improving the existing routes they have. When new equipment begins to arrive, then they can lengthen existing trains, add new LD trains, and re-extend routes. <Drops microphone>


----------



## Paulus

But that is assuming that all routes are worthy of continuation, no matter what, which is a questionable assumption.


----------



## tonys96

There seem to be a lot of opinions stated as 'facts' in this thread.


----------



## henryj

Green Maned Lion said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, and it is just that, you have to separate the operation of these trains from the whole of Amtrak. Why? Because Amtrak is pre-occupied with running the NEC and always will be. It’s a busy railroad and takes most of their time and effort and incurs most of their overhead expenses. Amtrak is three very different animals. The NEC, the State operated corridor services and the long distance trains. Once the LD trains are under different management that is dedicated to only those trains, you will get better reports, evaluations, service and results. And this may be where Boardman is trying to take Amtrak, who knows. In conjunction with this re-organization you would have to remove the Superliners from the CONO and the Capitol and replace them with single level equipment and make the other changes I have recommended. That frees up enough superliner equipment to serve the remaining western trains and make the Sunset daily without having to order any new equipment for the immediate future. Since most of these train operate out of Chicago, I would move the main maintenance base to some western suburb there or perhaps to a non-union, right to work state. The Eastern trains would have their own maintenance base somewhere else, maybe where it is now. If the demographics are deteriorating as you state, then you will have to start advertising to attract younger people. I never see an Amtrak add in this area. Congress will have to fund these changes for some time, so getting them on board is important. However, with dedicated management these trains can be successful and if they are the route structure could even be expanded. As for the trains themselves, surely you can see that each train is different. They have to be designed to cater to the market they serve and the markets can be very different. This discussion could go on forever. But the first step is to separate operation of these 15 trains from the rest of Amtrak. To trash these trains you are talking about throwing away almost $570 million in revenue and laying off thousands of employees. I believe that is unacceptable to even a tea party congress.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your reasoning, and ask you to back it up with statistics, once again. That being said I think you don't understand the dogmatic stupidity of the tea party, for one thing.
> 
> Finally, any suggestion to take Superliners off of ANY train on which they can be run is an indication you have no idea about cost recovery. Trainsets will be freed up in a few years when the Sunset Limited gets put out of its misery. The Sunset Limited has been a perpetual thorn in Amtrak's side, and its useful life ended the day Union Pacific asked for three quarter's of a billion dollars to make the thing daily. It is run by Amtrak and their crew in a fashion that indicates none of them have much appreciation for the train (or their jobs, quite frankly). Its operation culture is toxic, and excluding Houston, San Antonio, and New Orleans, it serves no significant destinations. Of those destinations, Houston doesn't even count. Its a waste of taxpayer dollars, and always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that asking for Amtrak to be profitable is ridiculous, since we don't ask for the roads to be profitable. Or the airports (my local one is sucking up more and more tax money every year, money straight down the drain).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking Amtrak to be overall profitable is ridiculous. Asking Amtrak to be operationally profitable is not so ridiculous. With expanded consist lengths to certain trains, decreased labor expenses in certain areas, and careful modulation of amenities and so forth, operational profitability on the LD trains at the current loss of $146 million is not unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THOUGHT ONE.
> The LD trains are not the biggest problem at Amtrak. The biggest financial problem is, in fact.... the overhead!
> 
> Or, to be more accurate, the problem is that the fixed overhead is spread over *too few services*. In short, Amtrak needs to expand.
> 
> Specifically, Amtrak needs to expand those services which (after expansion) make a profit before overhead. At the moment, Amtrak doesn't even know which services make a profit before overhead, because Amtrak has no system of assigning capital costs or real depreciation on a route level. (!!!!) However, Amtrak is working on developing such a system, and it should be useful.
> 
> How to expand? Well, given our assumption that Congress is going to be unhelpful for the next few years, I see four ways to expand:
> 
> (1) State and local funding
> 
> (2) Borrowing money
> 
> (3) Competitive executive-branch grants (TIGER, etc.)
> 
> (4) Reassign equipment from cancelled segments of routes (I don't like this option)
> 
> Due to the many, many economies of scale in railroading, it is actually quite likely that one train a day will lose money before overhead, but two trains a day will make money before overhead. (Going from 1 train to 2 trains usually more-than-doubles ridership *and* increases ticket yields.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you entirely. But the idea of managing to come up with the capital investment and railroad operating agreements needed to actually achieve what you have in mind... I'm doubtful its possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THOUGHT TWO.
> The so-called long-distance services provide connectivity -- if you sever the New York-Chicago link, you lose ticket sales on the "corridor trains" on both the New York and the Chicago ends. Accordingly, the "direct costs" profitability *understates* the degree to which these trains benefit Amtrak's bottom line: there is revenue which is not from tickets on the Lake Shore Limited, but if the Lake Shore Limited was cancelled, that revenue would go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I agree with you in principle, I'm not really sure just how much that connectivity really improves the bottom line. I would tend to think (pure opinion, backed up by some common wisdom, which I know is not always accurate) that once a connection is made
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> THOUGHT THREE.
> 
> I have previously described the reroutes and service additions which I think would make for a better network. There are a number of characteristics of the current network which are historical artifacts and don't make sense.
> 
> - There are not nearly enough services in the NEC-Chicago region. Detroit-NYC is a glaring gap, as is Chicago-Philadelphia, and of course the lack of service to Columbus OH, and the three-a-week (should be daily) service to Cincy...
> 
> - Minneapolis - Chicago needs more frequencies and should stop in Madison (damn Scott Walker)...
> 
> - the SW Chief is on the wrong route and should be going via Wichita and Amarillo... and the Heartland Flyer should connect to Wichita... I do think that LA-Chicago is worth keeping for connectivity, but let's have some more connectivity there!
> 
> - The Sunset Limited needs to go daily or be cancelled, and it needs to stop in Phoenix, and arguably it should run directly from El Paso to Odessa/Abilene/Ft. Worth rather than via empty towns to San Antonio...
> 
> - there are a lot of routes which ought to exist in Texas...
> 
> - the ski service on the CZ ought to be separate from the service to Salt Lake City (which is much faster via Wyoming) and the Denver-Chicago service probably should be separate from both (to avoid delays), and the Denver-Chicago service runs on the wrong route through Iowa (which might be fixed if the Iowa legislature ever stops being run by anti-train lunatics)... and I doubt that service from Salt Lake to Reno makes sense at *all*. It's the biggest operational funds bleed in the system and it doesn't seem to be possible to drum up ridership.
> 
> - There are even more glaringly absent services in the Southeast and the Appalachians, but I don't think I'll go into that in detail now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Detroit is over served as it is. Its a dead city, servicing the moribund traditional domestic car industry. GM and Ford are quite clearly not reading the writing Elon Musk sprayed on the wall, and when those two companies inevitably die, what is left of that city will make Rochester look like an overpopulated city. Northern Michigan is underserved, as are the communities in Michigan that are not depending on the former Big Two.
> 
> -Philadephia-Chicago is vastly underserved. It should have two trains running on it (Overnight to Pittsburgh, daytime to Chicago, daylight to Pittsburgh, overnight to Chicago), just as the water level route needs an overnight to Buffalo, daytime to Chicago train.
> 
> -I agree with you about Minneapolis. There should be at least three trains a day to Minneapolis in addition to the Empire Builder and possibly a North Coast Hiawatha.
> 
> - While I think I agree with you about the Southwest Chief, the utilization of the Sunset by Houstonites makes me wonder if the population characteristics along the transcon are deceiving vs the population density. But its a lingering fear brought on by a person I am beginning to think is somewhat mentally disturbed.
> 
> - The Sunset isn't going daily and needs to be cancelled.
> 
> - Texas needs to declare its secession from the union. I will host a going away party at my house. All are invited. If it doesn't do so, I agree with you.
> 
> - I disagree with you about the CZ. I really have the feeling that the whole operational merit of the California Zephyr west of Denver IS as a land cruise, and moving it from its historical route is misguided. There SHOULD be a day train from Denver to Salt Lake City on the Overland route.
> 
> - Service needs to be run from New York to Buffalo via both the former Lackawanna and Erie lines. Actually, I think if we brought back almost every route operating on April 30th 1971, we'd have a pretty good start, with modifications to improve efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of these trains is an entirely different animal running through different regions with different demographics and serving different people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a point lost on far too many people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Jersey seems to have died as far as rail service advocacy and I'm not sure why. There hasn't been a new organization replacing the moribund NJARP. Maybe the sort of young people who advocate for rail service... have moved across the border from NJ to NY or Pennsylvania. Just a hypothesis. Or maybe they're happy with what they've got; if you live on the Newark City Subway, you're probably not agitating for a lot of extra service, unless you have family in Scranton or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NJARP is moribund mostly because the personalities involved in the New Jersey rail scene split into various camps over a few key issues a long bloody time ago and they honestly hate each others guts. Not for any meritorious reasons, just a bunch of half senile, half crazy (or fully crazy) grumpy, crotchety old men. I could go into lists of each personality and their problems, but they are irrelevant (and generally infantile).
> 
> I've been trying to reposition the Lackawanna Coalition into a state-wide organization to catch the new generation and provide a more coherent statewide organization. I have several reasons for believing this is the right move. First of all, I've managed to get myself, at 29, elected to an officership position. Joe Clift, a person with impressive credentials (former Director of Planning for the LIRR for one thing) couldn't manage to get elected to NJ ARPs board despite the fact that this failure left some of the boards seats empty. Secondly, we have certain institutional knowledge from our time period with the late, great, and deeply lamented James T. Raleigh. And thirdly, I've found a partner for doing this job who is working tirelessly to accomplish this goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... they'll have some complaints. Perhaps not the ones you might think of, though. The sort of young people who are riding trains are often ecologically minded and often health conscious. They're not going to be offended by lack of flowers or tablecloths, but the thought of throwing out tons of plastic at every meal won't be popular.
> And a bunch of people (obviously, never everyone, but always an important minority) are going to want balanced meals -- cutting side salads is a very questionable thing to do, as it forces those who want balanced meals to get only one of the menu options.
> 
> People of all ages are also budget conscious enough that the food prices will be an issue.
> 
> And the fixed mealtimes and short serving period are really bad -- younger people are used to eating when they want to eat, on their own schedule. Our society has changed: it's really abnormal for a family to "sit down to dinner" at the same time every day, and even if they do, it'll be different for different families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an issue I am qualified to argue about. I'm an unusual type who does like to sit down to dinner at a formal time and food is one of the driving forces of my existence on this planet. I recognize I am weird- the very existence of places like Subway prove that most people don't think like I do. I recognize and appreciate that- and as such I don't try to weigh in on other peoples dining preferences when I make long term suggestions.
Click to expand...

I get it that you don't like Texas, the Southwest, the Sunset Ltd, the western trains in general, etc. That is why I would transfer them all to another operator located out here in flyover country, away from DC. And I would take all superliners off the eastern trains including the CONO. Everything east of the Mississippi and NOL and Chicago you can just leave with Amtrak. It doesn't really count anyway. All the 'real' LD trains are out west and they deserve management that actually cares about them. Houston airports handle some 50 million people a year. Amtrak less than 20k. A three times a week train that stops at a one room station under a freeway bridge doesn't attract many riders. Florida and Texas will be the first states to start up privately owned and operated corridor services that actually pay for themselves. I am not waiting for Texas to secede, more like waiting for NY to freeze in the dark. Good luck with all these insane ideas. They will never happen. I love that five year study as it just verifies my cost studies.


----------



## SarahZ

All that response needs is a rousing version of "Dixie" and a pair of truck nuts. That would really polish off the barely-contained vitriol.


----------



## rrdude

Paulus said:


> But that is assuming that all routes are worthy of continuation, no matter what, which is a questionable assumption.


When you have nothing more than a skeletal system. virtually every route *is* worthy of continuation.


----------



## Eric S

henryj said:


> I get it that you don't like Texas, the Southwest, the Sunset Ltd, the western trains in general, etc. That is why I would transfer them all to another operator located out here in flyover country, away from DC. And I would take all superliners off the eastern trains including the CONO. Everything east of the Mississippi and NOL and Chicago you can just leave with Amtrak. It doesn't really count anyway. All the 'real' LD trains are out west and they deserve management that actually cares about them. Houston airports handle some 50 million people a year. Amtrak less than 20k. A three times a week train that stops at a one room station under a freeway bridge doesn't attract many riders. Florida and Texas will be the first states to start up privately owned and operated corridor services that actually pay for themselves. I am not waiting for Texas to secede, more like waiting for NY to freeze in the dark. Good luck with all these insane ideas. They will never happen. I love that five year study as it just verifies my cost studies.


So, I'm curious, what makes the west-of-Chicago LD trains the "real" LD trains? (Or, why are the east-of-Chicago LD trains not "real" LD trains?) Is it the distinction between what are essentially overnight trains (or at least single-night trains) east of Chicago and multi-day/multi-night trains west of Chicago? I ask because I do think there are certainly some major differences among the trains grouped together by Amtrak as "Long Distance" (as neroden and GML and others have noted).

And then, based on that distinction, is that why you suggest that Superliner equipment should be restricted to the "real" LD trains? With the other (unreal? fake?) LD trains only using single-level equipment? I don't quite see why the Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans NEED to be switched to single-level equipment (particularly when that equipment needed to operate them is not available).


----------



## RCBev

Just took a quick read through of this .. but I will make two points: 1) I am a travel deal junkie "give me the best bang for my buck" kind of gal. As of right now .. that is travelling on Amtrak in coach. I have the luxury of having a good vacation package at my work -- even more than my husband, which is a bummer. I am NOT a spring chicken (in my 50's) again coach is not a problem for me. 2) IF Amtrak can really market to the young hipsters and really promote "Green" and redesign the Fleet more "retro", might be able to get more to travel on LD's. High speed WIFi has GOT TO HAPPEN .. and yes that means having enuf bandwidth to stream Netflix!! Gotta watch "Game of Thrones". Maybe those new "high speed chips" that are coming out next year from Qualcomm will help with the tech. I know Amtrak doesn't have $$ for advertising .. but they need to advertise. Get a booth at SXSW next year -- HA!!


----------



## tonys96

Vitriol? Like this:

- "Texas needs to declare its secession from the union. I will host a going away party at my house. All are invited"

or "Beautiful and Texas are mutually exclusive."

Then Henry is chastised for defending his home state? Wow! This is a tough crowd.......


----------



## tonys96

rrdude said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is assuming that all routes are worthy of continuation, no matter what, which is a questionable assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have nothing more than a skeletal system. virtually every route *is* worthy of continuation.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## Paulus

rrdude said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is assuming that all routes are worthy of continuation, no matter what, which is a questionable assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> When you have nothing more than a skeletal system. virtually every route *is* worthy of continuation.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Some routes are why you have nothing more than a skeletal system. It is at times necessary to treat a disease by excision or amputation and that should apply to Amtrak too.


----------



## henryj

Eric S said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it that you don't like Texas, the Southwest, the Sunset Ltd, the western trains in general, etc. That is why I would transfer them all to another operator located out here in flyover country, away from DC. And I would take all superliners off the eastern trains including the CONO. Everything east of the Mississippi and NOL and Chicago you can just leave with Amtrak. It doesn't really count anyway. All the 'real' LD trains are out west and they deserve management that actually cares about them. Houston airports handle some 50 million people a year. Amtrak less than 20k. A three times a week train that stops at a one room station under a freeway bridge doesn't attract many riders. Florida and Texas will be the first states to start up privately owned and operated corridor services that actually pay for themselves. I am not waiting for Texas to secede, more like waiting for NY to freeze in the dark. Good luck with all these insane ideas. They will never happen. I love that five year study as it just verifies my cost studies.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm curious, what makes the west-of-Chicago LD trains the "real" LD trains? (Or, why are the east-of-Chicago LD trains not "real" LD trains?) Is it the distinction between what are essentially overnight trains (or at least single-night trains) east of Chicago and multi-day/multi-night trains west of Chicago? I ask because I do think there are certainly some major differences among the trains grouped together by Amtrak as "Long Distance" (as neroden and GML and others have noted).
> 
> And then, based on that distinction, is that why you suggest that Superliner equipment should be restricted to the "real" LD trains? With the other (unreal? fake?) LD trains only using single-level equipment? I don't quite see why the Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans NEED to be switched to single-level equipment (particularly when that equipment needed to operate them is not available).
Click to expand...

The western LD trains are two nights out trains and serve multiple functions including national parks, etc. They are all superliner equipped. So I would run them separate from the others and have a maintenance base and operating HQ out here where they run. The CONO and Capitol don't need to be switched except that there are not enough superliners to run the western trains. So I would just put them back to single level equipment unless someone is going to put in an order for new superliners which I just don't see happening.

A more drastic scenario for the Eastern trains is this. Set up a consortium of southern states to run the Florida trains as they have a lot of potential. Another option is to combine the Capitol and the Star and run it straight through DC to Florida. Stop and turn the Crescent and other Florida trains in DC. Run the Crescent only as far as Atlanta. If the states want a day train between Atlanta and NOL let them run it and pay for it. Discontinue the LSL and just run a series of day trains between the largest cities. Through passengers from the west can just use the Capitol and regional and Acela trains to get to NY.

Out West, if you can't get the money to run the existing LD trains then sell off the equipment to a private operator. The only train I see continuing all the way between Chicago and LAX is the SWC and re-routed to the Transcon. The Eagle becomes a day train between St Louis and DFW. Texas starts up it's corridor service south of there. The Heartland Flyer connects in KC. The Sunset becomes a day train between NOL and Houston and a corridor train between Tucson, Phoenix and LAX. The EB becomes a Portland/Seattle to Glacier park special. The CZ morfs into a Denver to Grand Jct round trip and a SFO to Reno fun train. Except for the SWC. none of these trains run daily. Just in the summer and not every day. Chicago to MSP becomes a state corridor problem. The Coast Starlight continues with extra cars to support the demand, but paid for by the three west coast states. You might add a Denver to Yellowstone Park special. People that want to ride these special trains just fly to them and you offer packages that do that.

So that leaves Amtrak as operator of the NEC which now the states it runs through have to fork over the money to run it. And they can be a bidder to run the state supported corridors along with anyone else that is interested. By then most of the states will have their own equipment.

Just a few ideas to chew on.


----------



## henryj

Oh and I forgot about the Cardinal. It becomes a Cincinatti to DC coach daily day train or something like that paid for by the respective states.


----------



## neroden

henryj said:


> Discontinue the LSL and just run a series of day trains between the largest cities.


Terrible idea.
The LSL is both the "upstate NY to Chicago" train and the "Boston to Chicago" train and the "NYC to Chicago" train. You need all three. While "NYC to Chicago" could be handled by a different route, the other two can't. And unless you speed up the trains a *lot*, I don't see how to run even Albany-Chicago as a day train -- it's over 15 hours. Now, once you speed the route up, you can start considering reorganizations like this. But you *have to speed the trains up first*, before you consider stuff like this.

(As the "upstate NY to Chicago" train, it becomes obvious that there's a missing link: "upstate NY to Michigan". I'm quite sure that looping the LSL up to Detroit, or having a connecting train to Detroit, would improve riderhsip. Michigan is already considering Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit, and this *ought* to continue to Toledo and connect with trains to the east.)


----------



## henryj

neroden said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discontinue the LSL and just run a series of day trains between the largest cities.
> 
> 
> 
> Terrible idea.
> The LSL is both the "upstate NY to Chicago" train and the "Boston to Chicago" train and the "NYC to Chicago" train. You need all three. While "NYC to Chicago" could be handled by a different route, the other two can't. And unless you speed up the trains a *lot*, I don't see how to run even Albany-Chicago as a day train -- it's over 15 hours. Now, once you speed the route up, you can start considering reorganizations like this. But you *have to speed the trains up first*, before you consider stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Well, I assumed they would be sped up and also state supported. But the LD Boston to Chicago service is toast under that scenario. It's a minor player anyway. We are talking drastic restructuring of the system under these scenarios, so I see no need for the LSL to continue. Actually, I didn't actually make that point clear, but all this eastern restructuring would end up state supported. There would be no Federal money involved. And if the western trains are sold off those would also not be Fed supported. So basically Federal support of the passenger rail system in the US ends.


----------



## Ryan

What about federal support for aviation and highways? Kick them over to the states as well?


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> -Detroit is over served as it is. Its a dead city, servicing the moribund traditional domestic car industry. GM and Ford are quite clearly not reading the writing Elon Musk sprayed on the wall, and when those two companies inevitably die, what is left of that city will make Rochester look like an overpopulated city. Northern Michigan is underserved, as are the communities in Michigan that are not depending on the former Big Two.


Having actually been to Detroit recently, it isn't nearly as dead as you'd think. I suppose it rose so high that it has had a very long way to fall.
Anyway, the important point is that in order to take Amtrak from Grand Rapids or Lansing or Detroit to the east, you currently have to go through Chicago, which is ridiculous. There should be a route running "the other way", which means from Toledo to Detroit (or Ann Arbor) to Lansing to Grand Rapids, and then east from Toledo.

This is similar to the ridiculousness where you can't get from New Orleans to Florida without going through DC, but in the Gulf States there's no real political support for intercity train service, and in Michigan there is a lot more. (Actually, there is a lot of support in Ohio too, although it's obscured by a *fanatically* anti-rail caucus which is currently in control of the state government there, one which makes special efforts to sabotage municipal rail plans.) Plus which, there's not much track to fix up between Toledo and Detroit -- 60 miles, most of which has four tracks owned by two different railroads, there's got to be a way to get the agreements. This is also a case where the decline of industrial Detroit should mean *less* freight traffic to interfere with attempts to restart passenger service.



> - I disagree with you about the CZ. I really have the feeling that the whole operational merit of the California Zephyr west of Denver IS as a land cruise, and moving it from its historical route is misguided. There SHOULD be a day train from Denver to Salt Lake City on the Overland route.


I spent a long time thinking about the CZ.
As a land cruise, it's pretty from Denver to Salt Lake (but surely most people would be fine with Denver to Grand Junction?), and from Reno to California. But as a land cruise, it's got nothing going for it from Reno to Salt Lake, which is also the lowest-ridership section. There also seems to be remarkably little Salt Lake - Colorado skiing traffic. The current schedule prevents reasonable Salt Lake-Denver service, which should be viable (and ought to be on the shorter Overland Route). The CZ's change in railroads at Denver can't be good for the on-time performance. A "Denver hub" system is the correct goal to aim for... but I'm not sure what sequence of events can be found to achieve that.

If you're thinking politically, restoring the Overland Route also may get you votes from Wyoming and Idaho.



> NJARP is moribund mostly because the personalities involved in the New Jersey rail scene split into various camps over a few key issues a long bloody time ago and they honestly hate each others guts. Not for any meritorious reasons, just a bunch of half senile, half crazy (or fully crazy) grumpy, crotchety old men. I could go into lists of each personality and their problems, but they are irrelevant (and generally infantile).
> 
> I've been trying to reposition the Lackawanna Coalition into a state-wide organization to catch the new generation and provide a more coherent statewide organization. I have several reasons for believing this is the right move. First of all, I've managed to get myself, at 29, elected to an officership position. Joe Clift, a person with impressive credentials (former Director of Planning for the LIRR for one thing) couldn't manage to get elected to NJ ARPs board despite the fact that this failure left some of the boards seats empty. Secondly, we have certain institutional knowledge from our time period with the late, great, and deeply lamented James T. Raleigh. And thirdly, I've found a partner for doing this job who is working tirelessly to accomplish this goal.


Well, speaking of the Lackawanna Coalition, I'd really like to see the Scranton service established, for selfish reasons, and I'm told that what's left of the aged advocates in Binghamton (an aging town where the youth haven't been within two hours' drive of passenger rail service in their lifetimes) have focused on that too. If there's anything I can do to help the Lackawanna Coalition with that long-term goal... let me know. Are you in touch with the PNRRA people in Scranton?


----------



## George Harris

When looking at the NEC ridership and compare it to ridership in other areas, ask yourself this: If the Boston - New York - Washington corridor was served by one train a day that averaged somewhere around 40 mph and ran in the middle of the night and stopped at poorly lit out of the was stations what would its ridership be?

Without trains there can be no train passengers.

Start something like hourly service between Dallas and Houston with end to end times of under 3 hours and see what happens. It could be done for peanuts compared to what has been poured into that sinkhole for money called the Northeast Corridor.

Look at the train frequency and ridership on the San Diegan trains, and they are not really that fast thanks to the alignment and NIMBY's whenever there is any talk of doing things that increase speed.


----------



## henryj

RyanS said:


> What about federal support for aviation and highways? Kick them over to the states as well?


Well Ryan, if you want the Feds involved you could use the European scenario and have them maintain the track structure and have private operators run the trains. But that would be only for the portions Amtrak owns, like the NEC. The so called LD trains are running on private freight railroads tracks already. But there has been Fed and State support for some of the routes where passenger traffic is large enough to interfere with freight trains. I am just giving you a worst case scenario. Best case is it all just continues as is.


----------



## SarahZ

tonys96 said:


> Vitriol? Like this:
> 
> - "Texas needs to declare its secession from the union. I will host a going away party at my house. All are invited"
> 
> or "Beautiful and Texas are mutually exclusive."
> 
> Then Henry is chastised for defending his home state? Wow! This is a tough crowd.......


I didn't say those things, though. I think all states deserve good rail service, and I don't think any states should secede or disappear off the map, etc.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

henryj said:


> I get it that you don't like Texas, the Southwest, the Sunset Ltd, the western trains in general, etc.


I don't like Texas, and more so I don't like Texans. Especially ones that have no sense of humor whatsoever.

And no, I don't like the Sunset Limited. It consumes far too much resources that could be better used on improved capacity and service on the WESTERN LONG DISTANCE TRAINS which other than the utterly worthless Sunset Limited are highly useable and well run trains that make a lot of sense and serve distinct passengers who appreciate them. Houston boards 64 passengers a day. Which is utterly amazing. The 4th largest city in the US boards 64 passengers a day. Cincinnati, despite its absurd middle of the night service, boards 48 passengers, a city, haha, a tenth the size. If Houston used the train as much as Cincinnati, it would board 600 passengers. As I was saying, Sunset Limited's constituents do not seem to be particularly interested in their train.



tonys96 said:


> Vitriol? Like this:
> 
> - "Texas needs to declare its secession from the union. I will host a going away party at my house. All are invited"
> 
> or "Beautiful and Texas are mutually exclusive."
> 
> Then Henry is chastised for defending his home state? Wow! This is a tough crowd.......


No, the problem here is certain people don't seem to have much of a sense of humor around here.



henryj said:


> The western LD trains are two nights out trains and serve multiple functions including national parks, etc. They are all superliner equipped. So I would run them separate from the others and have a maintenance base and operating HQ out here where they run. The CONO and Capitol don't need to be switched except that there are not enough superliners to run the western trains. So I would just put them back to single level equipment unless someone is going to put in an order for new superliners which I just don't see happening.


This would suggest that their is a surfeit of single level cars. There are not. There is less than needed to run the current Long Distance single level trains as is. There is no particular reason to rob peter to pay paul. The east of Mississippi trains are more profitable. Ipso Facto Amtrak should spend its limited resources expanding ridership potential on the trains that make the most money. If your former CPA training suggests we should allocate scant resources to less profitable business operations, one would like you to explain why.



> A more drastic scenario for the Eastern trains is this. Set up a consortium of southern states to run the Florida trains as they have a lot of potential. Another option is to combine the Capitol and the Star and run it straight through DC to Florida. Stop and turn the Crescent and other Florida trains in DC. Run the Crescent only as far as Atlanta. If the states want a day train between Atlanta and NOL let them run it and pay for it. Discontinue the LSL and just run a series of day trains between the largest cities. Through passengers from the west can just use the Capitol and regional and Acela trains to get to NY.


Letting states run anything inter-state is stupid and demonstrates a lack of understanding of political reality. Running the Capitol and Star through to Florida does make sense, so long as low level platforms exist to allow the Superliner consist cars to platform. Turning anything in DC is stupid, and shows you may no finances, but clearly nothing about transportation logistics- if a train does not directly serve a specific major city, it will invariably lose most of its ridership from that city. The removal of the Crescent from New Orleans does make a certain degree of sense, but short turning cars makes a bigger one. Discontinuing the LSL is malarky- it should and to an extent does supplement day trains along the Empire corridor. There should also be a day train Buffalo to Chicago. But the LSL has excellent ridership and an impressive cost recovery basis. Swapping from Heritage to VII diners, the addition of a crew car BOS-CHI and a third sleeper CHI-NYP should actually make it profitable above the rails. Why in gods name would you suggest discontinuing it? Are you trying to be silly on purpose?



> Out West, if you can't get the money to run the existing LD trains then sell off the equipment to a private operator. The only train I see continuing all the way between Chicago and LAX is the SWC and re-routed to the Transcon. The Eagle becomes a day train between St Louis and DFW. Texas starts up it's corridor service south of there. The Heartland Flyer connects in KC. The Sunset becomes a day train between NOL and Houston and a corridor train between Tucson, Phoenix and LAX. The EB becomes a Portland/Seattle to Glacier park special. The CZ morfs into a Denver to Grand Jct round trip and a SFO to Reno fun train. Except for the SWC. none of these trains run daily. Just in the summer and not every day. Chicago to MSP becomes a state corridor problem. The Coast Starlight continues with extra cars to support the demand, but paid for by the three west coast states. You might add a Denver to Yellowstone Park special. People that want to ride these special trains just fly to them and you offer packages that do that.


Malarky. Especially your suggestion that Amtrak does not care about the long distance trains.



henryj said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discontinue the LSL and just run a series of day trains between the largest cities.
> 
> 
> 
> Terrible idea.
> The LSL is both the "upstate NY to Chicago" train and the "Boston to Chicago" train and the "NYC to Chicago" train. You need all three. While "NYC to Chicago" could be handled by a different route, the other two can't. And unless you speed up the trains a *lot*, I don't see how to run even Albany-Chicago as a day train -- it's over 15 hours. Now, once you speed the route up, you can start considering reorganizations like this. But you *have to speed the trains up first*, before you consider stuff like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I assumed they would be sped up and also state supported. But the LD Boston to Chicago service is toast under that scenario. It's a minor player anyway. We are talking drastic restructuring of the system under these scenarios, so I see no need for the LSL to continue. Actually, I didn't actually make that point clear, but all this eastern restructuring would end up state supported. There would be no Federal money involved. And if the western trains are sold off those would also not be Fed supported. So basically Federal support of the passenger rail system in the US ends.
Click to expand...

Interstate service, or at least multi-interstate, should ALWAYS be Federally supported.



neroden said:


> Well, speaking of the Lackawanna Coalition, I'd really like to see the Scranton service established, for selfish reasons, and I'm told that what's left of the aged advocates in Binghamton (an aging town where the youth haven't been within two hours' drive of passenger rail service in their lifetimes) have focused on that too. If there's anything I can do to help the Lackawanna Coalition with that long-term goal... let me know. Are you in touch with the PNRRA people in Scranton?


I agree with you on the other points. If you want to talk to me privately about Lackawanna Coalition related things, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

henryj said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about federal support for aviation and highways? Kick them over to the states as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ryan, if you want the Feds involved you could use the European scenario and have them maintain the track structure and have private operators run the trains. But that would be only for the portions Amtrak owns, like the NEC. The so called LD trains are running on private freight railroads tracks already. But there has been Fed and State support for some of the routes where passenger traffic is large enough to interfere with freight trains. I am just giving you a worst case scenario. Best case is it all just continues as is.
Click to expand...

Europe still has largely government subsidized trains. England is the one that did that privatization nonsense and it was generally considered to be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Ryan

henryj said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about federal support for aviation and highways? Kick them over to the states as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ryan, if you want the Feds involved you could use the European scenario and have them maintain the track structure and have private operators run the trains. But that would be only for the portions Amtrak owns, like the NEC. The so called LD trains are running on private freight railroads tracks already. But there has been Fed and State support for some of the routes where passenger traffic is large enough to interfere with freight trains. I am just giving you a worst case scenario. Best case is it all just continues as is.
Click to expand...

That did absolutely nothing to answer the questions I asked.


----------



## henryj

Well GML, I gave you what you asked for. You trashed all my ideas as not worth reading more or less. So just stick you head in the sand and keep doing what your doing. When you finally pull it out there will be no LD trains anywhere. And I do have a sense of humor. I am LMAO at all your comments.


----------



## jebr

henryj said:


> Well GML, I gave you what you asked for. You trashed all my ideas as not worth reading more or less. So just stick you head in the sand and keep doing what your doing. When you finally pull it out there will be no LD trains anywhere. And I do have a sense of humor. I am LMAO at all your comments.


No, he trashed them for not having any solid numbers proving your math.


----------



## henryj

Well GML and the rest, like I said before, all you really want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding in agreement with your far out ideas. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Good luck with that. Blahahahahahah. See I do have that sense of humor.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I feel like Edward Platt on Get Smart. Henry, can I call you Max? I'm getting a headache.


----------



## tonys96

RE:

_Interstate service, or at least multi-interstate, should ALWAYS be Federally supported. _

I am sure Rick Perry agrees with you about the Texas-Oklahoma funding put into the Heartland Flyer!

RE:

_I don't like Texas, and more so I don't like Texans._

I doubt if many Texans give a hoot.


----------



## haolerider

henryj said:


> Well GML and the rest, like I said before, all you really want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding in agreement with your far out ideas. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Good luck with that. Blahahahahahah. See I do have that sense of humor.


No, we are not "bobbelimg our heads" , we are just shrugging our shoulders and realizing that we will never get actual,figurs and facts from you! Perhaps you should un-retire and take a few refresher courses in accounting.......which is a fact-based occupation.....and not assumption-based! We have asked repeatedly for facts and figures from you, but it is a futile exercise! I quit!


----------



## henryj

haolerider said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well GML and the rest, like I said before, all you really want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding in agreement with your far out ideas. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Good luck with that. Blahahahahahah. See I do have that sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are not "bobbelimg our heads" , we are just shrugging our shoulders and realizing that we will never get actual,figurs and facts from you! Perhaps you should un-retire and take a few refresher courses in accounting.......which is a fact-based occupation.....and not assumption-based! We have asked repeatedly for facts and figures from you, but it is a futile exercise! I quit!
Click to expand...

I don't get paid enough to publish all that information. If you really want it, look it up your self.


----------



## henryj

tonys96 said:


> RE:
> 
> _Interstate service, or at least multi-interstate, should ALWAYS be Federally supported. _
> 
> I am sure Rick Perry agrees with you about the Texas-Oklahoma funding put into the Heartland Flyer!
> 
> RE:
> 
> _I don't like Texas, and more so I don't like Texans._
> 
> I doubt if many Texans give a hoot.


I certainly don't.


----------



## VentureForth

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about federal support for aviation and highways? Kick them over to the states as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ryan, if you want the Feds involved you could use the European scenario and have them maintain the track structure and have private operators run the trains. But that would be only for the portions Amtrak owns, like the NEC. The so called LD trains are running on private freight railroads tracks already. But there has been Fed and State support for some of the routes where passenger traffic is large enough to interfere with freight trains. I am just giving you a worst case scenario. Best case is it all just continues as is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did absolutely nothing to answer the questions I asked.
Click to expand...

Aviation, not so much. Although they are looking at user fees to make an already expensive proposition even more so. For instance, for the last 20 years, they've been threatening to charge private pilots the same as corporate jets and commercial airliners if they use the air traffic control system - particularly in instrument flight conditions.

The highways are already a hodgepodge of State and Federal funding. For the most part, only roads that are designated as "US-xx" or "I-xx" are Federally funded with the rest of the vast network funded by the municipality/county and State, with occasional earmark federal allocation when appropriated. Even so, even Interstate highways are not always fully funded by the Feds. Look at I-95. Georgia, for the most part is 3-4 lanes in each direction for all 120 miles or so of it. Same road in South Carolina, though, is almost entirely 2 lanes in each direction. Same traffic flow, bottle necked. Same Federal input, different level of State input.


----------



## Ryan

I'm aware of that.

You didn't answer the question either, but you get a gold star for actually addressing them, rather than make an assumption and then rant like Henry did.


----------



## RCBev

Some have suggested on stopping the Crescent at ATL. That leaves a big HOLE of train non-service in the south. If I wanted to get anywhere on the East coast on Amtrak from where I live, I have would have to drive a minimum of 4 hours.  Average is more like 5 to 6 hours. Currently, it is an hour and 15 minutes.  So PLEASE continue service the Crescent to NOLA!!


----------



## George Harris

VentureForth said:


> The highways are already a hodgepodge of State and Federal funding. For the most part, only roads that are designated as "US-xx" or "I-xx" are Federally funded with the rest of the vast network funded by the municipality/county and State, with occasional earmark federal allocation when appropriated. Even so, even Interstate highways are not always fully funded by the Feds. Look at I-95. Georgia, for the most part is 3-4 lanes in each direction for all 120 miles or so of it. Same road in South Carolina, though, is almost entirely 2 lanes in each direction. Same traffic flow, bottle necked. Same Federal input, different level of State input.


This is not correct. Look at any county or other map that provides designaltions on the type of road. You will see either "FAP" or "FAS" on virtually all roads outside city streets and the Interstates. These acronyms mean "Federal Aid Primary" or "Federal Aid Secondary" Now, maintenance money IS supposed to be fully state or local funded, but construction is supposed to be federally assisted on all these roads so designated at 50%. Interstates are supposed to be 90% federally funded. City streets are supposed to be local issues, and within subdivisions most were initially constructed by the subdivisor. Don't know if it still true, but for the Interstates in the so called "Public Lands" states such as Nevada and a few other thinly populated western states that 90% was even higher at 95%.

As to your South Carolina - Georgia example: The ratio was the same in both states, so the federal imput on a per mile of road basis would be greated. If this is not so, please source the information.

Incidentially, the FAS system started as a depression era "get the farmer out of the mud" progaram that at its beginning did not even include paving. It was only grading, drainage, and aggregate surface for the existing dirt roads along farm boundries, many built and maintained by the farmers as a necessary means to get their crops to market. In other words, a reasonably good gravel surfaced "all weather" road. Most of the small bridges were still wood.


----------



## haolerider

henryj said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well GML and the rest, like I said before, all you really want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding in agreement with your far out ideas. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Good luck with that. Blahahahahahah. See I do have that sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are not "bobbelimg our heads" , we are just shrugging our shoulders and realizing that we will never get actual,figurs and facts from you! Perhaps you should un-retire and take a few refresher courses in accounting.......which is a fact-based occupation.....and not assumption-based! We have asked repeatedly for facts and figures from you, but it is a futile exercise! I quit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get paid enough to publish all that information. If you really want it, look it up your self.
Click to expand...

Well, well! None of us get paid, but we are not spouting statements that have no basis in fact! I truly quit now! You have gone over the edge!


----------



## henryj

haolerider said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well GML and the rest, like I said before, all you really want on here is a bunch of BOBBLEHEADS nodding in agreement with your far out ideas. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Good luck with that. Blahahahahahah. See I do have that sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are not "bobbelimg our heads" , we are just shrugging our shoulders and realizing that we will never get actual,figurs and facts from you! Perhaps you should un-retire and take a few refresher courses in accounting.......which is a fact-based occupation.....and not assumption-based! We have asked repeatedly for facts and figures from you, but it is a futile exercise! I quit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get paid enough to publish all that information. If you really want it, look it up your self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, well! None of us get paid, but we are not spouting statements that have no basis in fact! I truly quit now! You have gone over the edge!
Click to expand...

Well bye bye. All my statements have basis in fact. You just don't want to believe it. This whole exercise was just a waste of time anyway. GML just set us up to argue amongst ourselves. He or it really didn't want any answers except those that dovetailed with his own. I can't believe they actually pay him to come up with this stuff in New Jersey.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I don't recall them ever paying me to come up with anything related to rail ever. *thinks really hard* I know my memory is not what it once was, but as a good Jew I know I'd remember people handing me money for doing something. I'm quite sure they don't.

I run a retail garment business that runs me ragged to within an inch of my life. AND THEN In my free time, because I believe in transit, because one day I will need transit, and because there are far too many people who need transit who are too downtrodden by the wealthy power base to fight for it, I fight and advocate for better public transportation in the state of New Jersey. I resent the suggestion that I do it for money, or even personal recognition, which I honestly and truly carefully avoid.

Not every answer that was given dovetailed with my own, but I like some of the suggestions and discussion that has taken place in this discussion. I have accepted as facts anything that has been solidly backed up by linked documentation. If you'd like to do the same, Henry, with your 'facts', I will be happy to accept them too as facts.

Let us assume, just for the sake of the argument, that over the rail costs for running the long distance network is around $150 million a year. Excellent. Approxmately 5 million people ride the trains a year, making the loss $30 a passenger. Those passenger represent a revenue of $520 million, or $104 a passenger on average.

If we can cut $50 million in expenses off the long distance trains (I don't think its unrealistic, especially as certain maintenance expenses are going away), add another 500,000 passengers (we gained 250,000 FY12-FY13), and increase the average per passenger revenue paid approximately 15%, you have a system that will produce $30,000,000 in over the rail profit. I don't think its that hard for an accountant like you, Henry, to actually figure out a way for relatively small changes to exist that will allow for that over, say, 2-3 years?


----------



## jis

henryj said:


> Well bye bye. All my statements have basis in fact. You just don't want to believe it. This whole exercise was just a waste of time anyway. GML just set us up to argue amongst ourselves. He or it really didn't want any answers except those that dovetailed with his own. I can't believe they actually pay him to come up with this stuff in New Jersey.


He is a volunteer like many of us. He does not get paid to do any of this. It is all labor of love AFAIK.


----------



## Minnesotan

> -I agree with you about *Saint Paul*. There should be at least three trains a day to *Saint Paul* in addition to the Empire Builder and possibly a North Coast Hiawatha.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## siberianmo

A great deal of effort put into your post, Green Maned Lion; covered lots of ground with many responses.

I am one of those vintage rail travelers and do so for pleasure. Given my health and bank account holds out, I plan to continue with my long distance get-aways along with my favorite day round trip between Kirkwood and Kansas City, MO.

I enjoy the sleeping and dining cars; without the latter my long distance adventures would probably come to an end unless something suitable could be arranged for those of us content to dine in our bedrooms. Enough of that.

I see passenger rail travel as an alternative to crowded highways and cramped airplanes. My crystal ball does now show a return to the halcyon days of rail travel before many frequenting those forums arrived on Earth. Ain't gonna happen.

On NARP and other organized efforts to keep the trains rolling, all I can say is keep putting your money where your mouth is otherwise it will be like whistling into the wind insofar as being heard is concerned.

On Amtrak past, present and future, I read the three comprehensive works by Joseph Vranich (perhaps someone well known to the well versed around here) and have found much of what you had to offer within his writings. I am not implying anything by bringing this forward just found similarities of thought. Like Mr. Vranich or not, he provides much food for thought to base one's decisions on regarding Amtrak from trackside to boardroom to trains to personnel.

As for politics, well I will simply say that Congress is inept on both sides of that Proverbial aisle. Remove politics from Amtrak and maybe just maybe we could see some long needed infusion of forward thinking with rapid, reliable, secure operations along with profitable enterprise for those desirous of buying in.

Just my ramblings for this fine day in mid-continent USA.


----------



## cirdan

Green Maned Lion said:


> Europe still has largely government subsidized trains. England is the one that did that privatization nonsense and it was generally considered to be an unmitigated disaster.


Depends who you ask.

Privatization may have swept aside some of the nostalgia, old fashioned comfort and many things that had remained unchanged since Victorian days, not to mention brutally higher fares (although that is relative, if you're flexible about when you travel, many routes are actually cheaper today than pre-privatization).

On the other hand, passenger miles have almost doubled.

So it can't all have been wrong.


----------



## Paulus

cirdan said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe still has largely government subsidized trains. England is the one that did that privatization nonsense and it was generally considered to be an unmitigated disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends who you ask.
> 
> Privatization may have swept aside some of the nostalgia, old fashioned comfort and many things that had remained unchanged since Victorian days, not to mention brutally higher fares (although that is relative, if you're flexible about when you travel, many routes are actually cheaper today than pre-privatization).
> 
> On the other hand, passenger miles have almost doubled.
> 
> So it can't all have been wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if the public investment that's been necessary since privatization had been put into British Rail instead, what would we have seen?


----------



## neroden

George Harris said:


> This is not correct. Look at any county or other map that provides designaltions on the type of road. You will see either "FAP" or "FAS" on virtually all roads outside city streets and the Interstates.


Not up here in rural New York you won't. There are a vast number of NON-federal-aid roads here. Federal-aid-eligible roads are a pretty random mishmash of roads, certainly.

The federal aid eligibility is apparently defined by the idiotic "highway functional classification standards", which assume a "tree and branch" road system, which of course is completely bogus.

This classification system assumes that there are "local roads", "minor collector roads", "major collector roads", "minor arterial roads", and "principal arterial roads", and tries to shoehorn the existing roads into this system. Into which they do not fit.

Apparently "urban principal arterial" through "urban collector" are federal-aid eligible, while "rural principal arterial" through "rural major collector" are federal-aid eligible

This means that a perfectly random set of roads are eligible for federal funding. It tends to include most of the state numbered highways and some random other roads. But MOST roads are not eligible for federal aid.

It is further worth noting that it is often necessary to *refuse* federal aid for eligible roads. Why? Because the roads may actually be local roads with houses on both sides and "children at play" -- but the federal aid guidelines are likely to want to construct them like speedways, due to this "functional classification" garbage.

The rich suburb I grew up in had to reject both federal and state money for several road rebuildings, due to these "widen the roads make the cars faster" requirements attached to the funding.


----------



## cirdan

Paulus said:


> Yes, but if the public investment that's been necessary since privatization had been put into British Rail instead, what would we have seen?


Maybe the private sector is better at twisting the arm of government into handing over that money.

British Rail regularly asked for money and regularly walked away, meek as a lamb, accepting no as an answer.

I doubt that without privatization, that any of that would have changed.

If the private sector is what is needed to get that money flowing, then we should judge the tree by its fruit.

I wonder if people like Mica would be bullying Amtrak as much if Amtrak was a well connected private corporation that was able to pull some of its strings back.


----------



## neroden

Wow, cirdan, you're probably right, but that's a spectacularly cynical way to approach government; essentially, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it means that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished. I don't like that conclusion and I want to find something wrong with it.


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Wow, cirdan, you're probably right, but that's a spectacularly cynical way to approach government; essentially, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it means that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished. I don't like that conclusion and I want to find something wrong with it.


All forms of government have their end states and particularly prone to flaws, why would you think democracy is somehow immune?


----------



## VentureForth

Paulus said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europe still has largely government subsidized trains. England is the one that did that privatization nonsense and it was generally considered to be an unmitigated disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends who you ask.
> 
> Privatization may have swept aside some of the nostalgia, old fashioned comfort and many things that had remained unchanged since Victorian days, not to mention brutally higher fares (although that is relative, if you're flexible about when you travel, many routes are actually cheaper today than pre-privatization).
> 
> On the other hand, passenger miles have almost doubled.
> 
> So it can't all have been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but if the public investment that's been necessary since privatization had been put into British Rail instead, what would we have seen?
Click to expand...

 When JNR in Japan was privatized and JR came into existence, fares went up, but the rolling stock improved dramatically. The speed and quality of the changes that came to rail in Japan for the 20 years after privatization was exponentially better than the 20 years preceding it.

And, yes, many low use routes through beautiful country side were either abandoned or sold to 3rd tier or public/private ventures. This is still happening now. The largest and most profitable spinoff JR Company is JR East which enjoyed a $1.7 Bil profit last year. The other spinoffs are making money, too, but harder to discern without delving into the Japanese reports.

Since JR includes the long distance routes, it's most comparable to Amtrak, though it does make a heckuva lotta money from its metropolitan operations.

One of the ways JR makes money is that they own just about the entire infrastructure that they operate within. This is partially because they acquired it all for next to free. But they have spared no expense in improving all of it - not just the catenary, or the platforms, or the ticketing system, but ALL of it. JR owns much of the power generating plants that supply its 98% electrified system. They sell to the grid what they don't use. The own the land and charge rent for tenants to set up everything from kiosks to department stores on its properties.

I could go on and on and on. Problem is that none of this applies to Amtrak and therefore it puts OUR national long distance rail system to an automatic disadvantage. Amtrak barely owns the track on the NEC. I think even the stations along it are mixmatched in ownership - certainly the ones outside of the NEC are. Without the ability to control its own infrastructure, it's severely limited to how it can grow.

I don't have the answers. I don't even seem to have good suggestions. But we're not going to get to keep long distance rail service for much longer so long as it is a political kickball.


----------



## neroden

> Maybe the private sector is better at twisting the arm of government


If this is the only way to get stuff done, what point democracy? We're supposed to be able to mobilize by voting, by public speech, etc. If results are all about bribery and threats, we might as well go back to warlords. I'm sure a good-sized militia would be the best way to shake money out for the railroad projects I'd like to see done, and boy would it make land acquisition simpler.


----------



## George Harris

neroden said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not correct. Look at any county or other map that provides designaltions on the type of road. You will see either "FAP" or "FAS" on virtually all roads outside city streets and the Interstates.
> 
> 
> 
> Not up here in rural New York you won't. There are a vast number of NON-federal-aid roads here. Federal-aid-eligible roads are a pretty random mishmash of roads, certainly.
> 
> The federal aid eligibility is apparently defined by the idiotic "highway functional classification standards", which assume a "tree and branch" road system, which of course is completely bogus.
> 
> This classification system assumes that there are "local roads", "minor collector roads", "major collector roads", "minor arterial roads", and "principal arterial roads", and tries to shoehorn the existing roads into this system. Into which they do not fit.
> 
> Apparently "urban principal arterial" through "urban collector" are federal-aid eligible, while "rural principal arterial" through "rural major collector" are federal-aid eligible
> 
> This means that a perfectly random set of roads are eligible for federal funding. It tends to include most of the state numbered highways and some random other roads. But MOST roads are not eligible for federal aid.
> 
> It is further worth noting that it is often necessary to *refuse* federal aid for eligible roads. Why? Because the roads may actually be local roads with houses on both sides and "children at play" -- but the federal aid guidelines are likely to want to construct them like speedways, due to this "functional classification" garbage.
> 
> The rich suburb I grew up in had to reject both federal and state money for several road rebuildings, due to these "widen the roads make the cars faster" requirements attached to the funding.
Click to expand...

The roads you refer to as not getting federal and state money - apparnently mostly city streets - are exactly the ones I was saying were not on the FAP and FAS system.


----------



## neroden

George Harris said:


> The roads you refer to as not getting federal and state money - apparnently mostly city streets - are exactly the ones I was saying were not on the FAP and FAS system.


Yes, city streets, but also *vast* numbers of rural roads.
County and town road funding is *huge*. It's about 25% of the property tax in this area. (And this is in NY, where 50% of the property tax is to pay for things required by the state, which doesn't require that we provide fire protection, roads, or police.)


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Wow, cirdan, you're probably right, but that's a spectacularly cynical way to approach government; essentially, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it means that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished. I don't like that conclusion and I want to find something wrong with it.


Neroden, I don't like it either.

And I don't want to go down the road of following that to its ultimate conclusion.

I was just really protesting against the notion that UK privatization was a total and umitigated disaster.

Sometimes if you want things done, you need allies. And sometimes those allies have agendas of their own, and you have to tolerate that in view of the bigger picture. Pre-privatization, the only allies the railways had were a bunch of user groups that were mostly run by pensioners from their homes and ultimately didn't have much punch or cash and weren't very professional in their messaging or campaign management. Plus there were the unions, but these often damaged the railroads more than they helped. This made the railroads an easy target for people in government looking for soft victims they could dole out punches to, knowing they couldn't hit back.

Compare this to roads where there was / is a massive cartel of construction companies and also of car manufacturers who can hold the government at ransom by threatening to close down plants and move production overseas.

Today, the railroads have powerful allies in the forms of the big bus and train groups. These in turn know their success depends on getting more people on trains. Passenger numbers are up. The network has ceased shrinking and even had some bits here and there added. Freight is also on the up, despite having gone through some difficult phases.

So is it right to twist government like that? I'd say no. But sometimes for lack of alternatives, it may be better to join them than face them.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Maybe the private sector is better at twisting the arm of government
> 
> 
> 
> If this is the only way to get stuff done, what point democracy? We're supposed to be able to mobilize by voting, by public speech, etc. If results are all about bribery and threats, we might as well go back to warlords. I'm sure a good-sized militia would be the best way to shake money out for the railroad projects I'd like to see done, and boy would it make land acquisition simpler.
Click to expand...

If you think about it, that's how the first transontinental railroads got built, or at least how the opposition from Native American tribes got dealt with.

It's not really democracy in the modern sense.

I'm not proposing that it's right to do it that way. But one shouldn't be too naive in assuming all things are as above board as they may at first seem.


----------



## VentureForth

cirdan said:


> I was just really protesting against the notion that UK privatization was a total and umitigated disaster.


It was, _at first_. Sure, it didn't go as smooth as the Japanese privatization, but it's getting there. Hardly an unmitigated disaster. They still have most of their trains - short and long distances - and most would say that the service has improved dramatically, both on a personal level, equipment level, and OTP level.

I wonder if privatization occured before the Beeching Axe if more routes and stations would have been cut, fewer, or if these were logical cuts that were proposed by the good Dr. Beeching working for the Gov'ment.


----------



## cirdan

VentureForth said:


> I wonder if privatization occured before the Beeching Axe if more routes and stations would have been cut, fewer, or if these were logical cuts that were proposed by the good Dr. Beeching working for the Gov'ment.


It is often the case with government reports that the government gets a report that justifies the actions it wanted to take anyway.

I think there is no doubt that the British railway system was overbuilt. There was too much duplication of routes and operating practices were old fashioned and inefficient. This was not a sustainable situation. Furthermore, many lesser and lighter rail lines were torturously slow and unable to compete with modern buses or cars. To suggest that things could have gone on as before would be very misleading.

On the other hand, the Beeching reforms were a knee-jerk reaction, leaving many people without rail services and ultimately forcing people to either buy a car or leave the smaller towns that had been cut off. These towns would have been better served by a more long-sighted transition. For example, many of the lines that Beeching closed had only some years before received new trains (I'm intentionally not using the word modern) so a lot of value was destroyed through an utter lack of long-term vision. At the same time, many of the bus services that were hastily set up to replace the rail lines were of temporary nature with bus companies failing to provide a long-term service that matched those of the rail lines they replaced and that failed to provide an integrated transportation chain as schedules were often not coordinated with the rail lines they linked to. Ridership decreased further and thes bus lines were often quietly abandoned. As many secondary routes had also depended on the branch routes feeding in passengers, ridership on these routes also took a plunge and many of these were in turn abandoned.

Government never took steps to ordain minimum service levels or integration or connectivity. This is quite a contrast to say, Germany or Denmark, where many rural bus services, including those that replaced railroads, were run by either DB themselves or by parner companies (such as the Post Office).

Would private companies with a stake in the long term health of the railroad have stood by and accepted being punched around in this way? In hindsight, it is difficult to say. Beeching probably truly believed that British Rail could be returned to true profitability, surviving without any public subsidy. In hindsight, this was probably a naive assumption.


----------



## neroden

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, cirdan, you're probably right, but that's a spectacularly cynical way to approach government; essentially, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it means that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished. I don't like that conclusion and I want to find something wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Neroden, I don't like it either.
> 
> And I don't want to go down the road of following that to its ultimate conclusion.
Click to expand...

OK then.  
Maybe we can do better with some sort of combination of grassroots lobbying and leveraging the power of big money than with big money alone... that would make me feel better about democracy!

As far as I can tell, this type of "semi-democratic" lobbying has worked pretty well in places like Grand Rapids. (Everything has a major corporate sponsor's name on it... but the grassroots can be pretty influential in determining what those corporate sponsors decide to sponsor. It's not just "whatever the boss feels like".)



> So is it right to twist government like that? I'd say no. But sometimes for lack of alternatives, it may be better to join them than face them.


----------



## neroden

cirdan said:


> If you think about it, that's how the first transontinental railroads got built, or at least how the opposition from Native American tribes got dealt with.


The early transcons are a legendary and very interesting sequence of scandals.
Up here in the land of the New York Central, the Lehigh Valley, the Erie, and the Lackawanna, the history is a little different. Where I live, one of the first passenger railroads ever -- the Ithaca & Oswego -- was built by a far-seeing rich founder of a university (Ezra Cornell) in order to get people and goods to his rurally-located college. Sensible man. Anyway, the history is one of prominent businessmen recognizing that they needed transportation and building transportation directly to their businesses. I'm not sure when we started running short of businessmen who knew which side their bread was buttered on when it came to transportation.

Though, speaking of overcoming Native American opposition, here in NY we still do need to compensate the Iroquois/Haudenosaundee for the land the state stole from them way back when -- they've been pressing the case continuously for roughly 200 years. (The state government almost did it a few decades back, but then the federal Supreme Court again decided that it was OK to steal land from Native Americans... which isn't going to stop the Iroquois from continuing to demand their rights, because it never has. Note that those cases aren't about the land ceded after the Iroquois lost the Revolutionary War; the Iroquois agree that they gave up *that* land, some of which I live on. The cases are about the land stolen after that, through fraud and falsified documents and in violation of the Nonintercourse Act and its predecessors. They're open-and-shut cases; the Iroquois hold legal title to the land under all of our legal traditions, whatever the Supreme Court may say.)


----------



## jis

Neorden has mentioned several times that Eastern LD trains are more likely to perform better financially than the western ones for various reasons. One of the reasons is illustrated in this interesting map I found at the FRA site. It is a map of ZIP codes. There is one cross per each zip code located roughly in the center of the territory covered by the ZIP code. It is automatically produced from the FRA GIS system. If one assumes that the ZIP codes are set up in a way that each ZIP code roughly serves the same number of addresses with some reasonable error interval then this map is a very good indication of population density. Take a look at it and see what you think.


----------



## neroden

Nice picture. If you search for "US population density map" in Google images, you'll find a striking number of similar maps. The ZIP code map gives a particularly clear picture of the gradients though.

I kind of like this population density map:

http://ecpmlangues.u-strasbg.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html

This one's very recent:

http://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/u-s-population-density-map.jpg

Whichever map you look at, there's a very clear north-south line running San Antonio - DFW - OKC - Wichita - Lincoln which marks the west end of substantial population and the beginning of the prairies, with only the occasional spot of density between there and the west coast.

This sort of map also makes it clear that service to Allentown PA, or indeed Ithaca NY, has a lot more potential than the entire state of Wyoming. And it makes it clear why Wichita and Amarillo is a better route than the Raton Pass route. And it makes it clear why Ohio could support a hell of a lot of passenger rail. And why New Orleans-Mobile is better than Mobile-Jacksonville. And so on...


----------



## neroden

Since for the first time in Amtrak history the schedules are enforceable, I see STB complaints against NS in NS's future...


----------



## me_little_me

neroden said:


> Since for the first time in Amtrak history the schedules are enforceable, I see STB complaints against NS in NS's future...


Basically, NS has scammed Amtrak and the STB so far. I have not heard of any warnings from the STB to NS about the Crescent and Amtrak doesn't seem any louder than a mouse. They should be going public and saying they half destroyed the Crescent with the attempt to arrange its schedule to get NS to comply with the regulations and NS is deliberately trying to finish it off. They won't do that because like most victims of scams, they are too embarrassed to admit their own failure.

The only solution unless NS is forcibly stopped in its tracks is to break up the Crescent into two trains, a sleeper/coach train Atlanta to NYP leaving before dinner. returning at about the same time and a coach-only daytime train between Atlanta and NOL, possibly making this train the extension from NOL to Biloxi. Both should use a new Atlanta station and the STB should make that happen using the fines from NS.


----------



## TheCrescent

tricia said:


> Aside from lack of equipment....
> 
> Sigh. In my dreams, there's a train with that kind of schedule.



You're completely right.

Perhaps add a bunch of Viewliner compartments into an Amfleet or Horizon car that's facing retirement (don't laugh; Amtrak did that before).

Federal law already allows third parties to bid on operating long-distance services, so I just hope that someone would find a way to make such a train work. I'd think that Norfolk Southern would prefer to operate the Crescent (at the government's expense) and be able to avoid clashes with Amtrak and the STB, but who knows.


----------



## TheCrescent

Raising an ancient thread from the dead:

Federal law allows long-distance trains to be bid on, and operated by, third parties, for a subsidy:









DOT Finalizes Rule For Amtrak Long-Distance Pilot Program - Law360


The U.S. Department of Transportation published a final rule Friday to implement a pilot program that would allow private operators to jockey for an opportunity to provide long-distance passenger rail service on certain routes typically operated by Amtrak.




www.law360.com







https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/07/2017-14355/competitive-passenger-rail-service-pilot-program



In practice, I'd think that only a Class I freight railroad would be a viable candidate for doing so.

Question: Why wouldn't a Class I not jump at the chance to get rid of Amtrak, particularly now that Amtrak and the STB can go after the Class I for delays, and since the Class I would be paid a subsidy for running a long-distance train?

Before Amtrak was created, the Federal government considered just subsidizing Class Is directly to run passenger trains, so this is what US passenger rail could have been (but for Congress deciding that Amtrak was preferable to having Class Is receive a subsidy).


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> Question: Why wouldn't a Class I not jump at the chance to get rid of Amtrak, particularly now that Amtrak and the STB can go after the Class I for delays, and since the Class I would be paid a subsidy for running a long-distance train?


Is this talking about just providing a train crew, or is it building a whole new system, with rolling stock, station maintenance, OBS, reservations, ticketing, etc.?

I can certainly see why they wouldn't want to go thru the pain of recreating an entire passenger service operation, especially if there's the possibility that the franchise could be pulled back if the FRA or STB are not happy with their performance.


----------



## tricia

TheCrescent said:


> .... Federal law already allows third parties to bid on operating long-distance services, so I just hope that someone would find a way to make such a train work. I'd think that Norfolk Southern would prefer to operate the Crescent (at the government's expense) and be able to avoid clashes with Amtrak and the STB, but who knows.



Um, I think jis's ha-ha emoticon refers to the fact that the only reason Amtrak exists is because US freight railroads emphatically did NOT want to run passenger trains. If you have any evidence that that's changed, it's a well-hidden secret.


----------



## TheCrescent

tricia said:


> Um, I think jis's ha-ha emoticon refers to the fact that the only reason Amtrak exists is because US freight railroads emphatically did NOT want to run passenger trains. If you have any evidence that that's changed, it's a well-hidden secret.



It's changed in Florida, where Florida East Coast Railway (which did everything it could to get rid of its passenger trains in the 1960s) is now an organizer of Brightline. It also changed in Indiana, where Iowa Pacific operated the Hoosier State (and apparently screwed everything up, including the reimbursement amounts in its operating contract).

Class Is didn't want to run passenger trains because they lost so much money. Under the Federal program, whoever operates a long-distance train gets paid to do so. Since the financial losses of passenger trains wouldn't exist, I just don't see why a Class I would avoid getting involved.

As someone who works in the private sector, if the choice is (1) run my business myself and get a government check to cover costs of part of it or (2) let a separate government agency come on my property and possibly sue me if I don't do what it wants (as Amtrak can do), I'd certainly choose (1). I'd think that Class Is would think the same way.


----------



## neroden

TheCrescent said:


> As someone who works in the private sector, if the choice is (1) run my business myself and get a government check to cover costs of part of it or (2) let a separate government agency come on my property and possibly sue me if I don't do what it wants (as Amtrak can do), I'd certainly choose (1). I'd think that Class Is would think the same way.



You'd be wrong. The Class Is are mostly run by idiots. 

BNSF might be willing to, since it does voluntarily operate several commuter rail services. CP has been reasonably friendly to passenger service in recent years but still doesn't want to operate it itself.

The others (UP, CN, CSX, NS, KCS) have been actively hostile to passenger service for irrational reasons having absolutely nothing to do with any business logic. They're quite able to shoot themselves in the foot.


----------



## TheCrescent

neroden said:


> You'd be wrong. The Class Is are mostly run by idiots.
> 
> BNSF might be willing to, since it does voluntarily operate several commuter rail services. CP has been reasonably friendly to passenger service in recent years but still doesn't want to operate it itself.
> 
> The others (UP, CN, CSX, NS, KCS) have been actively hostile to passenger service for irrational reasons having absolutely nothing to do with any business logic. They're quite able to shoot themselves in the foot.



Thanks. That may well be the case. I did have some indirect exposure to NS in the passenger rail field a few years ago and NS did seem to show zero interest in anything passenger-related (although the project wouldn't have been profitable or even break-even for NS).


----------



## jis

Moderator's Note: A number of posts above have been moved here from the Crescent schedule change thread at:





__





Crescent schedule change - first time in 50 years!


What a huge discovery, effective June 6. The Crescent now arrives New Orleans about 1h 40m later than the past umpteen years, and departs 2h 15m later the next morning out of New Orleans. I noticed Atlanta (where I lived during my "party" years) now gets a better schedule northbound (doesn't...




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> It's changed in Florida, where Florida East Coast Railway (which did everything it could to get rid of its passenger trains in the 1960s) is now an organizer of Brightline. It also changed in Indiana, where Iowa Pacific operated the Hoosier State (and apparently screwed everything up, including the reimbursement amounts in its operating contract).


Actually FECR had little to do with All Aboard Florida, which morphed into Brightline. It was FECR's owner Fortress Group that started the AAF project. It was run by the FECI subsidiary of Fortress and not by the FECR subsidiary. So FECR really did not have much to do directly with AAF/Brightline. Then Fortress sold FECR to Grupo Mexico and sold itself to Softbank.

As some half jokingly say - Brightline is a small railroad attached to a large real estate company.

The interesting thing about Brightline is that Fortress Group is indulging in this activity because they believe that this will significantly enhance the ROI of their assets. Meanwhile Grupo Mexico is said to be happy with FECR and its captive market,

Operationally the Florida Dispatching Company does the care, feeding of the tracks and dispatching of all FECR and Brightline trains in Florida. It is jointly owned by FECR and Brightline. FECR and Brightline themselves act mostly as what the Brits would call TOCs (Train Operating Companies) and they own or lease the necessary rail rolling stock and power. Soon a third TOC will be added to the mix and that will be SFRTA (TriRail) though they will not have any ownership or control over the Florida Dispatching Company.

The Hoosier State thing involved Iowa Pacific providing the rolling stock. on board service and OBS crew. The train continued to be an Amtrak train operationally, run by Amtrak T&E crew.


> Class Is didn't want to run passenger trains because they lost so much money. Under the Federal program, whoever operates a long-distance train gets paid to do so. Since the financial losses of passenger trains wouldn't exist, I just don't see why a Class I would avoid getting involved.


This facility was incorporated in PRIIA 2008. The fact that in 12 years there have been no takers so far has to be saying something.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Federal law already allows third parties to bid on operating long-distance services, so I just hope that someone would find a way to make such a train work.


Why?

I can just see Federal subsidies going to class 1 railroads to operate a passenger train that will provide service just as bad as Amtrak's. To make the class 1s interested at all, the subsidy would have to be a lot larger than what Amtrak is now paying them to use their tracks. I could see a lot of potential for waste, fraud, and abuse, and all kinds of corruption scandals regarding issuing and reimbursement of subsidies. At least Amtrak is owned by the government and more or less under its thumb.

Unfortunately, it seems in our political culture, a lot of people think everything is better when it's run by private business. That's not always true.

I think that once the Covid business settles down, and the new Amtrak board is in place, service on the long-distance trains will improve. There will still be the problem of class 1 railroads keeping their routes open during winter and tropical storms, but then, all transportation is affected by weather like that.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> Why?
> 
> I can just see Federal subsidies going to class 1 railroads to operate a passenger train that will provide service just as bad as Amtrak's. To make the class 1s interested at all, the subsidy would have to be a lot larger than what Amtrak is now paying them to use their tracks. I could see a lot of potential for waste, fraud, and abuse, and all kinds of corruption scandals regarding issuing and reimbursement of subsidies. At least Amtrak is owned by the government and more or less under its thumb.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems in our political culture, a lot of people think everything is better when it's run by private business. That's not always true.



You are right that things aren't necessarily better when run by private businesses. However, having Class Is run long-distance (or any) passenger trains, for a subsidy, could offer a few advantages:

1. First, Class Is have plenty of capital available. If that capital generates a favorable rate of return, they'll spend the money. Amtrak is chronically cash-strapped, and as a result, its customer-facing assets have lagged what airlines and other private companies have offered for years. For example, look at how long it took Amtrak to get e-ticketing, and even now, I'm unaware of any ability to order meals online before departure. There are efficiencies that could be achieved with capital investments, and Class Is could do that more easily than Amtrak could. They could likely order new equipment faster than Amtrak could, too, for one example.

2. Second, Class Is already have infrastructure in place to run trains; the marginal costs for a Class I of running a passenger train, in some cases for some things, might not as high as Amtrak has to pay. For example, a report years ago suggested switching a Crescent coach at Atlanta and deploying it to maximize ridership, but Amtrak hasn't done that in part because it would have to negotiate switching with a Class I, and pay the Class I. If the Class I ran the Crescent, it's not difficult for it to switch a coach at Atlanta. Same for things such as fueling and perhaps insurance; a Class I could handle that for likely less marginal cost than Amtrak does, for a route with a train a day in each direction. For example, my home station has a small Amtrak waiting room inside a Norfolk Southern building; how hard would it be for NS to just turn on the lights in that waiting room? Likely it'd be less expensive for NS to do it.

3. Third, as a very frequent traveler for decades (at least 50,000 miles per year on one airline alone for about 20 years), I've seen airlines change and grow significantly more efficient in their operations, and significantly more tech-focused, which has helped profits and in some cases, the customer experience (yes, I know this is subjective, and regular coach passengers may not like the customer experience overall). I haven't seen Amtrak evolve as much. If anything, Amtrak generally follows airlines in terms of new things (how long did it take Amtrak to develop a loyalty program, for example). Private businesses in general will emphasize efficiency and whatever it takes to improve profits more than a public agency will (and I have been involved in a public transit agency, and it certainly did a good job and tried, but it has different stakeholders than a private corporation).

Look at Brightline for an example of what a privately-owned railroad is. That's the gold standard in railroading. Certainly not every privately-owned railroad is as great as Brightline, but having deep financial resources, and private-sector forces that push for maximum efficiency in capital uses, are perhaps one reason why it is such a great railroad.


----------



## Ryan

They’re also losing money hand over fist by most accounts. As long as they lose less than the property values increases, they’ll come out ahead. Class I’s have no such motivation to lose money on passenger service.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Look at Brightline for an example of what a privately-owned railroad is. That's the gold standard in railroading. Certainly not every privately-owned railroad is as great as Brightline, but having deep financial resources, and private-sector forces that push for maximum efficiency in capital uses, are perhaps one reason why it is such a great railroad.



Brightline isn't even running its core Miami -Orlando service yet, so we have no idea about whether it's going to be a "gold standard" either as regards to profitability or quality of service. I still say it's even money that after the owners of Brightline make their bundle on the real estate development alongside the tracks they'll try to dump the actual train service on to Amtrak or the State of Florida. Brightline is a real-estate development company that is offering train service as an amenity to increase the prices for the real estate they sell, it's not really a railroad company. And what is "maximum efficiency in capital uses," anyway?


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> Brightline isn't even running its core Miami -Orlando service yet, so we have no idea about whether it's going to be a "gold standard" either as regards to profitability or quality of service. I still say it's even money that after the owners of Brightline make their bundle on the real estate development alongside the tracks they'll try to dump the actual train service on to Amtrak or the State of Florida. Brightline is a real-estate development company that is offering train service as an amenity to increase the prices for the real estate they sell, it's not really a railroad company. And what is "maximum efficiency in capital uses," anyway?



I was very impressed when I took Brightline; the stations were sleek, employees were very nice, lounges we’re luxurious and train cars were very nice. It was certainly a great customer experience.

Maximim efficiency with respect to how capital is used means that a dollar spent has the biggest rate of return possible.

Since deregulation, the amount of money that a Class I railroad uses to transport one ton of freight one mile has fallen significantly. Same for private airlines: the amount they have to spend a transport a person one mile has fallen significantly. They have become much more efficient and what they charge has also fallen. So we’re getting more transportation from them, at a lower cost.

Amtrak has not seen similar gains in efficiency; the amount that it has to spend to carry a passenger one mile hasn’t fallen like it has for Class Is and airlines. This means that Amtrak isn’t generating as much transportation per dollar as Class Is and airlines do. There may be a lot of reasons for this, but this difference suggests that if a private company ran passenger trains, one might see efficiency gains- being able to transport one person one mile at an increasingly low cost. If passenger rail in the US hauled significantly more passengers for the same amount spent, I think that would be a good thing.


----------



## Ryan

I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers that produced that analysis.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Maximim efficiency with respect to how capital is used means that a dollar spent has the biggest rate of return possible.



From the "point of view of the investor, "rate of return" has to do maximizing the amount of money that is skimmed off by the investor. "Maximizing efficiency" will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. One way to do that is to cut costs to the bone, produce a lousy product and sell it at high cost. Some believe that "the market" will somehow magically prevent this, through competition, but if there are a limited number of producers, and they are all following the same cost-cutting, lousy product business model, then there's really no useful competition, is there? 

On the other hand, a government subsidizing passenger rail might view "maximum efficiency" as the maximizing the number of cars taken off the road, i.e., maximizing passenger miles. This is going to cost real money, not just improvements in on-board service, but improvements in infrastructure and rolling stock, and increased staffing costs that no profit-seeking private enterprise would want to accept. Even if the investor-owned railroad took the subsidies, running passenger trains isn't a good fit for the rest of their business model, and they'd probably try to skim off as much of the subsidy as they could into other parts of the company.

Also, from the point of view of the government providing the subsidies, long-distance trains are not the most efficient use of passenger rail subsidy dollars, as the point of spending taxpayer funds on passenger rail is to take as many cars off the road as possible, preferably in heavily populated areas where taking the cars off the road will reduce all emissions, not just greenhouse gas emissions.



> Since deregulation, the amount of money that a Class I railroad uses to transport one ton of freight one mile has fallen significantly.


And with that "efficiency" the product (freight transportation) quality has seriously deteriorated, if one believes some of the threads posted here -- derailments, delayed trains, tracks blocked by falling trees because the class 1s are too cheap to cut the trees, etc. Maybe the Cass 1s are making lots of money, or having their share prices increase, but they're not meeting their potential in providing optimal transportation utility to the nation.

Anyway, if private capital thought they could run passenger trains, they'd be doing it. The only people doing it are a very small number of excursion operators and Brightline, which has a business model that can't be replicated in many places.


----------



## TheCrescent

Ryan said:


> I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers that produced that analysis.



Sure: 





__





Chapter 2: Growth, Deregulation, and Intermodalism | Bureau of Transportation Statistics


Chapter 2: Growth, Deregulation, and Intermodalism "Looking into the future, we have to change our attitudes about transportation. This is the biggest challenge of transportation."




www.bts.gov




The ratio of enplaned passengers per employee rose by 25 percent, and the ratio of RTMs per employee rose by 89 percent over this period. This remarkable increase in output per employee arises, in part, from the use of larger and faster aircraft, changes in flight personnel requirements, changes in work rules and practices, and adoption of various marketing strategies. 









Airline Deregulation - Econlib


The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act partially shifted control over air travel from the political to the market sphere. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), which had previously controlled entry, exit, and the pricing of airline services, as well as intercarrier agreements, mergers, and consumer...



www.econlib.org




Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles. The real benefits of airline deregulation are being felt today as never before, with LCCs increasingly gaining market share. 









Townhall: Government Regulations Threaten to Derail Consumers - The American Consumer Institute


Freight rail has been an unquestionable success of government deregulation. Since deregulation was passed over forty years ago, America’s rail freight industry has gone from the brink of collapse to one of the most efficient and productive. A recent report from the American Consumer Institute...




www.theamericanconsumer.org




.
The passage of the Act, however, was a gamechanger for the industry. According to the Association of American Railroads, freight rail rates have dropped approximately 44 percent since 1981. In the immediate aftermath of deregulation, it freight rates cost around 8 cents per ton-mile, compared to 4.5 cents in 2019. 

Of course, airlines' and freight railroads' private ownership is just one aspect of these changes; the easing of regulation is a major reason, and a publicly-owned company might have shown similar changes.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991,


That's not necessarily a good thing, from a public policy perspective. Aside from the fact that the quality of airline service has deteriorated over those years, the fact is that more people flying is not necessarily a good thing, especially from the perspective of greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions.

Anyway, airlines are also heavily subsidized by the government, mostly indirectly, but they have received direct handouts during various financial crises.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> That's not necessarily a good thing, from a public policy perspective. Aside from the fact that the quality of airline service has deteriorated over those years, the fact is that more people flying is not necessarily a good thing, especially from the perspective of greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions.
> 
> Anyway, airlines are also heavily subsidized by the government, mostly indirectly, but they have received direct handouts during various financial crises.



Agreed in that the growth of air travel has some positive and some negative effects. My only point is that airlines are much more efficient than they were in the past, in terms of the amount of transportation provided per dollar of cost, and Amtrak hasn't seen similar growth in efficiency.


----------



## west point

Fuel is the biggest cost of flying any kind of aircraft. The amount of fuel used per revenue passenger mile has dropped dramatically. Source is doubtfull but some say fuel per RPM has been halved.


----------



## TheCrescent

west point said:


> Fuel is the biggest cost of flying any kind of aircraft. The amount of fuel used per revenue passenger mile has dropped dramatically. Source is doubtfull but some say fuel per RPM has been halved.



Fuel is also a big cost of running trains. Amtrak should have seen a similar decrease in cost per passenger-mile. But it didn’t.


----------



## rs9

TheCrescent said:


> Fuel is also a big cost of running trains. Amtrak should have seen a similar decrease in cost per passenger-mile. But it didn’t.



I'm not sure this is completely true, that Amtrak should have a similar decrease in fuel cost per passenger.

For starters, Amtrak says they decreased fuel totals by 11.3 percent from 2010-2019.

Airlines have achieved fuel savings in ways probably not available to Amtrak:

- reducing the weight of seats and adding seats per plane.
- incentiving passengers to pack less
- purchasing more fuel efficient aircraft as they come available.

Given that the comfort of train travel vs plane travel or driving seems to be a product differentiator for Amtrak, not sure they can do much about seats.

Amtrak could reduce baggage allowances, but again not sure that works for the target market

Finally, as far as I understand, due to poor track across the country, passenger trains generally need to be heavy steel to improve chances in a crash or derailment. Even beyond that, Amtrak can't procure new locomotives or rolling stock whenever they want, since they don't control their own purse strings.

If the American taxpayer didn't keep bailing out airlines, they could not afford to renew their fleets as frequently as they do.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Fuel is also a big cost of running trains. Amtrak should have seen a similar decrease in cost per passenger-mile. But it didn’t.


The Amtrak locomotives are pushing 30 years old. There have been a lot of improvements in diesel engine technology since then. We should be seeing some decreases in fuel costs once the Chargers are fully deployed. Also, it's possible that fuel costs are a smaller fraction of the total cost of running trains as opposed to the cost of running planes.


----------



## me_little_me

It's had to increase fuel economy while sitting in sidings watching the freights go by instead of sitting on a train moving at track speed.


----------



## bms

rs9 said:


> If the American taxpayer didn't keep bailing out airlines, they could not afford to renew their fleets as frequently as they do.



Right. If the airline industry wasn't subsidized, it would be the same way it was in the Mad Men era, a few flights for the very rich. There's no limit to what the Federal govt will spend for cars or planes, but God forbid a person, who isn't affluent enough to own a car, might be able to travel to another city.


----------



## jpakala

Taxpayers subsidize all non-rail transportation heavily, from airports & tens of thousands of FAA salaries to road construction & maintenance to locks & dams, river dredging, and ports.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Well, reading what I wrote 8 years ago was certainly interesting, as was this ancient topic being dragged up. All I can say about the intervening years is whoo-boy. I am not saying that politically, but categorically.

I dropped out of advocacy after a sincere effort with someone else to take over a NJ rail advocacy organization, and failing miserably, despite the fact that the person I was running against for vice-chair was- well I won’t speak ill of the dead. But it did deeply confirm a major point I had felt at the time I wrote this, still feel, which is that people tend to favor their self interest over their own self interest.

I found it truly fascinating at the time, because the organization contained more anti-transit, anti-infrastructure, anti-capital spending on anything, and especially anti-commuter than I could imagine. Still does. Replace the disaster that is Port Authority Bus Terminal? God forbid they spend the money. Build more track capacity at Penn Station? God forbid they spend the money, because they should use that money to run more trains to a place they won’t fit. Any excuse to justify this position (ex. somewhat temporary Covid issues- Look, we don’t need to replace the antediluvian portal bridge!) is seized, regardless of sense.

No, I’m not making fun of conservatives, or honestly anti-transit organizations like the Heritage Foundation. I’m talking about a pro-transit organization that actively says it represents the interests of people looking for mobility and current riders. I don’t mean this as a criticism of conservatives; in the past 8 years a lot has happened, and I have actually become considerably more conservative in my viewpoints, although I suspect if we were to balance it out I’m still left of center. My criticism is rather to point out people who fight for things favor what they want right now (ex. more mid-day transit service) over what would serve their interests in the long run (the infrastructure to run more trains to more places ten or fifteen years from now), even though winning that fight would likely cripple what they are fighting for (transit equipment aging into low availablilty and reliability).

The future of transit and Amtrak‘s long distance network depends primarily on people coming together, reaching compromises, and recognizing that less-than-ideal solutions work better than no solution at all, and that the long term matters just as much as the short term. That is to say, its got a snowballs chance in heck. It is possible my point can be extrapolated more broadly.

Because what I see here, as everywhere else, is a lot of people starkly talking in terms of one side, and a diametric opposite side, as if there were two worlds, and the parties were confusing them for the same one. Which is funny, because when I talk to people who are interested in a reasoned discussion, I find that when you actually talk about what you want in a reasonable manner, disparate parties are far closer together in ideation than they ever imagined.

One thing I have not lost in 8 years is my capacity for extreme brevity.


----------



## toddinde

henryj said:


> The best expansion idea for the Crescent is to send it west from New Orleans to Houston and San Antonio. I would be an overnight train between Houston and New Orleans and a day train between San Antonio and Houston. I would only take one more set of equipment to do that and the train already has viewliner sleepers on it. It would give San Antonio and Houston a direct train to Atlanta, the east coast, Washington, DC, Philladelphia and New York with connections to Boston. It would be more direct than the Eagle. And it would be a huge boost to ridership on the train west of Atlanta and Birmingham.


It doesn’t have to be either/or. Both are good ideas. Let’s get the Sunset Limited daily. That’s already proven to be a ridiculously hard lift when it shouldn’t be.


----------



## toddinde

AlanB said:


> That would see the Crescent leaving the largest city it serves, NY, at 2:00 AM. Not a good idea.


New York and Washington to Atlanta and Birmingham overnight is the Crescent’s sweet spot. I work, and I would personally prefer to travel overnight, then spend a whole day on the train. Amtrak doesn’t have a good schedule anymore, and doesn’t do marketing, but the Crescent should be packed to the gills. In any event, the Crescent-Star will be very successful.


----------



## John from RI

As far as the costs of Amtrak are concerned, when the Interstate Highways are tolled I will be willing to discuss that issue. Federal Motor Fuels Tax is imposed on all drivers, not just those who use the Interstate Highways. If anything is unfair that is unfair. And that tax doesn't even cover the actual costs of the Interstate Highways. A fair amount of costs still come from general revenues. And policing of Interstate Highways, which is a major cost, is done by states. Most of the costs of policing are paid from state sales taxes. 

So our Interstate Highways represent a massive subsidy to those who use them. They could be easily tolled and pay for themselves. 

** ****

Are a segment of Amtrak riders an aging group? While many Amtrak riders are older Americans I suspect that we age into the group just as we ultimately age out of it. When it comes to transportation many older Americans cannot use planes or buses because the spaces are too tight and too difficult. And long drives become more difficult with age too. So are we simply to deny people who, because of age or other factors, have impaired mobope not. 

********

Amtrak is really an intercity rail system. Long routes connect many small places, some so small they have no other public transit. The nature of rail transit makes this possible. However, if we are going to run long distance trains we do need sleeping cars and dining cars. 

********

This is my personal response to a few of the important issues you raise.


----------



## Joe from PA

toddinde said:


> Let’s get the Sunset Limited daily. That’s already proven to be a ridiculously hard lift when it shouldn’t be.



Maybe they are using one set of cars? We were set to leave New Orleans around 9 am. We finally left at 1 pm because we had to wait for the train returning from L.A., which was 3 hours late.


----------



## jis

Joe from PA said:


> Maybe they are using one set of cars? We were set to leave New Orleans around 9 am. We finally left at 1 pm because we had to wait for the train returning from L.A., which was 3 hours late.


AFAIK the three times a week service of the Sunset Limited uses three consists.But of course, still consists coming in from LAX have to turn at NOL into Sunset going out to LAX. There can be a delay in turning a consist because of late incoming or for other mechanical issues that need resolving before the consist can be released for service.


----------



## toddinde

John from RI said:


> As far as the costs of Amtrak are concerned, when the Interstate Highways are tolled I will be willing to discuss that issue. Federal Motor Fuels Tax is imposed on all drivers, not just those who use the Interstate Highways. If anything is unfair that is unfair. And that tax doesn't even cover the actual costs of the Interstate Highways. A fair amount of costs still come from general revenues. And policing of Interstate Highways, which is a major cost, is done by states. Most of the costs of policing are paid from state sales taxes.
> 
> So our Interstate Highways represent a massive subsidy to those who use them. They could be easily tolled and pay for themselves.
> 
> ** ****
> 
> Are a segment of Amtrak riders an aging group? While many Amtrak riders are older Americans I suspect that we age into the group just as we ultimately age out of it. When it comes to transportation many older Americans cannot use planes or buses because the spaces are too tight and too difficult. And long drives become more difficult with age too. So are we simply to deny people who, because of age or other factors, have impaired mobope not.
> 
> ********
> 
> Amtrak is really an intercity rail system. Long routes connect many small places, some so small they have no other public transit. The nature of rail transit makes this possible. However, if we are going to run long distance trains we do need sleeping cars and dining cars.
> 
> ********
> 
> This is my personal response to a few of the important issues you raise.


I want to thank you for your wise and cogent post. The automobile has huge costs that are subsidized by tax dollars. Think of all the people locked up for auto related crimes; driving after revocation, multiple DUIs, etc. The people that are homeless because they need a car to get to work, but because of the costs of a car, they can’t afford a place to live. All the roads and city streets that connect to highways paid out of general fund tax dollars. A large freeway interchange costs a billion dollars. It’s ridiculous. And then states complain about $2-3 million a year. Rail more than pays for its subsidy with economic benefits. Rail is very cost effective.


----------



## John from RI

Paulus said:


> From the PIPs:
> 
> Crescent:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 8%
> 
> 35-54 23%
> 
> 55+ 69%
> 
> Average Age 58
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 49%
> 
> Retired 41%
> 
> Lake Shore Limited
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers
> 
> (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 11%
> 
> 35-54 34%
> 
> 55+ 55%
> 
> Average Age 54
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 53%
> 
> Retired 32%
> 
> Silver Star:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)
> 
> 18-34 6%
> 
> 35-54 26%
> 
> 55+ 68%
> 
> Average Age 57
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 47%
> 
> Retired 41%
> 
> Silver Meteor:
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers(children not included)
> 
> 18-34 6%
> 
> 35-54 25%
> 
> 55+ 69%
> 
> Average Age 58
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 43%
> 
> Retired 43%
> 
> Palmetto
> 
> Age of Adult Passengers (children not included)
> 
> 18-34 9%
> 
> 35-54 29%
> 
> 55+ 62%
> 
> Average Age 56
> 
> Employment
> 
> Employed 50%
> 
> Retired 38%
> 
> Haven't seen any for the other long distance trains, but the corridor trains are available here, though you'll need to scroll aways down. It's immediately obvious that the long distance trains are significantly grayer than the corridors. Heck, look at the Empire Service, Route A. You claim the Lake Shore Limited "seems to retain a thriving younger clientele," with 11% of passengers being 18-35, while the corridor it runs over is 28% and the US census has 35% of the population in that range. 55% is 55 or older when only a third of the populace is and only 39% of the Empire Service.
> 
> Now, Chicago-Carbondale? 51% of that train is 18-34. _That's_ a thriving younger clientele.


Thanks for your work in bringing data to the discussion. I would add a few points to what you say.
1. On relatively short inter-city trips Amtrak will attract younger people because there are fewer competing options and because the time is more comparable to flying. For domestic flights people need to arrive at the airport at least 2 hours early to assure they will get through the TSA lines in time for their flights. When you factor that in Amtrak's intercity times are very competitive. And on Amtrak that extra time is spent sitting on the train rather than standing in line hauling luggage. 
2. While relatively few younger people ride Amtrak long distance the service is important to low-income people with a lot of luggage. Examples are students and members of the military service. When I take the train I see both groups waiting at the station. 
3. For people who travel as part of their jobs time is money. Employers are unwilling to pay for the extra travel time on Amtrak when flying is faster. 
4. For older people mobility impairments are a real issue. Even people who don't even need a cane still find the cramped seats and aisles on planes difficult at best. Shall we expect older people to all become recluses?


----------



## rs9

John from RI said:


> 3. For people who travel as part of their jobs time is money. Employers are unwilling to pay for the extra travel time on Amtrak when flying is faster.



With reliable wifi, #3 could change. While I'm shifting my plane travel to Amtrak for environmental reasons, it's much more realistic for me to do this than in the pre-pandemic era. With remote work a reality for many now, a full day of train travel while working is completely feasible. Of course, I will have to creatively budget my wifi time near the cities/towns we pass through (on the LSL).

If Amtrak would use a satellite provider for wifi, I think you would find younger people might even embrace working for a day on a train as a welcome change-of-pace. On a couple trips I've managed to fit in during the pandemic, people my age are traveling for a full week to a location but working for a few days to manage their vacation time.


----------



## jis

rs9 said:


> I'm not sure this is completely true, that Amtrak should have a similar decrease in fuel cost per passenger.


Indeed! The quickest way for Amtrak to decrease fuel cost per ASM as well as passenger mile, would be to get rid of Sleepers and non-revenue cars.  But of course we would not want that. As usual it is a balanced scorecard situation. reducing fuel cost per ASM is but one of several mutually conflicting goals and a reasonable balance has to be struck among them.


----------



## Exvalley

There is one simple reason why I do not believe the conspiracy theories saying that Amtrak is trying to eliminate long distance trains: politics.

Why on earth would Amtrak, a federally funded organization, want to lose the support of the all of the members of congress from the states that would lose service if long distance trains were eliminated? I get that Amtrak may not want to expand service, but surely they realize the political ramifications of eliminating it.


----------



## MARC Rider

People traveling long distances on long-distance trains is clearly a niche market. Certainly for business travel, where time is money. Certain overnight city pairs might work for the small percentage of business travelers (like me) who like or prefer riding trains (on our own time). The other source of ridership for overnight and longer journeys are people who can't fly or drive for medical reasons, people who are afraid of flying, and leisure travelers who like or prefer riding trains. That's certainly a large enough market to maintain a network of long-distance trains (especially when added to the people who ride the long distance trains for shorter distances), but the mode will never be a major part of America's transportation mix, unless something happens that renders commercial aviation unviable, and most people will just have to suck it up and take 4 days if they want to cross the country.


----------



## jis

One of Amtrak's wrongdoings relative to LD trains is erroneously claiming that they are still under the restriction placed on them by Congress at one time preventing them from adding any LD trains without getting Congress's permission. Unfortunately Congress is collectively dumb enough not to have added a simple sentence stating that Amtrak is no longer under that restriction.

Beyond that there is lots of poor management of resources aided and abetted by a pandemic of late, and such, to contend with.


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> Indeed! The quickest way for Amtrak to decrease fuel cost per ASM as well as passenger mile, would be to get rid of Sleepers and non-revenue cars.  But of course we would not want that. As usual it is a balanced scorecard situation. reducing fuel cost per ASM is but one of several mutually conflicting goals and a reasonable balance has to be struck among them.


Not necessarily. Reducing to the point of not running at all does get to the point that the cost per passenger is zero because you have no passengers. So-called non-revenue cars do produce revenue by filling the other cars. And adding more revenue cars brings in more money which should reduce the fuel cost per passenger.
Then again, reducing the fuel costs per passenger should not be an objective. Increasing the overall profit, if possible, or at least reducing the total losses is what counts. What's more important, paying X per passenger for fuel vs a higher Y per passenger or bringing in $A per passenger in income vs $(nA) by having more revenue and non-revenue cars with which to pay the higher fuel costs and increase the net?
Using the "non-revenue" concept ad absurdum means replacing non-revenue space like restrooms with more revenue seats - only nobody would take the train.


----------



## TheCrescent

Couldn't fuel cost per ASM and passenger-mile be reduced by (1) having more fuel-efficient locomotives and (2) lighter locomotives and rolling stock, too?

That's what airlines did. (Airlines also packed more people into coach--I still think that in the NEC and maybe elsewhere, Amtrak ought to add a commuter coach onto the end of NE Regional trains and sell bargain-priced tickets to attract the bus crowd.


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> Not necessarily. Reducing to the point of not running at all does get to the point that the cost per passenger is zero because you have no passengers. So-called non-revenue cars do produce revenue by filling the other cars. And adding more revenue cars brings in more money which should reduce the fuel cost per passenger.
> Then again, reducing the fuel costs per passenger should not be an objective. Increasing the overall profit, if possible, or at least reducing the total losses is what counts. What's more important, paying X per passenger for fuel vs a higher Y per passenger or bringing in $A per passenger in income vs $(nA) by having more revenue and non-revenue cars with which to pay the higher fuel costs and increase the net?
> Using the "non-revenue" concept ad absurdum means replacing non-revenue space like restrooms with more revenue seats - only nobody would take the train


Jis didn't say "not running at all," he said getting rid of sleepers and non-revenue cars. By the way, this also helps improve fuel economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, though, of course, emissions could be really reduced if people just stopped traveling.  It's also not clear that all of these proposed fancy add-ons will really attract enough additional revenue to cover the increased costs.


----------



## MARC Rider

TheCrescent said:


> Couldn't fuel cost per ASM and passenger-mile be reduced by (1) having more fuel-efficient locomotives and (2) lighter locomotives and rolling stock, too?


I think one is running up against FRA regulations that require American passenger trains to be built like tanks in order to survive collisions with freight trains. As far as fuel efficient, I believe the Chargers are much more fuel-efficient than the old Genesis locomotives, and the Sprinters are more efficient than the AEM-7s.


----------



## jis

TheCrescent said:


> Couldn't fuel cost per ASM and passenger-mile be reduced by (1) having more fuel-efficient locomotives and (2) lighter locomotives and rolling stock, too?


Indeed, airlines have used mainly four methods to reduce CASM:

1. Use newer planes that weigh less. This has much more spectacular effect for airplanes since all that weight has to be lifted to a significant altitude before you even start moving in right earnest towards your destination., unlike trains which just has to accelerate them to a much slower speed than planes, on steel rails.

2. Use more efficient engines.

3. Pack more passengers

4. Reduce OBS crew to the minimum allowed by regulations.

But this is just one side of the equation. The other side is RASM. If you wish to run a going business, in general RASM has to be greater than CASM.

1. Because packing too tight will reduce willingness to pay higher fare the desire to pack has to be balanced against whether you are getting enough RASM to cover the wonderful CASM achieved.  So we see proliferation of Pods instead of cramped seats, sometimes occupying as much as a third of the plane.

The train equivalent of this would be more BC and Sleepers.

2. Lack of service reduces RASM, so OBS personnel are added beyond the minimum necessary, until the right balance is achieved.

The train equivalent would be better food service and better trained servers providing standardized good to excellent service.

There are other minor factors affecting both CASM and RASM.

But in general when I mentioned "balanced scorecard" in my previous post, it is this sort of balancing of factors pulling in opposite directions that I was alluding to. Apparently some missed that point completely.

But the enormous success of many LCCs in the airline industry while full service airlines struggle to survive suggests that in general most likely all Coach service cramming passengers is a winner over more luxurious service, most unfortunately, I might add.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Indeed, airlines have used mainly four methods to reduce CASM:
> 
> 1. Use newer planes that weigh less. This has much more spectacular effect for airplanes since all that weight has to be lifted to a significant altitude before you even start moving in right earnest towards your destination., unlike trains which just has to accelerate them to a much slower speed than planes, on steel rails.
> 
> 2. Use more efficient engines.
> 
> 3. Pack more passengers
> 
> 4. Reduce OBS crew to the minimum allowed by regulations.
> 
> But this is just one side of the equation. The other side is RASM. If you wish to run a going business, in general RASM has to be greater than CASM.
> 
> 1. Because packing too tight will reduce willingness to pay higher fare the desire to pack has to be balanced against whether you are getting enough RASM to cover the wonderful CASM achieved.  So we see proliferation of Pods instead of cramped seats, sometimes occupying as much as a third of the plane.
> 
> The train equivalent of this would be more BC and Sleepers.
> 
> 2. Lack of service reduces RASM, so OBS personnel are added beyond the minimum necessary, until the right balance is achieved.
> 
> The train equivalent would be better food service and better trained servers providing standardized good to excellent service.
> 
> There are other minor factors affecting both CASM and RASM.
> 
> But in general when I mentioned "balanced scorecard" in my previous post, it is this sort of balancing of factors pulling in opposite directions that I was alluding to. Apparently some missed that point completely.


What do ASM, CASM, & RASM stand for? Couldn't find definitions in our Common Abbreviations thread or on Wikipedia.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> What do ASM, CASM, & RASM stand for? Couldn't find definitions in our Common Abbreviations thread or on Wikipedia.


ASM - Available Seat Miles
CASM - Cost per Available Seat Mile
RASM - Revenue per Available Seat Mile

Standard terminology in the passenger transportation industry.

Amtrak does provide its consolidated CASM and RASM every month. Needless to say, its RASM is less than its CASM.


----------



## Joe from PA

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak ought to add a commuter coach onto the end of NE Regional trains and sell bargain-priced tickets to attract the bus crowd.



Better yet, go INDIA style. Put hand grips and foot pads on the roof and sides of the rear car.


----------



## jis

Joe from PA said:


> Better yet, go INDIA style. Put hand grips and foot pads on the roof and sides of the rear car.


My understanding is that those traveling on the roof are zero revenue customers (otherwise known as ticketless travelers), so they would not fulfill the revenue mission that the OP had in mind anyway.

Incidentally, this is becoming less common with more and more routes getting electrified with 25kV catenary. The roof travel then has a tendency to convert itself into a trip to the Pearly Gates. Few years back there was a video circulating on Youtube about such an incident at Gaya Jct. (station for Bodh Gaya a holy site for Buddhists of the world). I think it has since been taken down. It was pretty horrid!

Anyway, for the same reason this idea would not work well on the NEC either. So all in all - a bad idea.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> ASM - Available Seat Miles
> CASM - Cost per Available Seat Mile
> RASM - Revenue per Available Seat Mile
> 
> Standard terminology in the passenger transportation industry.
> 
> Amtrak does provide its consolidated CASM and RASM every month. Needless to say, its RASM is less than its CASM.


Thanks. Wikipedia had it under "Aeronautics" (which was wrong in the first place, it should have been "Aviation'). I changed it to be under "Transportation", and noted that it can also be applied to trains & buses.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> One of Amtrak's wrongdoings relative to LD trains is erroneously claiming that they are still under the restriction placed on them by Congress at one time preventing them from adding any LD trains without getting Congress's permission. Unfortunately Congress is collectively dumb enough not to have added a simple sentence stating that Amtrak is no longer under that restriction.



Amtrak mismanagement is apparently also misinterpreting the restriction.

The restriction was quite nitpicky and specific: it referred to trains with the same *endpoints* as existing LD trains. In other words, Amtrak could add 25 new LD trains between NY and Chicago even *with* the legislative restriction. Also, the North Coast Hiawatha, being a Chicago-Seattle or Chicago-Portland train, could be added even *with* the legislative restriction. So could the Chicago-Seattle Pioneer. (And that's quite intentional: Congress members who supported the NCH were involved in writing that restriction.)

At some point, this sort of wilful misinterpretation of the law starts to look malicious.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> But the enormous success of many LCCs in the airline industry while full service airlines struggle to survive suggests that in general most likely all Coach service cramming passengers is a winner over more luxurious service, most unfortunately, I might add.



Emirates is successfully pursuing the opposite strategy, of course.

We chewed through a lot of analysis a few years ago and found that adding a coach seemed to add more net profit than a sleeper on the Silver Star, while adding a sleeper seemed to add more net profit than a coach on the Lake Shore Limited. So there's definitely a balance to be found with both classes. Really, Amtrak should have enough cars of both types to lengthen all trains to meet demand. It doesn't.


----------



## neutrino78x

You know, I'm conflicted about this one. Part of the mystique of the Long Distance trains is the low speed. I guess the decision has to be made, are they per se transportation across those long distances, or are they more of a way to see the countryside and/or scenery? I lean toward the latter. Like I just said in another thread, the one time I have ridden a LD train was the Coast Starlight back on January 24, 2003, on my End of Active Obligated Service. The Armed Forces pay for your ride back to you home of record -- if you drive they pay for the gas, if you fly they pay for the ticket, if you go on a train they pay for it. So I went with an expensive stateroom, $400 ride, from Seattle to San Jose. It took 24 hours. It was great, I very much enjoyed it.

Of course, if I wanted to go from San Jose to Seattle at high speed, say to go to a Bring Your Own Computer LAN Party up there over a weekend, I would just fly, and get there in about two hours. No wheel on rail train can get close to that speed at that distance (if it's a short distance under 200 miles then yeah, HSR is going to be about the same speed. but not 800 miles). The French TGV for example averages 173, that would take 4.6 hours best case scenario, so even if we invested the billions and billions it would take to acheive that, the private sector product would still be a LOT faster. I guess I wouldn't object if we could do it cheaply though, say under 1 billion.

So yeah being in the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party, I would say, leave the LD trains as they are, maybe contract somebody like Aramark to do the hotel features (the staterooms, the cafe car, the observation car) if that saves money. 

I could support increasing the speed as much as we can without spending an inordinate amount of money. I think right now they average 35 or something like that. The thing if you increase them to 70 or more, you no longer have an overnight train and you wouldn't sleep on the train etc. So now it's a totally different experience, and I'm not sure it's worth spending much money on it, because at the end of the day, for high speed long distance, the private sector has that covered with aircraft. I think the top speed on most of the track for Coast Starlight is probably 79, right? Like Caltrain down here in the Bay Area? So in theory it should be possible to get it to average more like 70 than 35. Not sure what that would entail. Maybe one of the railroad engineers on here can tell us what all that would take and if it's plausible for a small amount of money, again I would say under 1 billion per LD train is the max I would support.


----------



## west point

Just get rid of the slow sections so trains can go 80 to 90 MPH on many stretches. a 60 MPH average including stops would get 10-1/2 hours ATL <> Wash. Palmetto10hours WASH <> Savannah, 21 hours NYP - MIA, 13 hours for Capitol probably no possible due to mountains,


----------



## rs9

neutrino78x said:


> You know, I'm conflicted about this one. Part of the mystique of the Long Distance trains is the low speed. I guess the decision has to be made, are they per se transportation across those long distances, or are they more of a way to see the countryside and/or scenery? I lean toward the latter. Like I just said in another thread, the one time I have ridden a LD train was the Coast Starlight back on January 24, 2003, on my End of Active Obligated Service. The Armed Forces pay for your ride back to you home of record -- if you drive they pay for the gas, if you fly they pay for the ticket, if you go on a train they pay for it. So I went with an expensive stateroom, $400 ride, from Seattle to San Jose. It took 24 hours. It was great, I very much enjoyed it.
> 
> Of course, if I wanted to go from San Jose to Seattle at high speed, say to go to a Bring Your Own Computer LAN Party up there over a weekend, I would just fly, and get there in about two hours. No wheel on rail train can get close to that speed at that distance (if it's a short distance under 200 miles then yeah, HSR is going to be about the same speed. but not 800 miles). The French TGV for example averages 173, that would take 4.6 hours best case scenario, so even if we invested the billions and billions it would take to acheive that, the private sector product would still be a LOT faster. I guess I wouldn't object if we could do it cheaply though, say under 1 billion.
> 
> So yeah being in the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party, I would say, leave the LD trains as they are, maybe contract somebody like Aramark to do the hotel features (the staterooms, the cafe car, the observation car) if that saves money.
> 
> I could support increasing the speed as much as we can without spending an inordinate amount of money. I think right now they average 35 or something like that. The thing if you increase them to 70 or more, you no longer have an overnight train and you wouldn't sleep on the train etc. So now it's a totally different experience, and I'm not sure it's worth spending much money on it, because at the end of the day, for high speed long distance, the private sector has that covered with aircraft. I think the top speed on most of the track for Coast Starlight is probably 79, right? Like Caltrain down here in the Bay Area? So in theory it should be possible to get it to average more like 70 than 35. Not sure what that would entail. Maybe one of the railroad engineers on here can tell us what all that would take and if it's plausible for a small amount of money, again I would say under 1 billion per LD train is the max I would support.



I think there's a couple of points here:

1. Yes, if speeds were increased, long distance trains wouldn't be overnight services for certain destinations. I don't see why that's a bad thing. If I can travel from Chicago Rochester as a daytime regional service (yes, stretching the definition of region), instead of going overnight, I'm still going to use the service and might actually be more inclined to do so. Higher speeds, or actual high speed rail, would bring about a redefinition of long term train travel.

2. As to whether that's worth spending money on, I disagree with your assertion that long distance train travel is or should be more experiential than a part of the U.S.'s transportation infrastructure. Granted, it is not a key cog in that infrastructure to date. But if we are serious about tackling climate change (we're probably not), then rail transport is going to play a key role in replacing short haul and even medium haul flights.

3. Regarding experiential - Amtrak could take some pretty simple steps to make one night overnight travel a useful experience in the work-from-home environment we are in. Example: I'm taking the Lake Shore Limited Boston to Chicago in business class later this spring. The train departs at 12:50 Eastern time. Yeah, the trip is 22.5 hours. That sounds crazy. Give me functional wifi and it becomes not just a full workday but one that actually might be enjoyable. Take a break and watch the scenery zoom by for a few moments. Spending the day at or near the station and then on the train working, enjoying dinner on the train and then maybe streaming a movie before getting some sleep...that becomes a _useful _experience. It won't be for everybody. But _experience_ doesn't have to just be sight-seeing across the west.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Keep in mind the Long Distance trains also serve many small cities and communities sometimes as the only public transportation. Amtrak already eliminated some of the stops. As long as the train makes the stops, it will be impossible to increase the speed.


----------



## Joe from PA

jphjaxfl said:


> Keep in mind the Long Distance trains also serve many small cities and communities sometimes as the only public transportation. Amtrak already eliminated some of the stops. As long as the train makes the stops, it will be impossible to increase the speed.



True...even large communities. If a person in Southern Florida wants to go by train to Disney World, their only trains are the two Silver trains. Actually, only the Silver Meteor, unless they don't mind a extra 2 hours going by way of Tampa.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Just get rid of the slow sections so trains can go 80 to 90 MPH on many stretches. a 60 MPH average including stops would get 10-1/2 hours ATL <> Wash. Palmetto10hours WASH <> Savannah, 21 hours NYP - MIA, 13 hours for Capitol probably no possible due to mountains,


The armchair calculator and timetable in hand magic wand solution?


----------



## rs9

jphjaxfl said:


> Keep in mind the Long Distance trains also serve many small cities and communities sometimes as the only public transportation. Amtrak already eliminated some of the stops. As long as the train makes the stops, it will be impossible to increase the speed.



I think another way to put it is that riders use long distance service as corridor service because corridor service might not exist where they live.

Looking at the Lake Shore Limited as an example, in 2019, about 65% of passengers traveled 500 miles or less and 43% were 300 miles or less. Median ridership was in the range of 100-199 miles.

On the flip side, 9% (this isn't exact most likely) of passengers traveled CHI-NYP. I didn't see stats for CHI-BOS.



https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3447/45.pdf


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jphjaxfl said:


> Keep in mind the Long Distance trains also serve many small cities and communities sometimes as the only public transportation. Amtrak already eliminated some of the stops. As long as the train makes the stops, it will be impossible to increase the speed.


In my experience some of the fastest trains in the world stop and start much more frequently than any of Amtrak's Long Distance trains.


----------



## toddinde

neutrino78x said:


> You know, I'm conflicted about this one. Part of the mystique of the Long Distance trains is the low speed. I guess the decision has to be made, are they per se transportation across those long distances, or are they more of a way to see the countryside and/or scenery? I lean toward the latter. Like I just said in another thread, the one time I have ridden a LD train was the Coast Starlight back on January 24, 2003, on my End of Active Obligated Service. The Armed Forces pay for your ride back to you home of record -- if you drive they pay for the gas, if you fly they pay for the ticket, if you go on a train they pay for it. So I went with an expensive stateroom, $400 ride, from Seattle to San Jose. It took 24 hours. It was great, I very much enjoyed it.
> 
> Of course, if I wanted to go from San Jose to Seattle at high speed, say to go to a Bring Your Own Computer LAN Party up there over a weekend, I would just fly, and get there in about two hours. No wheel on rail train can get close to that speed at that distance (if it's a short distance under 200 miles then yeah, HSR is going to be about the same speed. but not 800 miles). The French TGV for example averages 173, that would take 4.6 hours best case scenario, so even if we invested the billions and billions it would take to acheive that, the private sector product would still be a LOT faster. I guess I wouldn't object if we could do it cheaply though, say under 1 billion.
> 
> So yeah being in the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party, I would say, leave the LD trains as they are, maybe contract somebody like Aramark to do the hotel features (the staterooms, the cafe car, the observation car) if that saves money.
> 
> I could support increasing the speed as much as we can without spending an inordinate amount of money. I think right now they average 35 or something like that. The thing if you increase them to 70 or more, you no longer have an overnight train and you wouldn't sleep on the train etc. So now it's a totally different experience, and I'm not sure it's worth spending much money on it, because at the end of the day, for high speed long distance, the private sector has that covered with aircraft. I think the top speed on most of the track for Coast Starlight is probably 79, right? Like Caltrain down here in the Bay Area? So in theory it should be possible to get it to average more like 70 than 35. Not sure what that would entail. Maybe one of the railroad engineers on here can tell us what all that would take and if it's plausible for a small amount of money, again I would say under 1 billion per LD train is the max I would support.


A couple of points. The long distance trains don’t have to decide what they need to be; they can be many things. The name trains of the past like the California Zephyr, the Empire Builder and Silver Meteor were all things. Some people took them all the way on vacation. Some people used them for business. Some people used them to visit family, and on and on. Just because there are rail cruises out there doesn’t mean that a well run, long distance train can’t be all things. Second, contracting out isn’t the panacea. You lose a lot of control and it costs more. Savings, when there are any, are usually done to support the decision to outsource. Once outsourced, your at the mercy of contractors who low ball to get the work, and then jack up the prices. Experience with contracting out shows it cost $1.85 for every $1 spent pre contracting out. Any savings are usually accomplished by cutting employee salaries and benefits to pay for contractor overhead. That’s even if Amtrak could find a contractor willing to do it which is doubtful. Good management, good labor relations, good equipment, good schedules, an expanded route system, and good marketing will solve all Amtrak’s problems. Start with a focus on fundamentals and a commitment to grow the business. The rest will come along.


----------



## neroden

toddinde said:


> Good management, good labor relations, good equipment, good schedules, an expanded route system, and good marketing will solve all Amtrak’s problems. Start with a focus on fundamentals and a commitment to grow the business. The rest will come along.



Well, I'd say start with getting control of the tracks or getting them into the hands of cooperative owners, but they ARE working on that. After that, yes, what you said


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Well, I'd say start with getting control of the tracks or getting them into the hands of cooperative owners, but they ARE working on that. After that, yes, what you said


What really matters is getting control of dispatching and getting a solid contract in place for track maintenance. Doing that might require an order of magnitude less money than buying up property even with the exercise of eminent domain.


----------



## TheCrescent

If long-distance trains are an intentionally low-speed way to see the scenery, let a private operator provide that service; that’s not an appropriate use of people’s tax dollars.

If long-distance trains are a socially desirable service that the marketplace fails to provide, then that’s were government should come in (and that’s how I view them).


----------



## west point

LD trains provide 2 separate services. Sleeper service mainly is for distances 700-1000 miles. Coach passengers average 100 - 300 miles although some few are longer.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> What really matters is getting control of dispatching and getting a solid contract in place for track maintenance. Doing that might require an order of magnitude less money than buying up property even with the exercise of eminent domain.


Not so sure about the pricing on that.

Dispatching is usually the big fight, yes.

If a government pays for track maintenance and doesn't have ownership rights, it's basically getting cheated -- it's a flat out value giveaway from taxpayers to privateers. This ends up costing more in the long run.

If a government pays for track maintenance and retains some sort of ownership rights in the track it maintains and upgrades, through a lease or ownership rights of the physical materials in the track, or something -- then in a few decades, typically the freight railroad will sell the land to a non-railroad company, who will then sell the land to a government at reasonable prices (as happened with the Metro-North lines, and there are examples in California too).

Apparently the residual value of the land is not valued that highly by the freight operators.

Given that governments often don't like to pay upfront, I suppose the most likely outcome is effectively "rent-to-own" transfers from the private owners to government; frankly, there have been a lot of deals which ended up working this way in my lifetime already.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Not so sure about the pricing on that.
> 
> Dispatching is usually the big fight, yes.
> 
> If a government pays for track maintenance and doesn't have ownership rights, it's basically getting cheated -- it's a flat out value giveaway from taxpayers to privateers. This ends up costing more in the long run.
> 
> If a government pays for track maintenance and retains some sort of ownership rights in the track it maintains and upgrades, through a lease or ownership rights of the physical materials in the track, or something -- then in a few decades, typically the freight railroad will sell the land to a non-railroad company, who will then sell the land to a government at reasonable prices (as happened with the Metro-North lines, and there are examples in California too).
> 
> Apparently the residual value of the land is not valued that highly by the freight operators.
> 
> Given that governments often don't like to pay upfront, I suppose the most likely outcome is effectively "rent-to-own" transfers from the private owners to government; frankly, there have been a lot of deals which ended up working this way in my lifetime already.


What I had in mind is something like the deal that NYSDOT struck with CSX on the Poughkeepsie - Hoffmans section of the Water Level Route.


----------



## Mailliw

west point said:


> LD trains provide 2 separate services. Sleeper service mainly is for distances 700-1000 miles. Coach passengers average 100 - 300 miles although some few are longer.


Which makes me wonder about the next-generation of long-distance seated cars. With wider more accessible aisles and narrower seats it's going to be really hard to have 2:2 seating that's comfortable for overnight sleeping. We might see long-distance economy seating that's identical to corridor seat (albeit not bidirectional) with assumption that most passengers are using for corridor length trips. Long-distance distance passengers will be expected to upgrade to a long-distance Business Class (basically a 2:1 version of current long-distance coach, maybe with more recline) or a sleeping car.


----------



## rs9

Mailliw said:


> Which makes me wonder about the next-generation of long-distance seated cars. With wider more accessible aisles and narrower seats it's going to be really hard to have 2:2 seating that's comfortable for overnight sleeping. We might see long-distance economy seating that's identical to corridor seat (albeit not bidirectional) with assumption that most passengers are using for corridor length trips. Long-distance distance passengers will be expected to upgrade to a long-distance Business Class (basically a 2:1 version of current long-distance coach, maybe with more recline) or a sleeping car.


My understanding is that each seat is losing about 1" of width with the Siemens Venture cars, as opposed to the Amfleet/Horizon cars they are replacing. Someone please correct that if I'm wrong.

With narrower seats, wings along the headrest like in this photo would seem to go along way to creating some "personal space" for overnight travel. https://www.ontheluce.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/via-rail-economy-sleeper.jpg.webp

As for business class cars, I agree 100% with your assumption, except that Amtrak's enthusiasm for long distance business class seems minimal at best, despite the fact it seems like such service would print money.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

So many great possibilities for the long distance trains. A lot of it, if not all of it will come down to who’s confirmed to the BOD. It’s been quiet on that front the last month. I’m still of the mindset Coscia needs to go for there to be any real positive change.


----------



## dlagrua

With the recent accidents/derailments on the EB and SWC we have seen absolutely no plan to replace the large amount of lost equipment. If this policy remains there will be no LD service in a few years or some routes could go to single level trains.


----------



## lordsigma

dlagrua said:


> With the recent accidents/derailments on the EB and SWC we have seen absolutely no plan to replace the large amount of lost equipment. If this policy remains there will be no LD service in a few years or some routes could go to single level trains.



There is no policy to not replace long distance equipment. Long distance fleet procurement is coming. No not as fast as everyone here would like, but it’s not going to address any kind of near term fleet shortages and is going to be a long process. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a single level order. But even if an RFP was to go out tomorrow you’re talking years before a meaningful amount of cars arrive and given the history of new equipment lately one should have an expectation there could be some growing pains as the bugs get worked out. Near term it’s all about Beech Grove and getting equipment back on the road.


----------



## rs9

Given Amtrak has 125 locomotives under order at a cost of $2 billion for the national network, the long distance network seems pretty safe. I think the pertinent questions are:

- What will non-sleeper accommodations look like? I am not an expert on the topic of seat manufacturing. But I am curious what sort of long distance travel seats with foot rests and generous recline are in manufacture for trains around the world. Outside of the US and Canada, it seems like most overnight trains use the 2, 4 or 6 person berths common in Europe. When I think of a Superliner or Amfleet II seat and its replacement, does anyone manufacture anything like that anymore?

- What sort of in-between service from coach to sleeper is Amtrak interested in offering? Does Amtrak believe there is a market for what you could call "business class" on the western long distance routes? Was the past offerings of business class on the Cardinal and Lake Shore Limited a product of equipment needed (i.e. the only cafe car available was the half business/half cafe car), or did Amtrak see an actual market there?

- What is Amtrak's plan for volume of sleepers, given the current demand (although forecasted demand could be quite different)


----------



## poncho

Granted Amtrak has an immediate crisis with the freight strike but was curious if anyone had any insight/thoughts on which of the many new proposed Amtrak route(s) are most progressing forward at this time?

Separately, was thinking with this expanded Amtrak Connect plan there maybe should be a plan to provide Amtrak service to the most-visited and prominent flagship National Parks in the US... Grand Canyon, Yellowstone in particular and a few others (Yosemite is pretty good with the timed bus connection as is Glacier NP with current Amtrak service).

Curious also with the rapid decline of Greyhound if would be good to look at an expanded Amtrak as part of a larger combined national intercity rail and bus network where bus and rail are less in competition and more complimentary (essentially a vastly expanded Amtrak rail with a vastly expanded Amtrak Thruway). As Greyhound recedes, many key routes are outright lost or what does remain is often picked up by local transit agencies running very long local routes with transit buses which seems like a stopgap measure. Did once take a local bus from Lancaster CA to Bakersfield CA... 2.5 hours+.

Likewise and at the other end of the spectrum would be good to look at an expanded improved Amtrak as it ties into the national air network directly serving the main airports of the US.


----------

