Amtrak Guest Rewards 2.0 Coming January 2016

[neroden]

Then again NEC lost the 500 and 750 Acela minimums between select city pairs.

I think the system was always biased towards the NEC. It was most likely not a coincidence that it was introduced with the Acelas. Also the 500 minimum is unlikely to be just a coincidence that it is exactly the same number of minimum miles per segment that Continental had back then, and it was also unlikely to be a coincidence that Amtrak points were transferable to Continental miles one for one. The rest of AGR was bolted onto the basic need to make Acela competitive with airlines on the NEC, at which it did succeed BTW.

I am not saying that therefore things should not be improved viz a viz LD service. But to forget the origins would lead one astray in the attempts to understand the evolution.

I will speak as someone from upstate NY and point out that the new AGR system is definitively better for me than the old system. The new system amounts to 5.8% "cash back". (Took me a while to calculate that. You spend $100, you get 200 points, this gets you about $5.80 worth of discount on your fare.)

I think the new system will be more attractive to those on the "penumbras" of the NEC -- riding the longer connecting-to-NEC corridors or going between the East Coast and Chicago. The old AGR system was never ever worth cashing points for short corridor trips. It also gave a pretty bad deal for single-overnight roomette trips which crossed between the eastern and midwestern zones (e.g. Syracuse-Chicago or DC-Chicago or NY-Chicago or Boston-Chicago). And my shortest trips were never cheap enough for the 100 point minimum to mean anything (with the exception of a Syracuse-Utica trip once).

The people complaining about the changes seem to be people who earned their points shuttling on the short corridors out of Chicago or in California -- and spent them on double-overnight sleeper trips. In short, this change is bad for Californians and for Chicagoans who "look west". For Chicagoans who "look east" or people along the longer corridors which connect to the NEC, however, I think the change is an improvement.

Anyway, I've been advocating that Amtrak focus on expanding the market for the corridors which connect to the NEC, and focus on improving the NEC-Chicago routes -- so from my POV this is a good set of changes.

 

[neroden]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

That's because most 20-somethings don't have the *money* to afford Amtrak's sleepers.

I've met several 20-something couples in sleepers; they were almost all "I own my own successful business" types, with a smattering of trust-fund types.

 

[Ryan]

When I was a 20-something in a sleeper, I was the "sick of riding coach guy that learned how to get an AGR credit card to rack up points" guy.

 

[SarahZ]

I've run into many 20-somethings in sleepers over the years.

I didn't ask how they afforded it because that's none of my business, and it's rude to make assumptions about someone's financial situation based on their appearance.

 

[JayPea]

On my recently completed nearly week long trip involving several different trains, I noticed several 20somethings in the sleepers.

 

[neroden]

I've run into many 20-somethings in sleepers over the years.

I didn't ask how they afforded it because that's none of my business, and it's rude to make assumptions about someone's financial situation based on their appearance.

It's perhaps surprising how often people who own their own businesses will mention it in casual conversation -- at least when talking to someone else self-employed, like me. I think this is because everyone's first social question in this country is "What do you do?" meaning "What is your job?", which means it can't be evaded.

I do think there's something else going on here: people who own their own businesses can make the choice to travel by train for business travel, even if they're not really doing that well financially. So they often do. Employees often don't have the option to take trains for business travel even if they want to, thanks to Corporate Policy.

 

[tonys96]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you! However, I cannot fathom calling a 50%-60% load factor, over time, (at very best) anything but "struggling to fill trains"

You're just wrong. 50%-60% load factor over the course of a long run is basically full for a train.
This is how it works, using a stylized example. Suppose you have a train which stops at a bunch of cities, crosses a mountain pass, and then stops at a bunch more cities. The train is empty at one end of the run. It accumulates passengers as it stops at intermediate stops. When it crosses the mountain pass, the train is completely jam-packed full, standing-room-only. Then the train starts draining passengers out as it heads towards the other end of the run.

When you average the load factor across the length of the run, it ends up being 50%-60% load factor. But the train is completely full across the mountain pass. And the travel demand is "across the pass", so anyone who wants to cross the pass -- regardless of what city they start or finish at -- sees a sold-out train.

Some trains have more favorable geographical distribution of passenger demand (and they can get higher load factors), but the situation I just described is *typical*. The same is true with roads, incidentally.

Since it doesn't cost anything significant to drag along empty coaches behind a train, you size the length of the train according to the demand across the mountain pass, and just haul the additional cars empty the rest of the way. This "lowers your load factor" but it doesn't *cost* anything significant.

Airlines don't do this because nearly all their flights are point-to-point, because it's expensive for an airplane to stop. (It's relatively cheap for a train to stop en route.) So airplanes end up with people taking transfers to smaller and smaller puddle-jumpers as they head further away from "the mountain crossing". The train might as well keep going straight through.

This causes overall train load factors to appear lower than for airplanes, but it doesn't mean anything economically. (Well, it means discount tickets should be offered for trips which stay out of the peak segment, which "don't cross the mountain pass".)

The interesting number is the load factor at the *peak occupancy part of the route*, which is hard to measure from Amtrak statistics. If that's low, then you do have an issue. But for Amtrak, on the vast majority of trains I've taken end-to-end, there's been one route segment where the train typically fills up -- showing that the trains are pretty much full.

-- For Empire Service, it's the final New York City approach.

-- For Pacific Surfliner, it's Oceanside, interestingly. (Because people who aren't crossing Oceanside take Metrolink or Coaster.)

-- For Empire Builder, it's MSP-CHI.

-- For the Lake Shore Limited, it's South Bend - Elkhart and again on the final New York City approach; having two separate peak segments helps the LSL. It's pretty full overnight too. It has good characteristics.

-- For the NE Regionals, it's New York City to Metropark (unsurprisingly).

-- For the California Zephyr, it's actually Denver to Winter Park. (But the whole Denver-Chicago run is pretty crowded too. It *empties out* west of Grand Junction and doesn't start filling up again until Reno.)

-- For the Southwest Chief, it's Galesburg to Kansas City. (Because there are other trains Galesburg - Chicago; this is mostly Chicago-Kansas City traffic.)

-- I couldn't actually tell for the Capitol Limited since I basically slept through the entire trip, so didn't see the other passengers, but maybe it's an exception.

Consider yourself educated about this basic characteristic of train service.

It would be nice to improve the load factor by filling up the empty seats on the emptiest section of the trip, but think about how to get more people to ride from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, or from Grand Forks to Spokane, and you start seeing that it's a hard problem. Many routes have a "big draw" on only one end of the line. On Empire Service, for instance, nearly everyone is travelling to or from New York City, so the Niagara Falls end is inevitably half-empty. You try to put a "big draw" on both ends of the line, and you get a New York - Chicago train like the LSL -- but then it's emptier in the *middle*. The NEC is lucky to have a lot of different major cities fairly evenly spaced, but it's still most crowded from NY to Philadelphia.

RE:Since it doesn't cost anything significant to drag along empty coaches behind a train, you size the length of the train according to the demand across the mountain pass, and just haul the additional cars empty the rest of the way. This "lowers your load factor" but it doesn't *cost* anything significant.

Ummmmm.......labor? Ummmmm....those fixed overhead costs mentioned in post #750? Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip? I have no problem with your scenario......you got data on the "load factor" of the system as you want to describe it (the "mountain pass")?

 

[tonys96]

Well I have to look at this in the literal sense. The ridership is UP, which is true, but LD service is losing more money every year.

I've explained before that this is nonsense and gibberish. Basically, this is Amtrak's overhead costs (which don't change regardless of what services are provided) being allocated to trains in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Overhead is up in recent years, which is a bad thing and I'd like to know why It's happening, but it means nothing regarding whether LD service is "losing more money" or "losing less money".

Re: "Overhead is up in recent years, which is a bad thing and I'd like to know why It's happening,"

​Could be all those trains only carrying pax across the " mountain pass" mentioned above?

 

[tonys96]

Then again NEC lost the 500 and 750 Acela minimums between select city pairs.

I think the system was always biased towards the NEC. It was most likely not a coincidence that it was introduced with the Acelas. Also the 500 minimum is unlikely to be just a coincidence that it is exactly the same number of minimum miles per segment that Continental had back then, and it was also unlikely to be a coincidence that Amtrak points were transferable to Continental miles one for one. The rest of AGR was bolted onto the basic need to make Acela competitive with airlines on the NEC, at which it did succeed BTW.

I am not saying that therefore things should not be improved viz a viz LD service. But to forget the origins would lead one astray in the attempts to understand the evolution.

I will speak as someone from upstate NY and point out that the new AGR system is definitively better for me than the old system. The new system amounts to 5.8% "cash back". (Took me a while to calculate that. You spend $100, you get 200 points, this gets you about $5.80 worth of discount on your fare.)

I think the new system will be more attractive to those on the "penumbras" of the NEC -- riding the longer connecting-to-NEC corridors or going between the East Coast and Chicago. The old AGR system was never ever worth cashing points for short corridor trips. It also gave a pretty bad deal for single-overnight roomette trips which crossed between the eastern and midwestern zones (e.g. Syracuse-Chicago or DC-Chicago or NY-Chicago or Boston-Chicago). And my shortest trips were never cheap enough for the 100 point minimum to mean anything (with the exception of a Syracuse-Utica trip once).

The people complaining about the changes seem to be people who earned their points shuttling on the short corridors out of Chicago or in California -- and spent them on double-overnight sleeper trips. In short, this change is bad for Californians and for Chicagoans who "look west". For Chicagoans who "look east" or people along the longer corridors which connect to the NEC, however, I think the change is an improvement.

Anyway, I've been advocating that Amtrak focus on expanding the market for the corridors which connect to the NEC, and focus on improving the NEC-Chicago routes -- so from my POV this is a good set of changes.

Good for you!

Not so much for many others........

 

[Ispolkom]

RE:Since it doesn't cost anything significant to drag along empty coaches behind a train, you size the length of the train according to the demand across the mountain pass, and just haul the additional cars empty the rest of the way. This "lowers your load factor" but it doesn't *cost* anything significant.

Ummmmm.......labor? Ummmmm....those fixed overhead costs mentioned in post #750? Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip? I have no problem with your scenario......you got data on the "load factor" of the system as you want to describe it (the "mountain pass")?

If you have the extra cars. Amtrak doesn't.

 

[neroden]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. The price buckets are managed specifically to make this happen.

There are some exceptions. Those few trains have not been managed properly. This is actually very uncommon.

Most of your "50% load factor" trains are exactly like that -- they're full at some point in the trip. Get that through your head and you'll understand what's going on a lot better. If you want to have an informed opinion, have to understand what your metrics actually mean, not blindly copy habits from looking at airlines.

As for labor costs, it typically costs more to switch the cars on and off than it does to run 'em through. Given Amtrak's coach attendant staffing policies, it usually literally costs nothing in on-board labor to add another car -- only if you hit a particular threshold of cars do you have to add another attendant.

Amtrak's overhead is almost unrelated to how full the trains are. Information Technology (this is sucking up money like nobody's business right now), Ticketing, Procurement, station maintenance.... I'm actually not clear on what the major causes of increased overhead are, other than IT (which is definitely part of it). But none of it has to do with running empty cars around; that's cheap.

This is something which a lot of ignorant people who haven't studied the business don't understand about train service. It's all fixed costs. There are very few variable costs. But there are huge huge, huge fixed costs. Most utilities (telecoms, electricity, roads) have this characteristic, but railroads have it to an extreme degree. I think only water supply systems are more extreme in how high the fixed cost / variable cost ratio is.

This is why Woody always says "the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak". This means something very specific in business terms. Expansion, for maximum financial gain, needs to happen in this priority order:

-- more cars on the same train

-- more trains on the same routes stopping at the same stations

-- more (unstaffed if possible, but might require staff) stops on the same route

-- /finally/, more routes connecting to those routes

Leverage the fixed costs.

Somewhere in there you should add:

-- more train runs per trainset, enabled by faster trip times -- faster trains are cheaper to run *and* raise more revenue

-- run on time, because it costs less (in overtime etc.) and raises much more revenue (happier customers)

As with all businesses with high fixed costs and low variable costs, it is essential to get to high volume. At prices which cover variable costs and leave some margin to cover that huge overhead.

Now, if you're running a railroad, you *may* have a problem if you have a route which doesn't have enough inherent demand to get to high volume at that price. (If it's a "feeder route" which feeds volume into another route, you may not have a problem.)

I think it's quite obvious that the routes of the Lake Shore Limited, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Cardinal, and several of the other so-called "long distance" trains have *plenty* of demand. They simply have not been expanded in the way they need to be.

Frankly, the three trains from the West Coast to Chicago do have a problem. I may have mentioned that you can typically get a roomette from Chicago to Los Angeles (or San Francisco) for the same price as a roomette from Syracuse, NY to Chicago. This indicates much lower demand on these western routes.

Looking at load factor in isolation is quite misleading. It's not going to tell you which trains Amtrak is having trouble filling. Pretty much all of Amtrak's trains are price-managed to fill up the train at some point on the route.

Instead, you need to look at *ticket prices*. On some of those trains, the prices on the peak segment are getting quite high, high enough that people on this forum are complaining about being priced out; those trains are doing great and need expansion. *Those trains include most of the Eastern so-called long-distance trains.* On other trains, the prices are much lower, they've been pushed much lower in order to fill up the peak segment -- and *that*, the *price*, not the load factor, is the sign that you have weak demand and are "struggling to fill trains".

There are routes where Amtrak is struggling (by lowering prices) to fill trains (including several state-sponsored corridor routes). There are routes (including several of the eastern Long Distance routes, and arguably the Coast Starlight) where Amtrak keeps raising prices as the train keeps filling up. You cannot tell which is which by looking at load factor.

 

[tonys96]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. The price buckets are managed specifically to make this happen.There are some exceptions. Those few trains have not been managed properly. This is actually very uncommon.Most of your "50% load factor" trains are exactly like that -- they're full at some point in the trip. Get that through your head and you'll understand what's going on a lot better. If you want to have an informed opinion, have to understand what your metrics actually mean, not blindly copy habits from looking at airlines.As for labor costs, it typically costs more to switch the cars on and off than it does to run 'em through. Given Amtrak's coach attendant staffing policies, it usually literally costs nothing in on-board labor to add another car -- only if you hit a particular threshold of cars do you have to add another attendant.Amtrak's overhead is almost unrelated to how full the trains are. Information Technology (this is sucking up money like nobody's business right now), Ticketing, Procurement, station maintenance.... I'm actually not clear on what the major causes of increased overhead are, other than IT (which is definitely part of it). But none of it has to do with running empty cars around; that's cheap.This is something which a lot of ignorant people who haven't studied the business don't understand about train service. It's all fixed costs. There are very few variable costs. But there are huge huge, huge fixed costs. Most utilities (telecoms, electricity, roads) have this characteristic, but railroads have it to an extreme degree. I think only water supply systems are more extreme in how high the fixed cost / variable cost ratio is.This is why Woody always says "the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak". This means something very specific in business terms. Expansion, for maximum financial gain, needs to happen in this priority order:-- more cars on the same train-- more trains on the same routes stopping at the same stations-- more (unstaffed if possible, but might require staff) stops on the same route-- /finally/, more routes connecting to those routesLeverage the fixed costs.Somewhere in there you should add:-- more train runs per trainset, enabled by faster trip times -- faster trains are cheaper to run *and* raise more revenue-- run on time, because it costs less (in overtime etc.) and raises much more revenue (happier customers)As with all businesses with high fixed costs and low variable costs, it is essential to get to high volume. At prices which cover variable costs and leave some margin to cover that huge overhead.Now, if you're running a railroad, you *may* have a problem if you have a route which doesn't have enough inherent demand to get to high volume at that price. (If it's a "feeder route" which feeds volume into another route, you may not have a problem.)I think it's quite obvious that the routes of the Lake Shore Limited, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Cardinal, and several of the other so-called "long distance" trains have *plenty* of demand. They simply have not been expanded in the way they need to be.Frankly, the three trains from the West Coast to Chicago do have a problem. I may have mentioned that you can typically get a roomette from Chicago to Los Angeles (or San Francisco) for the same price as a roomette from Syracuse, NY to Chicago. This indicates much lower demand on these western routes.Looking at load factor in isolation is quite misleading. It's not going to tell you which trains Amtrak is having trouble filling. Pretty much all of Amtrak's trains are price-managed to fill up the train at some point on the route.Instead, you need to look at *ticket prices*. On some of those trains, the prices on the peak segment are getting quite high, high enough that people on this forum are complaining about being priced out; those trains are doing great and need expansion. *Those trains include most of the Eastern so-called long-distance trains.* On other trains, the prices are much lower, they've been pushed much lower in order to fill up the peak segment -- and *that*, the *price*, not the load factor, is the sign that you have weak demand and are "struggling to fill trains".There are routes where Amtrak is struggling (by lowering prices) to fill trains (including several state-sponsored corridor routes). There are routes (including several of the eastern Long Distance routes, and arguably the Coast Starlight) where Amtrak keeps raising prices as the train keeps filling up. You cannot tell which is which by looking at load factor.

OK......you think Best Buy selling product during Christmas season and having empty stores during the other 10 months of the year is a good business model and they would not be struggling? Same scenario.......Amtrak having more seats sold at a single point in a 1200 mile trip is sufficient? I simply disagree and believe that Amtrak is and should be struggling to fill these empty seats, in order to be a successful business.Best Buy should and is also struggling to fill stores the other 10 months of the year. And I hope both succeed.

 

[tonys96]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

 

[SarahZ]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Your constant use of that phrase is maddening, especially since it's so easy for the people you use that against to prove what they are saying. There are tons of ridership reports posted on this forum that you are free to read.

 

[Ryan]

He's trying to be clever and poke at me, but I'm not interested in yet another bad faith discussion. Nathaniel's explanation was excellent, and if if Tony remains a skeptic, hopefully others reading it will learn something.

 

[tonys96]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Your constant use of that phrase is maddening, especially since it's so easy for the people you use that against to prove what they are saying. There are tons of ridership reports posted on this forum that you are free to read.

Would be easy for Neroden to link to one then, wouldn't it?

 

[tonys96]

He's trying to be clever and poke at me, but I'm not interested in yet another bad faith discussion. Nathaniel's explanation was excellent, and if if Tony remains a skeptic, hopefully others reading it will learn something.

Sorry that you feel this way. However, my post had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. Not sure why you feel that it did. :unsure:

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.unitedrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/URPA-SPECIAL-REPORT-February-2014.pdf

After reading neroden's post, I really wanted to understand the whole load factor thing, and this article made a lot of sense. First of all, "load factor" is measured entirely differently on a train rather than an airplane (as neroden pointed out). Amtrak's load factor isn't the percentage of empty seats at any point in time, it's passenger miles divided by total seat miles. So, once you know how long the average passenger travels (for example, 500-800 miles on the Empire Builder), and you know the load factor (roughly 62%), it's easy to see that each seat turns over on the EB's route several times per trip. The odds of filling up all those random remainders is pretty low.

As the authors point out, Amtrak's constant touting of "ridership" actually increases the perception of the NEC's importance as compared to the long-distance network. If you look at passenger miles traveled, the long distance network actually carries a billion more passenger miles each year than the NEC!

 

[tonys96]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.unitedrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/URPA-SPECIAL-REPORT-February-2014.pdf

After reading neroden's post, I really wanted to understand the whole load factor thing, and this article made a lot of sense. First of all, "load factor" is measured entirely differently on a train rather than an airplane (as neroden pointed out). Amtrak's load factor isn't the percentage of empty seats at any point in time, it's passenger miles divided by total seat miles. So, once you know how long the average passenger travels (for example, 500-800 miles on the Empire Builder), and you know the load factor (roughly 62%), it's easy to see that each seat turns over on the EB's route several times per trip. The odds of filling up all those random remainders is pretty low.

As the authors point out, Amtrak's constant touting of "ridership" actually increases the perception of the NEC's importance as compared to the long-distance network. If you look at passenger miles traveled, the long distance network actually carries a billion more passenger miles each year than the NEC!

Thanks!

According to your link, a direct quote is " Amtrak is consistently unable to sell half or more of its inventory (of "available seat miles") in the NEC and other short corridors."..........

I consistently hear the exact opposite, that it is the LD system that is hampering Amtrak and the NEC is the only profitable part of the system.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there. :unsure: Which is true?

 

[jis]

Profitability has a complex link with load factors, specially in a railroad situation, which is very different from the airline situation because of the numerous stops that trains are able to make and carry loads between multiple overlapping segments. It is unusual for trains to have a load factor of over 60% unless it is a primarily a single or just a few O/D pair run. For example the Duronto Express trains in India which (used to) carry passengers only for its entire run in India often ran at 98% load factor. Same with Rajdhanis which do carry multiple O/D pair, but using a strict quota system for each O/D pair allocated based on long term relative load trends.

On short corridor runs it is often the case that providing a timetable pattern is more important than maximizing load factors. In extreme you see that in subway and well run (unlike in the US) suburban systems, where one takes a hit on low load factors on early morning, mid afternoon, and late evening trains in order to provide completely predictable clock face service. The NEC falls more in the latter category than the few O/D pair LD category. Consciously a hit is taken on overall load factor in order to provide clock face predictable service.

So no, there is no disconnect there at all. That is the nature of the beast of running corridor service that is found attractive by customers the world over. If you insist on not seeing that as a fact of life, then no one can really help you understand.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.unitedrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/URPA-SPECIAL-REPORT-February-2014.pdf

After reading neroden's post, I really wanted to understand the whole load factor thing, and this article made a lot of sense. First of all, "load factor" is measured entirely differently on a train rather than an airplane (as neroden pointed out). Amtrak's load factor isn't the percentage of empty seats at any point in time, it's passenger miles divided by total seat miles. So, once you know how long the average passenger travels (for example, 500-800 miles on the Empire Builder), and you know the load factor (roughly 62%), it's easy to see that each seat turns over on the EB's route several times per trip. The odds of filling up all those random remainders is pretty low.

As the authors point out, Amtrak's constant touting of "ridership" actually increases the perception of the NEC's importance as compared to the long-distance network. If you look at passenger miles traveled, the long distance network actually carries a billion more passenger miles each year than the NEC!

Thanks!

According to your link, a direct quote is " Amtrak is consistently unable to sell half or more of its inventory (of "available seat miles") in the NEC and other short corridors."..........

I consistently hear the exact opposite, that it is the LD system that is hampering Amtrak and the NEC is the only profitable part of the system.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there. :unsure: Which is true?

In terms of load factor, I think jis is correct - having a regular schedule means that some trains during busy times are packed, while they're not very full at others. From my limited experiences on commuter trains, I think the same load factors that are discussed in the article are also at work on any train. For example, if most people are using the NEC to commute to NY, Philadelphia, or other large cities, the trains will be relatively empty far from those cities, but fill up the closer you get to the destination.

For example, I remember getting on a commuter train in Chicago far away from downtown, and the train was nearly empty. More people got on at every stop, and by the time we got to Union Station it was packed, standing room only. Despite that, the actual load factor was probably 50%, just like Amtrak's trains.

So, Amtrak's NEC trains are 50% full because of the "hub and spoke" nature of NEC travel, while the long distance trains are 50% full because different people generally take multiple shorter trips in a given seat over the length of the whole route. Either way, there's not much Amtrak can really do about either of those things - it's just the nature of train travel.

 

[tonys96]

Ummmmm......are you saying every train is full at some point in every trip?

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. .

"Citation needed".

Here's an interesting one:
http://www.unitedrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/URPA-SPECIAL-REPORT-February-2014.pdf

After reading neroden's post, I really wanted to understand the whole load factor thing, and this article made a lot of sense. First of all, "load factor" is measured entirely differently on a train rather than an airplane (as neroden pointed out). Amtrak's load factor isn't the percentage of empty seats at any point in time, it's passenger miles divided by total seat miles. So, once you know how long the average passenger travels (for example, 500-800 miles on the Empire Builder), and you know the load factor (roughly 62%), it's easy to see that each seat turns over on the EB's route several times per trip. The odds of filling up all those random remainders is pretty low.

As the authors point out, Amtrak's constant touting of "ridership" actually increases the perception of the NEC's importance as compared to the long-distance network. If you look at passenger miles traveled, the long distance network actually carries a billion more passenger miles each year than the NEC!

Thanks!According to your link, a direct quote is " Amtrak is consistently unable to sell half or more of its inventory (of "available seat miles") in the NEC and other short corridors."..........

I consistently hear the exact opposite, that it is the LD system that is hampering Amtrak and the NEC is the only profitable part of the system.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there. :unsure: Which is true?

In terms of load factor, I think jis is correct - having a regular schedule means that some trains during busy times are packed, while they're not very full at others. From my limited experiences on commuter trains, I think the same load factors that are discussed in the article are also at work on any train. For example, if most people are using the NEC to commute to NY, Philadelphia, or other large cities, the trains will be relatively empty far from those cities, but fill up the closer you get to the destination.

For example, I remember getting on a commuter train in Chicago far away from downtown, and the train was nearly empty. More people got on at every stop, and by the time we got to Union Station it was packed, standing room only. Despite that, the actual load factor was probably 50%, just like Amtrak's trains.

So, Amtrak's NEC trains are 50% full because of the "hub and spoke" nature of NEC travel, while the long distance trains are 50% full because different people generally take multiple shorter trips in a given seat over the length of the whole route. Either way, there's not much Amtrak can really do about either of those things - it's just the nature of train travel.

I understand. It seems, though, there might be a way to affect this positively on LD travel, maybe not on commuter travel.Amtrak can and should market point to point travel on LD routes. There is no reason not to do so. Filling empty seats, no matter where they may be along the route, should be a primary objective. Y'all seem to all agree that the trains may be full at times along the route, and that may be true, so, is it good to hold seats open throughout the entire route? Of course not!

A quick example would be the TE, from SAS to AUS or FTW or DAL. Have never seen this train full on this run going north. Excellent marketing opportunity, IMHO. Surely there are other sections on every route. This is a struggle for certain, but not an impossibility.

Simply because " it has always been that way", or " that is the nature of it" or " that is how it is" never has been or never, ever, will be a sufficient reason to not look for ways to make positive changes in anything.

And, I am still confused about the NEC deal. Your link states the NEC is vastly underutilized, and I hear elsewhere that it is the lifeblood of Amtrak.......

 

[jis]

And, I am still confused about the NEC deal. Your link states the NEC is vastly underutilized, and I hear elsewhere that it is the lifeblood of Amtrak.......

Utilization is a tradeoff with convenience. Making a service convenient increases ridership, which may be done at the cost of not achieving the highest load factors for reasons explained in my earlier message. Blindly trying to increase net load factor often leads to decrease in ridership overall because the service becomes inconvenient.

by normal measures of such thing the NEC is not considered to be underutilized by those that understand the cross-elasticity between schedule convenience, overall ridership and load factor. Only those who look at load factors independent of everything else with relatively little understanding other dynamic relationships involved think it is under-utilized.

Due to various factors, Amtrak is currently driven by the goal to maximize revenue yields on the NEC, and that they are doing quite successfully. Again that is the outcome of complex dynamics in which load factor is but one factor involved with complex interaction with other factors. It is quite safe to say I think that just increasing load factor as a primary objective will possibly reduce both ridership and revenue.

Again, the Amtrak planners are not as stupid as many here seem to think. They are actually quite sophisticated when it comes to maximize revenues given the constraints that they work under, specially on the NEC.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I know Amtrak does try to utilize popular city pairs & shorter routes to its best advantage. As has been previously mentioned, they often add an extra coach car to the EB during the busy summer season on the CHI-MSP leg. Also, they normally prohibit many short but popular trips that would preclude people from taking those seats for longer voyages (and thus reducing their load factor and revenue). For example, you normally can't take a short trip on the EB through Glacier National Park, but they decided to allow it last summer - I would assume that the previous two years' of delays caused enough of a drop in Amtrak ridership that a few seasonal tourists weren't going to be a problem.

 

[Bigval109]

Someone help me out here. There have been many changes lately, the buy point limit has been raised, the price of points have increased by $100 if you buy the 10,000 points, and there is talk of devalue of points in the near future. What's really going on. Let's not forget the new card and AGR 2.0. Granted I'm an old man, but something is just not adding up for keeping we the customer.