Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[neroden]

https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Anderson Testimony.pdf

The testimony is fine.  The WSJ was pretty heavy on the spin.

Honestly, if Anderson had had the sense to propose the Amarillo/Wichita reroute instead of a *bus bridge*, or to cut station agents at smaller stations but not at *Cincinnati*, he wouldn't be finding such angry opposition.

Context for this quote is important:

a key topic for the next Federal reauthorization of Amtrak is the future of the Long Distance routes that use this equipment. Congress will need to make decisions about the long-term prospects of these routes and provide sufficient associated funding levels so that Amtrak can procure appropriate types and quantities of this custom rolling stock.

It's in the context of bilevels -- not just LD bilevels but a long discussion of California's problems acquiring bilevels.  Those are also being described as "custom rolling stock".

Single-level long-distance coaches, which get a section of their own in the testimony, appear to be a definite purchase.  Which, if our outside estimates of the true financials is correct, makes sense.  Since the single-level trains probably all make a marginal profit at this point (i.e. Amtrak needs larger Congressional subsidies if they don't run them), there's no mention of "Congress will need to make decisions" in the single-level context; Amtrak is buying 'em.  (FWIW, my estimates say that the Auto Train and Coast Starlight are in a profitable situation; it's the other bilevel trains which are less solid financially.)

Anderson's list of underserved cities is worth noting:

Just look at a map and you can see glaring gaps in Amtrak service to cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Orlando and Tampa, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Nashville, Austin, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Birmingham

Consider which corridors Anderson may be trying to expand based on this specific list.  Which corridors would you expect based on this list (assuming that it's in order of importance to Mr. Anderson, with Atlanta most important and Birmingham least important)?  I'd guess:

(1) more-than-daily service from Atlanta north

(2) Houston-Dallas service

(3) More-than-daily service from Dallas north

(4) Not sure what he's thinking in Florida (phone up Virgin Trains USA?)

(5) Denver: Permanent Ski Train?  Front Range Rail?  Two a day from Denver to Chicago?  Or from Denver to Salt Lake?

(6) Las Vegas - Los Angeles (phone up the XpressWest guys?)

(7) Phoenix-LA?  Phoenix-Tucson?

(8) Nashville?!?!  No idea

(9) More-than-daily from San Antonio-Austin-Dallas?

(10) Cleveland-Cincy-Columbus?  Daily or more-than-daily on the Cardinal route (since traffic from Cincy goes about equally both ways)?

(11) New Orleans-Baton Rouge?  New Orleans-Mobile-Gulf Coast?

(12) Atlanta-Birmingham?

 

[neroden]

Oh, and based on population, connectivity, and political support, I would say that the *only* long-distance route which can be cut or shrunk is the Sunset Limited.  Possibly the southern ends of the Crescent and CONO. The other routes all have rabid support from end to end.  A couple could possibly be made into overlapping routes (i.e. change trains at Denver) but you couldn't drop service anywhere else.

 

[cpotisch]

More so than Charger/Sprinter bookending some Viaggora cars.

You know that that’s not what they’re called, right? :giggle:

 

[cpotisch]

(4) Not sure what he's thinking in Florida (phone up Virgin Trains USA?)

(8) Nashville?!?!  No idea

I know this would never happen, but strictly speaking, a revived Floridian would cover both of these...

 

[neroden]

I know this would never happen, but strictly speaking, a revived Floridian would cover both of these...

He's talking corridors though.  CSX does have Nashville-Chattanooga, Chattanooga-Atlanta, and Atlanta-Jacksonville lines.  (But who wants to work with CSX?)  Perhaps Nashville-Memphis is more likely, but I figure CSX has a 0% chance of making any reasonable offer, since they've sabotaged commuter rail planes in both Memphis and Nashville (and Chattanooga!)

 

[user 14106]

Adding all these corridors sounds great (in my opinion without cutting long distance service), but what makes anyone think that the freights are going to agree to higher frequency trains when you cannot get them to run the current once daily LD trains in a timely manner?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Well if I am interpreting the MSN article (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amtrak-plan-to-expand-ridership-could-sidetrack-storied-trains/ar-BBTQFFM?fbclid=IwAR2_OlUTZZVhM08PBxemnku3KJaTgFkbwbKGqMwTJFo2bJEFQKFOuDoA8x4) correctly, the biggest expense they are worried about is replacing the LD equipment.

"Amtrak says it will need $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion between now and 2030, as part of a total $3.8 billion it expects to spend on replacing the long-distance fleet, including locomotives Amtrak has already ordered."

The Viewliner II refresh is basically complete so they must be referring to the Superliners. The replacement for those could be the biggest issue right now. 

 

[me_little_me]

So the Diners that became Sleeper Lounges will now become Sleepless Lounges?

 

[Ryan]

Well if I am interpreting the MSN article (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amtrak-plan-to-expand-ridership-could-sidetrack-storied-trains/ar-BBTQFFM?fbclid=IwAR2_OlUTZZVhM08PBxemnku3KJaTgFkbwbKGqMwTJFo2bJEFQKFOuDoA8x4) correctly, the biggest expense they are worried about is replacing the LD equipment.

"Amtrak says it will need $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion between now and 2030, as part of a total $3.8 billion it expects to spend on replacing the long-distance fleet, including locomotives Amtrak has already ordered."

The Viewliner II refresh is basically complete so they must be referring to the Superliners. The replacement for those could be the biggest issue right now. 

Rather than try to parse out what someone with limited understanding tried to summarize, take 10 minutes and read Anderson's testimony where all is laid out in detail.

 

[cpotisch]

My main feeling here is simply that all the problems with the LD network he’s talking about (poor OTP, skeletal service, etc) should be motivation to improve that network, not slash it to pieces. It’s really a self reinforcing loop to just say that the worse things are, the more it should be cut away. I really don’t think that Anderson understands what Amtrak’s goal and purpose is really supposed to be.

 

[LookingGlassTie]

My main feeling here is simply that all the problems with the LD network he’s talking about (poor OTP, skeletal service, etc) should be motivation to improve that network, not slash it to pieces. It’s really a self reinforcing loop to just say that the worse things are, the more it should be cut away. I really don’t think that Anderson understands what Amtrak’s goal and purpose is really supposed to be.

That's kind of my thinking, too.  I don't think it's just because Anderson used to be an airline guy, although that probably doesn't help his case.

I wish there was a way to maintain the LD network while making it more efficient and viable financially.  That's the thing that Congress looks for when deciding whether to continue the funding of Amtrak; does it manage its money well?

 

[Dakota 400]

If corridor routes are Amtrak's future, please remember that a Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland route has been proposed for many years.  (And, not too long ago, we had a Governor who supported the concept.)  But, given the current political party in charge of our State Government, don't expect any $$ coming from our Capitol to support it.

 

[keelhauled]

The LD network as of now is thoroughly useless in every way but one.  It serves rural America badly--advocacy often focuses on how it provides essential transportation to low population density areas.  NARP's response to the WSJ article makes this point yet again; Jim Matthews said that "I did so with Mr. Coscia, underscoring how 'Grandma in Cut Bank deserves to have the train take her to Spokane for her medical treatments.'"  How many Grandmas, or anyone else, are there in hundreds and thousands of other small communities across America that are in similar circumstances but manage to get along without Amtrak?  The fact that the number of cities and towns without rail service vastly outnumbers those that are served by Amtrak, and are nevertheless surviving and even thriving, puts the lie to the idea that trains are somehow a critical link between rural communities and to urban centers.

It serves urban America badly, with extremely, laughably limited service that has the added bonus of being perpetually unreliable and frequently at passenger unfriendly hours that make trains an irrelevance in cities with extensive highway and air service.  And throwing more trains at the system doesn't solve the problems inherent in a network that is a legacy of travel patterns from a century ago.  The reason Amtrak even exists is that the model of long, thin routes drove the entire industry bankrupt, but instead of focusing on areas in which there is potential passenger demand, the company has remained wedded to the idea of running the same type of service that fell out of public favor before most of us were even alive.

The only things the long-haul network are (arguably) good for is helping to scrounge up political support among senators to keep it limping along with odds and ends of cash every so often, and being a cheap way for them to make it look like they care about transportation in general.  How many studies have been started with the appropriate statements attached from the area office-holders, generated a brief burst of good PR, and then fizzled away into nothingness?

And even the political benefits are hardly a sure thing--they certainly didn't save John McCain, for one, from often and loudly criticizing Amtrak.  Wasn't he the one who said that "Amtrak doesn't serve my state?"  He wasn't entirely wrong, either, just a little misleading.  It would have been completely accurate to have said "Amtrak doesn't *effectively* serve my state," and he could have been joined by a great many others in saying it.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

My worry level over this is at near absolute zero; we have heard scare stories like this since Day 1 of Amtrak and nothing has yet to come of them, at least nothing regarding a wholesale elimination of long distance service.

 

[Larry H.]

The LD network as of now is thoroughly useless in every way but one.  It serves rural America badly--advocacy often focuses on how it provides essential transportation to low population density areas.  NARP's response to the WSJ article makes this point yet again; Jim Matthews said that "I did so with Mr. Coscia, underscoring how 'Grandma in Cut Bank deserves to have the train take her to Spokane for her medical treatments.'"  How many Grandmas, or anyone else, are there in hundreds and thousands of other small communities across America that are in similar circumstances but manage to get along without Amtrak?  The fact that the number of cities and towns without rail service vastly outnumbers those that are served by Amtrak, and are nevertheless surviving and even thriving, puts the lie to the idea that trains are somehow a critical link between rural communities and to urban centers.

It serves urban America badly, with extremely, laughably limited service that has the added bonus of being perpetually unreliable and frequently at passenger unfriendly hours that make trains an irrelevance in cities with extensive highway and air service.  And throwing more trains at the system doesn't solve the problems inherent in a network that is a legacy of travel patterns from a century ago.  The reason Amtrak even exists is that the model of long, thin routes drove the entire industry bankrupt, but instead of focusing on areas in which there is potential passenger demand, the company has remained wedded to the idea of running the same type of service that fell out of public favor before most of us were even alive.

The only things the long-haul network are (arguably) good for is helping to scrounge up political support among senators to keep it limping along with odds and ends of cash every so often, and being a cheap way for them to make it look like they care about transportation in general.  How many studies have been started with the appropriate statements attached from the area office-holders, generated a brief burst of good PR, and then fizzled away into nothingness?

And even the political benefits are hardly a sure thing--they certainly didn't save John McCain, for one, from often and loudly criticizing Amtrak.  Wasn't he the one who said that "Amtrak doesn't serve my state?"  He wasn't entirely wrong, either, just a little misleading.  It would have been completely accurate to have said "Amtrak doesn't *effectively* serve my state," and he could have been joined by a great many others in saying it.

I couldn't disagree more. The actual problem of the long Thin lines as mentioned here is that much of the connection points that used to allow easier travel between locations are gone. It was very short sighted to reduce the existing number of cities served by Amtrak. It makes some pretty outrageous juggling of trains to go too many places. That alone is keeping the potential ridership down.  I don't fly and if I want to travel by train I usually have go way out of my way, and pay for it to boot, to end up somewhere I need to go.  To say a long distance train needs no diners or sleepers is a death knell to passengers.  I do agree that alternating equipment to make two trains a day possible on many routes would also increase ridership.  It is one thing that keeps us from train travel at times, going to the station at 12:30 at night or 4 am is not conducive to increased ridership.  

 

[cirdan]

I figure CSX has a 0% chance of making any reasonable offer, since they've sabotaged commuter rail planes in both Memphis and Nashville (and Chattanooga!) 

Seeing Anderson's background, maybe this is his plan. 

 

[mfastx]

I'd be fine with swapping LDT for more frequent and reliable corridor service.  Problem is, usually what ends up happening is just the first part, removing the LDT and that's it (see Sunset Limited east). 

 

[frequentflyer]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view

Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. 

 

[cirdan]

Consider which corridors Anderson may be trying to expand based on this specific list.  Which corridors would you expect based on this list (assuming that it's in order of importance to Mr. Anderson, with Atlanta most important and Birmingham least important)?  I'd guess:

(1) more-than-daily service from Atlanta north

(2) Houston-Dallas service

(3) More-than-daily service from Dallas north

(4) Not sure what he's thinking in Florida (phone up Virgin Trains USA?)

(5) Denver: Permanent Ski Train?  Front Range Rail?  Two a day from Denver to Chicago?  Or from Denver to Salt Lake?

(6) Las Vegas - Los Angeles (phone up the XpressWest guys?)

(7) Phoenix-LA?  Phoenix-Tucson?

(8) Nashville?!?!  No idea

(9) More-than-daily from San Antonio-Austin-Dallas?

(10) Cleveland-Cincy-Columbus?  Daily or more-than-daily on the Cardinal route (since traffic from Cincy goes about equally both ways)?

(11) New Orleans-Baton Rouge?  New Orleans-Mobile-Gulf Coast?

(12) Atlanta-Birmingham?

I don't think he's actually got any proposals in the pipeline to actually make any of this happen. Sounds more like whataboutism to me.

The Florida reference is maybe more a tatrum, somebody else is making a corridor service work.

 

[cirdan]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view

Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. 

That document creates the overall impression, that everything that is approaching end of life is being replaced by something new, and that the question to be clarified is what will replace it, not whether it should be replaced at all.

Let's hope this is what is actually going on.

 

[dlagrua]

While there isn't much in Anderson's testimony that seems to promote LD service, I don't read it as completely negative to the National Network. He just said what its going to take to keep it going.  There is substantial focus on the corridor routes but what Anderson didn't say is what the LD routes provide to families and working people in the smaller towns and cities. When we rode the Empire Builder during the height of the Bakken oil boom 5 years ago the train had many oil workers from across the Western states going for their three week shift in ND. We met people from Montana and Idaho who Anderson could refer to as commuters. It is likely that workers from states East of ND also use the service to get to their jobs.  There were also Amish people (that do not fly) seniors, vacationing families, students, America by Rail travel groups, and those that reside far from airports where hours of driving would be part of their airline trip. On that June day the train was full, and so it was on our three subsequent trips to Denver.

We can talk about Anderson, and RPA but the demand for better passenger trains must come from the American people. It is surprising that most people that I've spoken with could care less about trains unless they are on the LIRR or NJT 5 days per week.  

 

[sttom]

If Anderson has learned the political game, I very much approve of him giving the GOP a kicking. They've been gunning for Amtrak and the Postal Service for the last 20 years to score political points, but still bluffing about a full killing of those companies. It would be nice to see someone finally calling their bluff and more or less saying "pony up or kill it, none of this half way sh*t anymore". It would also make sense to try to get more corridor service around the US. Even in California you can't make day trips between a lot of major cities or areas. The western half of the North Bay, the Inland Empire, the Sacramento Valley, Central Coast and the Sierras all have at best a bus twice a day and maybe a long distance train. The truth of transportation as an industry is my generation doesn't like driving. There have been reports of a resurgence in bus travel because of this. And bus companies are responding. Its time for someone to ring Congress's bell and either get an adequate and reliable stream of funding. 

 

[cpotisch]

I just noticed this part, and it’s really driving me insane:

This is reinforced when you look at where Amtrak is most successful today. Approximately 85% of Amtrak’s ridership comes from the top 100 metro areas. Further, approximately 96% of Amtrak trips are less than 750 miles in length. In fact, the vast majority of our riders’ trips are less than 250 miles. The present network simply does not fit the future.

But the vast majority of Amtrak’s trains are long distance, so that’s naturally going to happen! You can’t just say that the vast majority of people only want corridor trains if that’s pretty much all they’re being offered. To get a sense of what people actually want and need, why not look at how full the respective types of trains tend to run? By just drawing a conclusion from the total percentage of Amtrak riders using the corridors vs the National Network, you are stacking the cards heavily against LDs.

 

[jis]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view

Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. 

Seems like an eminently reasonable approach to me. But I can see that many dyed in the wool mid-20th Century (or earlier) minded railfans could feel their hair on fire. :lol:

 

[dlagrua]

I just noticed this part, and it’s really driving me insane:

But the vast majority of Amtrak’s trains are long distance, so that’s naturally going to happen! You can’t just say that the vast majority of people only want corridor trains if that’s pretty much all they’re being offered. To get a sense of what people actually want and need, why not look at how full the respective types of trains tend to run? By just drawing a conclusion from the total percentage of Amtrak riders using the corridors vs the National Network, you are stacking the cards heavily against LDs.

I understand the point but you can also look at LD trains as a combination of intercity routes. Only a small percentage of riders go end to end but it might take three of four corridor routes to service the same cities/towns as one LD train.  It is obviously true that LD train passengers amount to a small percentage overall travelers but every time we have traveled, those trains were sold out or nearly so. The LD trains will never see the same amount of ridership as the corridor routes around the major cities. Those routes run a train every hour or sooner. I believe that a fairer assessment of the value of the LD trains is a measure of capacity. vs percentage of ridership.