Amenities Being Eliminated from Long Distance Routes
- Thread starter rickycourtney
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
yarrow
Engineer
actually i think the snack packs are primarily intended for coach passengers when the trains are late. they have been handed out in the ssl on previous late trains we have been on. today was the first time i have seen the sca bring them into the sleepers
N
Nathanael
Guest
Hah. What a weasely statement. Communities *such as* Trinidad and La Junta. But not actually including Trinidad or La Junta, which will lose service. Perhaps Devil's Lake, which is a community *such as* Trinidad and La Junta.
yarrow
Engineer
now on the cs sea-sac. all the amenities we have grown used to. was talking to the ppc attendant. he said he wasn't aware the deletion of wine tastes "had been made public". he also told me "we almost lost the parlour cars last month, too".
yarrow
Engineer
was showing our ppc attendant the amtrak amenities deletion memo that was posted on train orders. he said "that's not supposed to be public". which opens the question of "why not" as the amenities are currently advertised to those making reservations. he also said ppc attendants were told the ppcs would be gone as of this week but someone in amtrak must have complained and our attendant said the current memo is the compromise
Say it ain't so Joe! We know these Jewels cant last forever but anyone who has a ride on the CS for the PPC on their Bucket List should Book it soon as Possible! Once they're Gone, it's History like so many Grand Old Rail Favorites! 
yarrow
Engineer
according to our ppc attendant the current cuts are the compromise between, evidently, boardman and his ilk and those, in amtrak, who think the ppc is worthwhile. it would look as though the decision was made basically the day after brian rosenwald was forced into retirement
N
Nathanael
Guest
Bleah; it's depressing that that was actually proposed. The PPCs act as overflow lounges and overflow diners; the lounges and diners on several of the western trains routinely overcrowd. If you think about them that way, you'd never consider getting rid of them and you'd want to add more on the Empire Builder, like the proposal in the fleet strategy plan suggested.
I hope someone can educate the new manager of long-distance services about how to provide an attractive (but still efficient) product when your trains are overcrowded and you can't stop them from running late. It requires careful attention, not mindless Mica-style cutting. And with the current high demand, it requires *extra rolling stock*. Several trains would actually benefit from a table car to extend the reach of the diner.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Someone needs to pull Mark Murphy, the new manager of long-distance services, aside and explain that:
(1) the sleepers are profitable on an avoided-costs basis (assuming the train's running already);
(2) the diners are *necessary* to get people to take long trips (in sleeper *or* coach); they are a loss leader and should be treated as such;
(3) lounge space is also necessary to get people to take long trips, and is an even cheaper loss leader;
(3) longer trains are more profitable than shorter trains, if you can fill them up;
(4) you have to provide service that *feels* nice to people. Cheap amenities can add substantially to the demand. Especially when the trains are slow and can't be run on time for various reasons outside your control.
And finally,
(5) There is a future for most, if not all, of the so-called long-distance services; there is real latent demand along routes such as NY-Chicago, there is real expansion potential for additional frequencies, and the "long-distance" trains should not be treated as a dead end operation.
Murphy has what looks like an extremely inappropriate career background for his new job; a background which is not customer-focused at all. From Amtrak's press release:
But it doesn't seem like he has any experience in direct customer-facing service at all, which is a serious weakness for the manager of the long-distance trains, with high ticket prices, people in the trains for days at a time, and lots of competition; a situation where service quality and marketing choices are very important. Murphy could turn out great, of course -- resume on paper often gives no clue as to someone's talents in a field -- but it just isn't a resume which makes him sound like he knows how to sell seats (or beds).
(1) the sleepers are profitable on an avoided-costs basis (assuming the train's running already);
(2) the diners are *necessary* to get people to take long trips (in sleeper *or* coach); they are a loss leader and should be treated as such;
(3) lounge space is also necessary to get people to take long trips, and is an even cheaper loss leader;
(3) longer trains are more profitable than shorter trains, if you can fill them up;
(4) you have to provide service that *feels* nice to people. Cheap amenities can add substantially to the demand. Especially when the trains are slow and can't be run on time for various reasons outside your control.
And finally,
(5) There is a future for most, if not all, of the so-called long-distance services; there is real latent demand along routes such as NY-Chicago, there is real expansion potential for additional frequencies, and the "long-distance" trains should not be treated as a dead end operation.
Murphy has what looks like an extremely inappropriate career background for his new job; a background which is not customer-focused at all. From Amtrak's press release:
It might make sense to assign him to oversee and straighten out 14th St. yard, or New Orleans yard operations -- and for all I know, maybe that's why he's in this job, in order to get the long-distance trains to leave on time from their starting points.
But it doesn't seem like he has any experience in direct customer-facing service at all, which is a serious weakness for the manager of the long-distance trains, with high ticket prices, people in the trains for days at a time, and lots of competition; a situation where service quality and marketing choices are very important. Murphy could turn out great, of course -- resume on paper often gives no clue as to someone's talents in a field -- but it just isn't a resume which makes him sound like he knows how to sell seats (or beds).
D.P. Roberts
Conductor
I'm wondering how true these rumors really are. Trainorders had an actual copy of the memo, weeks or months before the amenity cuts were to take place. How could they have gotten rid of the PPC cars last month without anybody even hearing a rumor about it?according to our ppc attendant the current cuts are the compromise between, evidently, boardman and his ilk and those, in amtrak, who think the ppc is worthwhile. it would look as though the decision was made basically the day after brian rosenwald was forced into retirement
I know several people on this forum are upset about the loss of the amenities, and I'm not really one of them. However, even I admit that the PPC car (even though I don't care for it) is an amenity that a LOT of people care about. I really can't see Amtrak cutting it without giving at least little notice.
On the other hand, maybe it's like ripping off a band-aid - they know they'd face a firestorm of criticism if they eliminated the PPCs, so they cut them before people can get in a tizzy about it?
I am one of the people who is upset about losing amenities. I won't repeat what I have said elsewhere, but let me add a point. Amtrak is doing nothing for the western states right now, and if the few little advantages we have go away, so will the support of some pretty important Senators. I don't think Amtrak can afford that.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Logically it would appear to add up. We already know the PPC's will be going away at some point and that their maintenance is only getting more expensive. Mica seems to blast anything that provides luxury or comfort to rail passengers. Boardman has been coming back to the fold and appears ready to play by Mica's rules. Already we're seeing a focus on removing items that might make one route look fancier than another route. I'm hard pressed to think of a better way for Boardman to kiss Mica's ring than to trash the last remaining example of unique rolling stock on a route that is limited to progressive states. Mica's endless attacks appear to have Boardman scared enough to begin making cuts and there's no reason to assume all of those changes will be minor.
I think there is too much focus on Congressman Mica here. Mica is no longer Chairman of the House Transportation committee. Shuster is. Mica is still a factor, but he is not the only one. The issues that Boardman and Amtrak management are facing is the pending Amtrak Re-authorization bill and the Transportation re-authorization bill. Dumping the "special" amenities are likely aimed at placating the House Republicans and the anti-Amtrak political crowd in general, not just Mica. By showing that Amtrak is cutting costs for the LD trains, even if it dampens sales in the long run, may be critical to getting an acceptable re-authorization bill that is not loaded with poison pills to the LD trains.
Boardman has been making an argument for a Transportation Trust Fund to replace the Highway Trust Fund. If a Transportation Trust Fund can be set up that provides stable annual funding of $1.5 to $2 billion a year to Amtrak, it would also go a long way to insulate Amtrak from the micro-management and silly restrictions stuck in the annual appropriations bills by Congress. There is a bigger game being played here by Boardman to make some short term sacrifices in order to preserve the LD trains and allow Amtrak to manage and improve the LD trains and system without Congressional provisions that could really hurt the LD trains. What happens, for example, if the next re-authorization bill requires that the states in 5 years pay the subsidies for the LD trains that run through their state? You think Ohio or SC would be likely to provide subsidy funding for their piece of the LD train routes?
D.P. Roberts
Conductor
You make some good points. Perhaps some of these amenities might even return at a later date if Amtrak can secure a long-term budget. And as to your rhetorical question, I'm sure Ohio would pay good money to GET RID of Amtrak.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Mica has moved on to other committees but his position hasn't changed and those who have followed in his footsteps are happy to resume his fight. Mica also retains access to a bully pulpit in the press. As I understand it Shuster wants to privatize Amtrak just like Mica does, which has almost always been a precursor to the cessation of passenger rail services. Nonetheless I agree that instead of writing "Mica" I probably should have written "House GOP" to be more accurate. Boardman's assumption appears to mirror many of those on this forum. That if you just cut back Amtrak services a little then folks like Mica and Shuster will move along to some other target and allow the rest of Amtrak's services to remain unscathed. In my view that is a rather unlikely scenario. Amtrak's use as a political whipping boy is unlikely to be seriously diminished by the loss of sleeper perks or PPC's or even full service dining cars. On the other hand Amtrak's future appeal to premium passengers is likely to be curtailed substantially over time. As more and more perks and services are cut to meet greater and greater demands eventually Amtrak's growth may stagnate or even reverse course. Which would only make it that much easier and more appealing to attack.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm also in the crowd that's not terribly broken up about some of the cuts. The wine and cheese cuts strike me as an issue, yes, but with its OTP it was probably going to be a long time before I took the Builder again anyway. As Charlie can tell you, I was supremely underwhelmed by it, something that stands in stark contrast to my impression of the Starlight. One of my fondest memories on Amtrak will probably always be drinking a glass of red wine, munching on the "No Woman" cheese (that's the name of the variety I loved the most), and heading up into Tehachapi Pass.
As to Mica, I think "Mica" is being used as shorthand for a number of Republicans who have been causing issues for Amtrak. I know he gets named a lot, but some of that comes down to not wanting to keep track of the other GOP Congressmen who've been on his side. After all, those hearings would have been far different for Amtrak if Mica had been the recipient of some shots from his side of the aisle while lambasting Boardman.
As to Mica, I think "Mica" is being used as shorthand for a number of Republicans who have been causing issues for Amtrak. I know he gets named a lot, but some of that comes down to not wanting to keep track of the other GOP Congressmen who've been on his side. After all, those hearings would have been far different for Amtrak if Mica had been the recipient of some shots from his side of the aisle while lambasting Boardman.
N
Nathanael
Guest
This is pointless.
I've been spending 30 years following national politics. Since roughly Gingrich (1992), the "anti-everything" wing of the Republican Party has become non-placatable. Give them an inch, they'll ask for a mile. Suggest a reasonable compromise, they ask for your head on a platter. There is no *point* in trying to placate them, because it does not *work*.
What you do is to assemble a coalition of the "other guys": the "pork barrel" or "local chamber of commerce" wing of the party (who generally just want more train service to provide more tourism and shopping for their local businesses), the so-called "libertarians" (let the pets and the guns on board, reduce "security" theater), and the country club types (which means adding amenities, not reducing them).
Cutting the amenities appeals to only one crowd in Congress: the "communist populist" group who thinks that government should only provide single-class "we are all alike, comrade" services with identical grey Chinese uniforms. This may actually be a fairly large Congressional group, but most of them aren't Republicans (though some of them are). It is possible that these, mostly Democrats, are the people Boardman is actually playing to.
The privatizers are actually two different groups, but you can't work with either group. Some of them just want to kill Amtrak, because they irrationally hate railroads. Whatever; they're old and there won't be any of them left in a decade or two.
But some of the privatizers are actually worse: they're like the operators of Rocky Mountain Railtours -- they want to be the monopoly, they want their buddies to make the monopoly profits, and they can't stand the idea of the democratically elected government (meaning: all of us, the 99%, the general public) ever making a profit on anything, because they believe that all profit should flow to a small private elite. Watch out for these types. They're very dangerous. You can identify them because they specifically want to privatize only the *profitable* parts of Amtrak (for whose benefit? You know whose, theirs & their buddies). These people are trying to make themselves like noblemen, through rent-seeking and "lemon socialism" (privatize the profits, socialize the losses). I hate them; they are the source of almost all that is wrong with society.
Won't happen in the near future, for a number of political reasons. The western states which like their services and don't want to pay for them (North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, etc.) form a bloc with the eastern states which like their services and don't want to lose them to idiot states in between (New York, Illinois, Florida, etc.), and that's a blocking majority in the Senate. The anti-Amtrak forces have mainly operated by straight budget cuts, which they successfully do because every Senator can assume that his line isn't going to be the one getting cut.
The situation would actually become more worrisome if Boardman could prove that the NY-Chicago and NY-Florida services are profitable (which they are, and they will become more so) because that would break the coalition and there could then be enough votes to cut the Western services.
I think it's important for Boardman to be able to say of amenities -- and indeed of sleeper service -- "This raises more revenue than it costs." The accounting needs to be done in such a way that it's clear to sane people (as opposed to ideological hacks with an ax to grind like Mica) that the amenities do not cost Congressional dollars (which they don't). This will just make the advocates of "lemon socialism" angrier, but I don't see any way to do anything with those guys anyway; it should attract the support of everyone *else* in Congress.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
There is an interesting long thread that has been running on railroad.net on the subject of sleepers, their revenues and their direct and indirect costs, as an incidental subject, discussed in excruciating detail and unfortunately not unequivocally positive for sleeper service. Indeed one of the most vocal participants is a proponent of just worrying more about Coach trains, and he does make a very cogent case for it too. Thought some of you might want to at least be aware of that line of argument, since in this board we seem to mostly have arguments about minutia on this subject rather than some of the basic premises.
Anyway here you go: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=136456
BTW, after you eliminate the "lemon socialism" and "lemon capitalism" crowd in Congress do you really have enough votes to actually pass anything that we would favor? I thought that the reason we are in such a mess is because inevitably the votes of some of the less virulent "lemon X" are needed to get anything through.
BTW, Boardman has already presented one slideset with a bar graph that Nathaniel had posted somewhere which clearly shows that if the 6 LD trains that lose most money above rails and after removing all shared costs were eliminated that would leave only the east of Chicago LD system standing. Everything west of Chicago will be gone.
Anyway here you go: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=136456
BTW, after you eliminate the "lemon socialism" and "lemon capitalism" crowd in Congress do you really have enough votes to actually pass anything that we would favor? I thought that the reason we are in such a mess is because inevitably the votes of some of the less virulent "lemon X" are needed to get anything through.
BTW, Boardman has already presented one slideset with a bar graph that Nathaniel had posted somewhere which clearly shows that if the 6 LD trains that lose most money above rails and after removing all shared costs were eliminated that would leave only the east of Chicago LD system standing. Everything west of Chicago will be gone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Should be kept in mind of course that the Eastern trains are the ones which have the opportunity for shared costs; if you get rid of those, by necessity the Western trains will look worse, since only CONO and the Starlight share anything other than termini with other trains and that's not all that much for CONO (Starlight is somewhat more significant).
That said, it is rather amusing given how many rail advocate statements I've run across in the past which claimed it was the Western LDTs which ran at a profit...
TVRM610
Conductor
As much as I like traveling in a sleeper... I DO think that Amtrak should expand the Palmetto to Florida as an overnight Coach train and then we can really see how the $$$ looks for an all coach, 1 cafe car overnight train.
I'm not saying Amtrak should get rid of sleepers and diners... but the idea that every overnight train needs a diner and sleepers is simply not realistic. There can be coach trains, and sleeper trains and perhaps that could save some routes, or even open up the option of new routes!
I'm not saying Amtrak should get rid of sleepers and diners... but the idea that every overnight train needs a diner and sleepers is simply not realistic. There can be coach trains, and sleeper trains and perhaps that could save some routes, or even open up the option of new routes!
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Not very surprisingly there is a direct correlation between the overall distance run by a train and the depth of the financial hole it is in. Because in general labor cost together with other directly attributable costs, is marginally to significantly higher than the revenue stream generated by most LD trains, and the cost of labor is proportional to the time spent by said labor on the train.
Oh certainly. But the difference is exacerbated, and the Eastern LDTs artificially made to look better than they really are, when you remove shared costs since a significantly higher percentage of costs is shared by Eastern trains than they are for the Western trains. That said, all other things being equal, the Western trains would still perform worse since there are such great swatches of nothing and hardly anybody even when there is anything on their routes.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I know. But the differences brought about by cost sharing are relatively small compared to the overwhelming cost of labor on the train. That is also what differentiates the non-Diner cafe only trains from those with Diners - one of the primary basis of the Coach only train argument in the link that I included above. Afterall, if one takes the position that all sleeper trains must have Diners, then one cannot run around and justify Sleeper profitability conveniently ignoring Diner costs. If one wishes to charge a much higher fare justified by inclusion of food service, then one has to include that on the cost side too in the analysis.
The few private operations that manage to stay somewhat afloat are primarily differentiated in terms of cost of on board labor. There is no getting away from that fundamental issue. That is the reason I wait with baited breath to see how Mr. Boardman plans to wipe out the F&B losses in five years, or if he is merely hoping that he will be happily retired before then. Hopefully he would not have caused irrevocable damage before walking into the sunset unlike one of his predecessors who left Amtrak in pretty much in shambles, which took 2+ CEOs to recover from.
The few private operations that manage to stay somewhat afloat are primarily differentiated in terms of cost of on board labor. There is no getting away from that fundamental issue. That is the reason I wait with baited breath to see how Mr. Boardman plans to wipe out the F&B losses in five years, or if he is merely hoping that he will be happily retired before then. Hopefully he would not have caused irrevocable damage before walking into the sunset unlike one of his predecessors who left Amtrak in pretty much in shambles, which took 2+ CEOs to recover from.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I think seeing Kay Baily Hutchison replaced with Ted Cruz potentially says a lot more about Amtrak's future than any given accounting practice. I'm not sure any amount of financial maneuvering would placate a hardliner like Cruz. As more and more obstructionists are elected to govern us the days of compromise that kept Amtrak afloat despite growing contempt may come to an end. In many ways they already have. Common ground would seem to be a quaint concept in an era of perpetual dysfunction. On the other hand Amtrak has already outlived my best gueses by several years, thanks in part to indirect factors such as 9-11, petrol prices, smoking restrictions, growing obesity, TSA's nude-o-scans, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathanael
Guest
I've read it, and I think the fellow who believes sleeper service is less profitable than coach is cooking the numbers to get his preferred result -- all our available numbers are a bit unclear, but that fellow is biasing every one of them to make sleepers look bad and to make coaches look good, including bizarre claims that sleepers cost more to maintain than coaches (in reality, they cost less to maintain because they don't get used by so many people). He's been completely unable to justify the claim that replacing a sleeper with a coach on the same route will collect the same revenue in general (though I would believe it on certain routes with exceptionally poor "through" demand and exceptionally strong "local" demand).
The differential results of different segments of trains makes it really easy to come up with misleading averages, which is a trap everyone seems to fall into.
It's pretty clear that if you take
(a) a good-enough-to-get-lots-of-customers train route (so, not Atlanta-New Orleans),
(b) which is already running coaches and a diner,
© and which has demand for overnight service,
you can improve the bottom line by adding sleepers.
Yes, that's a rather specific claim I'm making.
Even the fellow who's making the full-on attack against sleepers surrendered and admitted that sleepers are probably profitable on the LSL. Contrary to his claims, they're profitable on the Silver Service too, where Florida-NY traffic is large and isn't going to ride coach.
There are problem segments, where the train simply isn't competitive with driving (Atlanta-New Orleans, Grand Junction-Reno). Here, adding any car may lose you money, sleeper or coach. As far as I am concerned something should be done about these segments; limping along is not a good option. I will discuss these problem segments below, since this has turned into a full-blown essay.
The situation with the dining cars adds great confusion to most people's calculations. The dining cars are simply a loss leader; you need them for people who are riding too long, because the alternative is "get out at Albany for a meal break", and that suppresses ticket revenue by a large (though very hard to calculate) amount. I assert that the dining cars are necessary even without sleeping cars -- if the trip runs across two mealtimes, the cafe car can't even stock enough food for everyone, and people start wanting a sit-down meal -- so I assume the existence of the dining car when figuring whether sleepers are profitable.
It's very hard to figure out how much the dining cars *should* be costing right now because they are currently antique cars (in the East) operated with archaic paperwork-heavy practices (nationwide). But I will say that dining cars are probably costing a lot more than they should.
After Point of Sale is implemented in the dining cars, and the Heritage cars are replaced, it may be possible to get a better picture of the "true" dining car cost structure going forward, and maybe Boardman is right and they can be profitable. I could certainly imagine that if they were open most of the day and right up to the end of the trip, rather than closing for inventory periodically, it would make a big difference.
In some sense sleepers and diners are a sideshow. Amtrak *should* have them on routes of appropriate runtime length, as they will improve revenue by more than costs and the bottom line.
But the fundamental issue is, is the route operation any good to start with? Again, I will discuss this below, because it turned into an essay.
Sleepers, coaches, diners, all are mere details in comparison to the basics of running daily, on time, at a speed competitive with driving, between cities of meaningful population -- which increases the ridership and the prices Amtrak can charge by very large amounts. This *should be* possible on most (not all) of the so-called "long-distance" routes, but is not currently achieved on any of them.
An all-coach Lake Shore Limited with the current unreliability problems would just cost more money, and a "no-diner" Lake Shore Limited would just cost more money. The same applies to the Silver Service. The focus should be on eliminating the unreliability by one means or another.
Quite a cynical viewpoint, and I'm rather cynical. I think the privatize-the-profits, socialize-the-losses people are actually a small minority in Congress (although there are a lot of such people attempting to *bribe* or *mislead* Congressmen).
The group you have to target for votes is the "pork barrel", "log rolling", "something for me, something for you", "The Erie Canal will be good for local business" people -- who are subtly different, and a very large group. The privatize-the-profits, socialize-the-losses people will be pushing dishonest propaganda at this group (watch for words like "boondoggle"), and the most reliable response when talking to the "pork barrel" types is "look at the boost for local business/tourism in your district, look at how many of the voters of your district use this".
Now, it can be hard to sell amenities to a Congressman that way, so the point should be that they actually improve the bottom line by increasing revenue and ridership. (If a particular amenity doesn't, well, I can't really support that amenity either.)
Here starts the essay.
There are several types of problem segments.
- The first is the segment with low population where all forms of transportation are marginal -- such as the High Line in Montana and North Dakota. This is actually the least problematic, as the train will get a large percentage of the traffic.
- The second is the segment with low population where the roads are significantly faster, and it would cost a completely unreasonable amount to speed the railway up -- such as Denver to Salt Lake via the mountains, or Salt Lake to Reno. Those mountain/desert/prairie crossings with low populations and good roads are mostly like this.
- The third is the segment where the roads are significantly faster than the railway even if the railway is running on time and well-maintained, but the population is large enough that it would be *worth* speeding the railway up -- such as New Orleans to Atlanta. In these cases it has been very hard to find the funds, but the funds *ought* to be found.
- The fourth is the segment where the railway, even on its existing route and right-of-way, ought to be about as fast as the roads, but deferred maintenance, abusive dispatching by the Class Is, failure of the 14th St. yard to do its job, etc. etc. has prevented it from running on time. This is true, to some extent, of most Amtrak routes on freight tracks. These are the most *anger-inducing* segments for me, because these perfectly-good routes are basically being sabotaged.
The Texas Eagle is actually a dramatic example of problem segment type 4. There's plenty of on-line population. There's nothing wrong with the route of the tracks: it's only a little twistier than the parallel Interstate. However, it is much slower on every single segment. I know why from Ft. Worth to Dallas, from Alton to St. Louis, and from Joliet to Chicago, and in all three cases it's just stupid stuff which could be fixed pretty easily if anyone cared. I don't know why in the other segments (this route is too slow on nearly every segment), but I'm guessing it's more of the same "easy to fix but nobody bothers".
- The fifth is three-a-week service. This is guaranteed to perform poorly, and is exceptionally poor at providing network connectivity. It's not even worth considering other problems with the Sunset Limited or Cardinal until the three-a-week problem is fixed. These do, however, provide some network connectivity, as the ridership in the through cars on the Texas Eagle shows.
Due to the fourth phenomenon, all long-distance routes are performing worse than they should -- and so are most of the state sponsored routes. But let us discuss the first three sorts of "problem segments".
At current speeds, Indianapolis-Chicago and Atlanta-New Orleans are problem segments of type 3 -- the routes are simply too slow to be competitive, but funding for a better route *could* make them competitive. Denver-Salt Lake City through the mountains is a problem segment of type 2. Albuquerque to Topeka via Raton Pass and the middle of nowhere is also a problem segment of type 2.
Now, here's the thing: you can't just delete the problem segments -- of any of the types -- because if you do, you lose network connectivity and ridership drops across the board (this was the greatest error in the Carter cuts). You have to figure out how to improve them or provide better substitutes for them. Railroads are all about network effects and economies of scale.
The problem of finding funding for problem segments which provide important network connectivity has been the most difficult problem in the history of Amtrak. A few have gotten funded: in terms of those which connect to trains on both ends, New York to Boston (which was definitely a problem segment of type 3 when Amtrak started), St. Louis to Kansas City, and Charlotte-Raleigh. Also a number of state-sponsored "branch lines" which connect only at one end. But most have not gotten funded.
Each problem segment needs its own custom solution. This is partly what the Performance Improvement Plans were for, but they couldn't recommend major capital improvements, which is the solution for several of the problem segments of types 3, and they can do very little about the sabotage which creates problem segments of type 4, for which the only reliable solution has been to buy the tracks. They *did* recommend daily service for all trains, addressing type 5 problems, but we still haven't got it!
The problem segments of type 1-3 have repeatedly been tacked onto other segments. Which makes sense as these segments can't stand on their own; and in some ways, this avoids making them targets. But it has a bad side effect: it makes the other (better) segments into targets. The bad segments are used, through misleading and selective averaging, to make routes with high potential look bad.
VIA, which is trying to kill the Ocean, pulled this trick by pointing to the low ridership from Halifax and ignoring the high ridership from Moncton. (Then they made it three-a-week in a further attempt to kill it.)
For a US example:
I am quite certain that a standalone Denver Zephyr would look pretty good financially (18 hour train, 15 hour drive, quite competitive) -- but the result would be that it would become obvious how much money it cost to run the California-Denver train. But cutting the California-Denver train would lose connecting service from the ski areas to the East and from Reno to the west, reducing ridership systemwide.
If you somehow managed to keep ski areas-Denver and Reno-Oakland funded as separate corridor trains (which has been made harder by PRIIA, but not impossible), you'd still be losing the connecting revenue from the people taking really long trips, and you'd have to add extra expenses to run a Denver maintenance shop (and to find train parking at Reno, and at the ski areas), and you'd lose the votes from Utah. (If there are any pro-Amtrak votes from Utah.)
Salt Lake - Reno is a problem segment of type 2, but useful for connectivity. With its low population and the amount of time it takes it should be run overnight. Unfortunately, Salt Lake - Denver via Wyoming is a problem segment of type 2 or 3, which you would also want to run overnight at its current speeds -- while Salt Lake - Denver via the Moffat Tunnel Route is a problem segment of type 2. I guess Amtrak selected the current scheme as the best of a bad lot of options.
Running more trains per day along any of these routes would allow for better scheduling for each of the separate markets, and could multiply revenues by more than costs as the increased frequencies make the train fit into more people's schedules. In some cases (problem segments of types 1 and 2) there is likely not enough demand. But in cases of type 3 (and 4 and 5!) there is enough potential demand, and more trains per day would make the capital costs (which are necessary to improve the "problem segments") more justifiable.
Amenities simply must be provided at the level which keeps people buying high-priced tickets. Sleepers are simply something you run on overnight trips. Diners are something you run on trips which run across multiple mealtimes. Cafes are something you run on trips which run more than about, say, 2 hours. Lounges are something you run on trips which are long enough for people to get antsy, maybe more than about 6 hours. If you don't run any of these on the appropriate type of trip, you bleed customers and people pay much less for tickets. As long as you're running any of them, tart them up and make them look nice -- it costs very little and improves word of mouth reports a lot.
But the real issue is the routes and schedules themselves, and critically, the on-time performance.
There is a strong case to be made that rail service over very long (in terms of hours) routes is not really viable, coach or sleeper. Obviously, you can have overlapping corridors, making a route much longer than the typical trip taken on it, but at some point the cascading delays and odd calling hours start deteriorating the value of the train for any of the sub-corridors.
Consider, as a thought experiment, this alternative to the California Zephyr: a train running on the same schedule from Chicago to Denver, and a train running on the same schedule from Denver to Oakland, with a "guaranteed" connection at Denver.... but where both trains left on time and people on misconnecting trains were accomodated in the hotel at Denver Union Station. This way, delays coming from San Francisco would not impact the passengers going from Denver to Chicago, only the passengers coming from west of Denver. About half the passengers on each train wouldn't even notice the difference, according to the PIP (half the train turns over in Denver).
(This was a lot easier and cheaper to do when railroads owned their own hotels at the stations. Frankly, Amtrak should lease out the upper floors of Chicago Union Station to a hotel with an agreement that the hotel will house displaced Amtrak passengers for a flat rate.)
The other half of the passengers on the CZ would notice the change of trains at Denver. Those who are travelling from east-of-Denver to the ski areas probably wouldn't be too bothered by the change of train (though more bothered by an overnight delay). This implies setting up a separate Ski Train on a schedule which can pick up most misconnections.
The through traffic apart from "ski traffic" is fairly small, and biases towards the sleepers for obvious reasons. These people are travelling long distances slowly, and are going to be less bothered by the delay and more bothered by changing rooms. So if you want to accomodate that, you run a through sleeper, and if the train misconnects, they stay in their rooms and it gets attached to the next day's train. (Requires some spare sleepers, obviously, and even spare OBS staff.)
This is beginning to sound like a very traditional operation, isn't it? Coach trains on relatively short routes with reliable schedules, with a few sleepers being transferred from one coach train to the next making some extra money. There's a reason some of these practices developed.
The dismemberment of the railway system in the US prior to Amtrak and during the early days of Amtrak has made a lot of this stuff seem very hard to do, due to the very low number of trains per day running and the extreme difficulty of restarting a simple local route. These facts are obscuring the true nature of "added amenity" service.
The problem with the long-distance trains is not the amenities (which actually improve their performance), it's the delays, the uncompetitive schedules, the low frequencies, and the routings through low-population areas.
In technical (as opposed to political) terms, the easiest route to prove my thesis with is the Lake Shore Limited -- fix up both ends of the route, run it on time, keep adding cars and frequencies, and you'll see; the amenities are profitable, it's the the underlying schedule and timekeeping problems which were unprofitable. Other routes which could be used to prove this would be a restored Broadway Limited (with the west end fixed up), a Denver Zephyr at 90 mph through the major cities of Iowa, or the Silver Meteor rerouted onto a restored 110 mph S line between Raleigh and Richmond and running on time in Florida. Which route is politically easiest to prove this with is a matter of the current prevailing winds.
Or if you want to prove my thesis the bad way, extend the Palmetto to Florida without sleepers or diners and watch it perform worse than the Silver Meteor. But I don't suggest it.
I wish there were Congressional hearings on Amtrak's lack of on-time performance. That would actually have been *useful*.
- Status
