Amtrak Service Reductions

[jiml]

Simple fix...make DC part of Maryland...it's too small to be another new state....

...or Virginia, where a lot of DC'ers live and work. Besides isn't another state really going to mess up the flag?

 

[railiner]

...or Virginia, where a lot of DC'ers live and work.

Either or.....I only suggested MD, since the present District is on the MD side of the Potomac

 

[NativeSon5859]

The tri-weekly service advisory has made it to Amtrak.com, and the reservations system looks like it’s been updated to reflect the new schedules for all train.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Either or.....I only suggested MD, since the present District is on the MD side of the Potomac

Makes me think back to when I lived and worked in the DC Area during my Fed Career.

I started out Living in the District, in an apartment @ Dupont Circle,when they were affordable!!!

As Washington gentrified, I moved first to Foggy Bottom, then Alexandria, VA, then to Columbia, MD and by the time I retired was living in Rockville,MD.( the Metro was my main transportation method once it started).

As the old saying goes, you cant escape Death, Taxes,Expensive Hard to find Parking, and Rising Real Estate prices.

 

[jiml]

Either or.....I only suggested MD, since the present District is on the MD side of the Potomac

Makes sense. The reason I thought of VA is one of my best friends lives and works there while technically being assigned to Washington.

 

[Sidney]

Looking at the new tri weekly schedules,if you want to go to LA from New York,you can get to Chicago only three days a week. There are three ways to get there and all three options The Lake Shore,NE Regional/Cap Ltd and the Cardinal run the same three days. Once in Chicago you can get to LA daily using the SW Chief and the Texas/Sunset on alternate days and on the odd day Wednesday the Zephyr to Sacramento and a San Jouquin/bus to LA.

This makes absolutely no sense. You can get to Chicago only 3 days a week,but you can get to LA from Chicago every day.

 

[Exvalley]

I just checked the app. My trips now say, "Service has been canceled." I have no idea if they have issued a refund or if they will call me to rebook.

So what happens now if Congress says that they need to operate daily? Will my reservations magically reappear?

 

[Nick Farr]

The LD sector is the *best perfoming sector of Amtrak's business* during the pandemic

Can you cite a source for this?

Given the large fixed costs of the LD trains from fuel to staffing, I don't really see how this is possible in terms of profitability.

As far as passenger numbers, I think people who had vacations planned on the LD trains or who were on the LD trains because of Greyhound cancellations are beefing up the numbers. Most NEC travel is business so circumstances probably killed that demand.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

The source was/is Amtraks own documents to Congress on ridership.

The simplest and most cost effective solution would be to run smaller consists 7 days a week. 2 coaches, lounge, sleeper. 3 onboard employees total. 1 for coaches, 1 for lounge, 1 for sleeper. The lounge attendant could close for 15 mins if need be to prepare the boxes for sleeper attendant to pick up or just have sleeper pax report to lounge to pick up the boxes.

That consist is probably too small but it would work especially for the off season during the pandemic.

I see Amtrak’s current management as a bigger problem long term problem then CoVid.

 

[Nick Farr]

The source was/is Amtraks own documents to Congress on ridership.

Do you have a link for that? I can't seem to locate it.

 

[Exvalley]

The source was/is Amtraks own documents to Congress on ridership.

Link?

I think that you have to be careful with these numbers. Let's say, hypothetically, that corridor service is down 90% but long distance service is down only 80%. It is much easier to scale corridor service than long distance service - which means that long distance service may actually be losing a whole lot more money.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

From recent Railway age article on another thread.

“”“Ridership is coming back: Long-distance ticket revenues climbed 71%, from $6.8 million to $11.6 million between April and May, operating with approximately the same frequencies, Northeast Corridor billing rose about 60% from $1.5 million to $2.4 million, and state-supported trains generated less than a 50% increase, from $2.3 million in April to $3.5 million in May. The existing long-distance service provided almost double the May revenue of Corridor and state-supported operations combined.” So it appears that, in effect, Amtrak has chosen to punish its most loyal riders.“”



Amtraks own graphs don’t make a good case for the cuts either. See letter from Flynn to Congress first week of June attached below. The graph shows 567 million extra for the network that includes in this case state corridors and commuter operations. Look farther down the need for long distance trains on network is only 151 million extra. (NEC 737 million extra needed) By Amtrak’s own account the NEC is sucking up the most subsidy. Also by all accounts recently long distance ridership is coming back stronger then corridors.

Every graph Amtrak produces seems to have numbers pulled out of thin air. We need an unbiased audit that doesn’t have an agenda attached to it.

Back to my original post a couple lines up. Since the fixed costs and infrastructure are already there running a 4 car daily train with 3 onboard employees would cost peanuts in the big picture.

 

[Exvalley]

The existing long-distance service provided almost double the May revenue of Corridor and state-supported operations combined.” So it appears that, in effect, Amtrak has chosen to punish its most loyal riders.

Revenues are just one side of the balance sheet. Costs are the other. We just don't have enough information to know which type of service (corridor or LD) is hemorrhaging money the most.

 

[IndyLions]

I agree with the consist cut approach to 4 cars versus their 3d/wk across the board approach (except for AT, SM/SS).

If they could save real dollars, I could also see them combining the LSL and CL and splitting it in Cleveland. Or more likely, just run the LSL, and make people transfer at NYP to WAS or BOS. It would stink, but during a pandemic be understandable.

 

[Sidney]

Not having daily service from Cleveland to Chicago and Chicago to St. Paul is a mistake. How about one daily Cleveland to Chicago train,probably the Lake Shore being it arrives later than the Capitol Limited. Really,cutting NY/DC-Chicago to three days a week and running the three trains that do that route on the same days is idiotic

 

[bms]

Not having daily service from Cleveland to Chicago and Chicago to St. Paul is a mistake. How about one daily Cleveland to Chicago train,probably the Lake Shore being it arrives later than the Capitol Limited. Really,cutting NY/DC-Chicago to three days a week and running the three trains that do that route on the same days is idiotic

Yes, the inability to leave Saturday morning and come back Sunday night will cut out all weekend trips for me. I'd still use my vacation time to take the train, but needing to take time off for every trip would cut me from 15-20 trips a year down to 2-4 trips a year.

 

[Qapla]

Not being able to take a day trip to Tampa on days we would like or could make it is discouraging

 

[Ferroequinologist]

I would LOVE to write my senators and representatives ... except, oops, I don't have any. I live in DC. This is an outrage that needs to be fixed.

you can always move!

 

[west point]

Fixed costs on LD trains are going to be the killer. Stations and their upkeep and rentals, Freight RR access charges, equipment uppkeep is still there , The operating costs once a long time ago were about $4.00 per mile per car. Although it is August the booking site shows the loads of many LD trains are running at 90% of the 50% Covid-19 available loadings. Cannot really understand that high of a figure which is larger than I expected.

 

[Nick Farr]

The simplest and most cost effective solution would be to run smaller consists 7 days a week.

Actually, not at all. The savings from not having to run/coordinate conductors and engineering staff, pay host railroad access fees and fuel costs negate any marginal savings from dropping a few cars and OBS.

I am 100% in favor of daily service, but the situation is one where passengers on LD services are far more flexible about when they travel. Dropping more than half the service just forces a slightly lower passenger load into half the costs.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Couldn’t disagree more and Amtrak's own numbers back it up. Click on the attachment from my previous post above. I think those numbers slipped through the cracks honestly. Costs to run NEC 737M, the LD network 151M.

Fixed costs aren’t going anywhere. Station costs, maintenance yards, reservations, administrative functions, management salaries, etc. The list goes on and on. The labor cuts are mostly symbolic with the protections built in, benefits for a year for those who actually do get furloughed and more overtime and travel expenses for those who do stay on due to inefficiencies of 3 day week operation. Rolling stock has for the most part been paid for decades ago and the new V2 sleepers are all buttoned up and stored. (Side note why aren’t the new V2 sleepers in service now getting a good shake down in service while ridership is low?)

As far as long distance travelers being flexible and 3x service not affecting them. Yes, for the most part someone traveling LA to CHI for pleasure that’s probably true. Again Amtraks own statements that endpoint to endpoint travelers only make up 5-10 percent of travelers on LD routes busts that myth. People that travel on the endless corridors that are the skeleton on the network need daily reliable service. Whether it be Minot to Spokane, Liberal to Kansas City, Klamath Falls to Sacramento and 100’s of other city pairs these people rely on the service because for the most part nothing else exist.

I truly see this disconnect by management as the most salient issue going forward concerning the National network. Why we keep hearing that endpoint to endpoint travel is low and therefore we don’t need the network is mindboggling and shows managements agenda (not incompetence) against the network. These people aren’t that stupid, they have an agenda. Gardner and Anderson have made that very clear the last few years and Flynn is no different.

One last point on 3x daily service. It was tried before and failed spectacularly for all the above reasons.

 

[railiner]

hether it be Minot to Spokane, Liberal to Kansas City, Klamath Falls to Sacramento and 100’s of other city pairs these people rely on the service because for the most part nothing else exist.

Liberal? As in Kansas? Hasn't been passenger service there, since the Rock Island Golden State ceased operation's in 1968....

 

[Nick Farr]

Couldn’t disagree more and Amtrak's own numbers back it up. Click on the attachment from my previous post above. I think those numbers slipped through the cracks honestly. Costs to run NEC 737M, the LD network 151M.

What you cited was a supplemental funding budget request, nothing more. Nothing in there about the breakdown of the true costs of the service, etc.

Fixed costs aren’t going anywhere. Station costs, maintenance yards, reservations, administrative functions, management salaries, etc. The list goes on and on.

True, but that doesn't somehow make running fewer trains more expensive than running daily service. The only way Amtrak has to control costs on an ongoing basis is by trimming operational expenses.

The labor cuts are mostly symbolic with the protections built in, benefits for a year for those who actually do get furloughed and more overtime and travel expenses for those who do stay on due to inefficiencies of 3 day week operation.

Not at all. People who aren't working aren't getting paid to work, at least not by Amtrak. People also take other jobs and reduced staffing means they hire fewer people to begin with. The savings behind reduced service are not at all symbolic. Penny wise and pound foolish, sure, but the cost savings in the short term are very real.

As far as long distance travelers being flexible and 3x service not affecting them. Yes, for the most part someone traveling LA to CHI for pleasure that’s probably true. Again Amtraks own statements that endpoint to endpoint travelers only make up 5-10 percent of travelers on LD routes busts that myth. People that travel on the endless corridors that are the skeleton on the network need daily reliable service.

No argument on the need for daily reliable service for those traveling between midpoints in the network, but--let's be real--the current service is hardly reliable. The *goal* for LD trains is 50% on-time performance, a goal they haven't come close to meeting.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of passengers making up the vast majority of the revenue on these trains are a vacation and/or captive market who aren't going to be significantly deterred by the 3x week service. I haven't met many people going from CHI to EMY on the CZ, but I go CHI->RNO a lot, and lots of people take that train between Denver, Salt Lake, etc--and most of these travelers I've met are indeed flexible with their travel plans. I'm not going to suddenly stop taking Amtrak because of the reduced service levels.

I want a comprehensive national network that offers a true alternative to air travel. The current daily service product is FAR from that. I'd rather they fix the product and/or find ways of making it profitable rather than trying to serve all masters.

Until Amtrak is properly funded by Congress, Amtrak management is going to have to figure out how to make do with what they have.

 

[jebr]

True, but that doesn't somehow make running fewer trains more expensive than running daily service. The only way Amtrak has to control costs on an ongoing basis is by trimming operational expenses.

While that's the only (or at least primary) way they can control costs, they can also work on the other side of the equation (increasing revenue, or at least slowing decreases in revenue.) While economics during a pandemic are a huge unknown, in non-pandemic times a cut to 3-days a week (as done in the 1990s, I believe) wound up losing more money than was saved with less costs, and ridership dropped quite a bit as well. While someone who absolutely wants to take a train (railfan, once-in-a-lifetime trip, etc.) or absolutely needs to take a train (only intercity transport option, medical issues with flying and can't drive, etc.) will wind up making it work, a lot of ridership (at least non-pandemic) is semi-choice travel. They might prefer the train, but if the schedule doesn't work they'll take the bus, drive, or fly, or maybe they'll only take the train one way instead of both. They might also just not consider it if they can't keep track of what days the train runs easily.

Expenses also don't drop evenly, even for the cost to run the train. Sure, you don't have as many conductors or engineers on the trains, but they'll sometimes have longer layovers that they need additional compensation for (for example, they'll have a day or two on their layover in Minot, instead of running the train back later that evening.) I also don't know how the contracts work with the railroads, but it's possible that it's a simple "pay $X for daily service, but if you decide to run less trains than that you still need to pay $X" or the drop in cost isn't directly proportional to the trains that are ran.

Simply stated, while it costs more to run trains 7 days a week, you generally get enough revenue from the additional sales (since not everyone will move to a different day) to make up that difference. Now, during a pandemic, who knows, but I think it's worth having Congress fund Amtrak enough to at least keep service at a 1x/day level throughout the pandemic and the recovery from it, simply to make sure that everything's still there when we're on the other side of the pandemic.

 

[IndyLions]

Take this for what it’s worth.

I was riding the Crescent yesterday and the sleeper attendant claimed that Amtrak had been offered additional COVID operational funding by Congress and had turned it down.

Again - take it with a grain of salt.