Amtrak's Fiscal Picture for 2013 and Beyond

[Anderson]

We're not quite to the end of FY12 yet, but I figure that we're close enough (and with the resumption of the route fiscal performance numbers in the latest MPR, we have enough data to at least start making educated guesses as to where Amtrak's fiscal picture is going.

1) The Acela and the NE Regional.

Here, we can find a set of operations that are suddenly producing massive above-the-rails profits. The Regionals are on course to produce an operating profit of $100 million, possibly slightly more, for FY12. This would be on $40-45 million in additional revenue versus last year and a similar reduction in costs. This would likely equate to an operating margin of somewhere in the 18-20% range for this year (YTD, the margin is 17.68% after OPEBs, 19.33% before).

We cannot expect the cost reductions to be repeated, but they offer a lower baseline to work from. This is more important than I think we'd usually give it credit for, since these costs would tend to rise exponentially. Basically, this gives the trains a lot more breathing room to make money. I'll also note that the savings here seem to be "real", rather than just some shift in cost allocations...overall costs are off around $50 million overall. Yes, some may be accounting, but $50 million is nothing to sneeze at.

The Acela is massively profitable; again, here we can find improvements both in terms of increased revenue ($9.1m YTD) and cost savings ($35.8m YTD). The Acela's current profit margins, however, run closer to 45% above the rails.

The Regionals seem likely to be the main driver of further profitability growth on the NEC. For good or ill, the Acela's market is somewhat limited at the prevailing prices; PPR for June was $157.44 and YTD was $150.50; this compares with $150.83 and $145.40 for June FY11 and FY11 YTD respectively. The PPR increases come to 4.4% and 3.5%, respectively...I am somewhat hard-pressed to see both fare increases in this vein /and/ ridership increases continue. Moreover, the YTD PPR of the Regional is currently running around 45% of the Acela and seems to be rising at least somewhat more slowly while load factors remain lower.

Basically, the Regionals can do a lot more on volume while the Acelas are a bit "boxed in" for the near future and further fare increases are likely to increase traffic diversion, likely stalling ridership growth until the new Acela cars are delivered (whenever that actually happens to be).

2) The State-Sponsored Corridors

Here, it should be expected that the PRIIA changes will, at the very least, eliminate most or all of the deficits. There may be one or more routes that end up on some sort of waiver, and there will invariably be some "bouncing around" as revenue figures vary, but the cash flow losses should be pretty much gone as of the end of FY13.

I've generally referred to the changes here as simply "wiping out" the deficits for Amtrak. This isn't strictly true, however...these costs also come with two "goodie bags" for Amtrak's cash flow:

-The first is the "additives", basically administration costs and profit margins for Amtrak above and beyond the direct costs of operating a route. In the case of Virginia, these are expected to increase the billed cost of the Lynchburger by about $700,000 net of the shift of some expenses from "route costs" (and ignoring "third party costs" going up by quite a bit), or about $440,000 once adjustments to third-party costs are included. The numbers for the Newport News line aren't comparable to this because of the shift from one train being included to five. Generalized, this would imply about an 8% increase in Amtrak's revenue above and beyond operating costs.

-The second is the capital charges. In the case of Virginia, these come to about $1.5 million in FY13 and $3.5 million in FY14.

The first would come to about $50 million in positive cash flow for Amtrak (8% times $620 million). The second is going to be far, far more nebulous because of the state car order...but at least based on VA's order and the routes that won't be using non-Amtrak equipment (basically all of the single-level routes outside of the Cascades), my best guess is that you're looking at another $30-50 million in cash getting pumped into the system (given the size of the Keystone and Empire operations in particular). Overall, this would seem to throw another $80-100 million into the system, net of any "tweaks" to revenue splits from trains using the NEC (i.e. Carolinian, VA Regionals, Vermonter, etc.), which could believably transfer another $10 million in revenue credits from the states to the NEC (and by connection pump that much extra into Amtrak).

3) The Long-Distance Trains

Will continue to lose money. The best that I think can reasonably be hoped for is an improvement in the cash flow situation with the addition of more coaches to the Superliner trains and more coaches+sleepers to the single-level trains (Viewliner/Amfleet) as the CAF order comes online and the Horizons are potentially moved around and Amfleets "displaced" to this route.

My best guess is that the overall losses here will hover in the $600 million range as long as increasing ridership and/or fares permit.

4) The overall situation

Looking at the numbers in each category, we have the following likely cash flow figures:

Northeast Corridor: $300-350 million positive

State-Supported Routes: $80-110 million positive

Long Distance Routes: $600 million negative

Total: $140-220 million negative

While this is not pretty, it is far less dire than one would expect it to have been. Basically, the LD network should be safe barring either a major ridership dropoff or a sudden funding cut. Moreover, I suspect that it is quite possible for a continuing rise in NEC revenue, in particular, to fill a substantial portion of this hole going forward, both due to increased feeder service in VA (the Norfolk train could be worth a few million dollars here and due to through traffic past WAS, and overall ridership here still seems in a marginal uptrend) and internal growth.

Even a cut subsidy should be survivable, at the very least; more importantly, a sustained subsidy will likely give Amtrak a bit of money to add/replace equipment.

 

[Ziv]

That is a great summary of Amtrak financial situation! I really wish we could see what results more cars on the LD routes would result in. Although I would rather see twice daily service on the EB, CS and the CZ, just adding an extra sleeper to each of them and perhaps a coach (still wishing for lay flat at an angle seats but that won't happen) would really be interesting. Or maybe a mix of the two, try out twice daily service on the Empire Builder and add two cars to each Coast Starlight and California Zephyr train. I cannot even imagine where that many cars would come from, though.

I recently skimmed the Fleet Strategy Plan and it has some interesting things that jump out even to a tyro like me.

First, they are looking to purchase another 80 Auto carriers even though the ones they have are relatively young. Where are the new Auto Carriers going to be used?

Second, they are looking at buying 100 single level cars per year from 2016-2022 and 100 bi-level cars per year from 2018-2022 with the older 247 Superliner I's retiring starting in 2018'ish. Does this mean that we won't see a significant increase in LD routes out west until 2021 or thereabouts?

Third, there is a lot of emphasis on State efforts in CA, NC and WA if memory serves. Will State efforts impact on LD routes elsewhere in the short to medium term?

Fourth, there is very little talk about higher speeds outside of a mention that they are going to try to eliminate bottlenecks on the Acela route. Has there been any more movement regarding using Positive Train Control to allow for higher speeds on routes outside of the Wolverine, Hiawatha and the Cascades? It seems like the EB, SSL and CZ have several long straightaways that could shorten the overall trip time by a significant amount.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/803/90/ATK-12-040%20Amtrak%20Issues%20Updated%20Fleet%20Strategy%20Plan%20%2804-30-12%29.pdf

 

[Trogdor]

Gotta ask this question since it's been bugging me for a long time. You use the acronym PPR, but I don't think I've ever seen it defined anywhere. Best I can come up with is either "Per Passenger Revenue" or something along those lines. I know that's what it is essentially referring to, but what's the real meaning?

 

[Anderson]

Gotta ask this question since it's been bugging me for a long time. You use the acronym PPR, but I don't think I've ever seen it defined anywhere. Best I can come up with is either "Per Passenger Revenue" or something along those lines. I know that's what it is essentially referring to, but what's the real meaning?

I use Per Passenger Revenue as a yardstick of what fares are looking like on a given route. It is a kludge, something I'll admit, but it is the best thing that I have for determining how much fares are moving. I don't generally have access to any sort of information on seat mile revenue figures (let alone those altered for load factors) and I don't think the information needed to synthesize a ballpark figure is available, either.

It has weaknesses insofar as it doesn't do a good job of adapting for a shift in ridership patterns (though Amtrak will usually mention those in passing and/or we'll get observational evidence to suggest it) or alterations to a route (though we can usually notice those pretty clearly, and I'd also note that there haven't been any massive changes in routes since the Sunset East went down in '05), but it has its uses, at least as a way of being able to tell how well Amtrak is able to raise fares.

Also, I don't try and calculate the figure for revenue including OBS. This wouldn't be too much of an issue for the LD trains, but for a lot of the corridor operations there are two problems: First, I can't separate the additional revenue from OBS from state subsidy revenue. Second, with a number of the "smaller" routes, I'd really want an additional significant figure to work with. Rounding to the nearest $100,000 isn't a big deal for an LD train or for a major corridor operation such as the Surfliners. For any route with under about $10-20 million, though, the accuracy is a little looser than I'd really want to try and use because of how limited OBS revenue tends to be in the picture. By subtracting out ticket revenue from total revenue, OBS revenue from the Acela comes to $10.2m YTD, 2.56% of overall revenue (or about $3.95/passenger). OBS revenue from the NE Regionals comes to $12.9m, 3.12% of overall revenue (or about $2.15/passenger). Not that this isn't significant, but breaking that out of $10 million with nothing beyond the hundred thousands place is going to be highly inaccurate.

Hope that helps.

Ziv: I don't have solid answers to your questions. In particular, though, I can say that any massive car purchases would need either a lot more breathing room in the budget or a dedicated grant that couldn't be taken away to ensure that the project wouldn't collapse. For reference, 700 single-level cars would cost somewhere in the rough ballpark of $1.75 billion, and 500 bilevels would cost another $2 billion.

As to other high-speed projects, I beleive that the Wolverine and Lincoln Service trains are set to get sped up. Ditto with the impending Quad Cities-Chicago run, and Amtrak FEC service would likely benefit from the FEC's upgrades for their own service.. I can't speak to anything else within Amtrak's current system that is actually large-scale, however.

Finally, as to state service impacting LD service, it depends on what you mean. If an LD train shares tracks with an upgraded regional corridor, then as long as the equipment and schedulign permit, both benefit from the upgrades. For example, the Lincoln Service tracks are being upgraded to run trains at 110 MPH. Superliners can use the tracks, but they can only get to 100 MPH at the present. As to ridership, improved corridor services will likely bring noticeable added through traffic via what is known as a "network effect" (i.e. If a train runs from Chicago to Davenport, there are folks who will travel from New York to Davenport who would have previously flown, adding those riders to both the CHI-Davenport train and to the train they take to get to Chicago).

 

[cirdan]

Second, they are looking at buying 100 single level cars per year from 2016-2022 and 100 bi-level cars per year from 2018-2022 with the older 247 Superliner I's retiring starting in 2018'ish. Does this mean that we won't see a significant increase in LD routes out west until 2021 or thereabouts?

I don't want to sound morbid but my interpretation is that it's rather unlikely that we'll see any increase in LD service out west within that sort of time frame. On the contrary, we can consider it a success if present service levels can be maintained over the next ten years or so. What will happen beyond that is still in the stars as it depends on how political support will evolve and also such factors as fuel prices.

 

[Anderson]

Second, they are looking at buying 100 single level cars per year from 2016-2022 and 100 bi-level cars per year from 2018-2022 with the older 247 Superliner I's retiring starting in 2018'ish. Does this mean that we won't see a significant increase in LD routes out west until 2021 or thereabouts?

I don't want to sound morbid but my interpretation is that it's rather unlikely that we'll see any increase in LD service out west within that sort of time frame. On the contrary, we can consider it a success if present service levels can be maintained over the next ten years or so. What will happen beyond that is still in the stars as it depends on how political support will evolve and also such factors as fuel prices.

I don't see an increase in LD service out west happening absent either a massive surge in demand and a major jump in CR figures on some routes or a substantial amount of state funding on the other. Even then, the most likely addition (IMHO) would be a Denver Zephyr running as an extension of one of the Iowa trains should something like that pan out.

 

[Ryan]

First, they are looking to purchase another 80 Auto carriers even though the ones they have are relatively young. Where are the new Auto Carriers going to be used?

If you look at attachment 2, (page 57) you can see that the purchase of auto carriers isn't scheduled until 2025, at which time they will replace the carriers in use today.

 

[dlagrua]

If in fact the Amtrak operating deficit ends up to be only $140-$220 million in terms of a $16 trillion Federal deficit that is nothing. The subsidy to keep the service running compared to the whole of federal spending is miniscule but I still envison Amtrak being targeted for possible cuts or even privatization in the next four years. Why? Both parties will continue to prefer to subsidize big oil, the corn industry, energy, the financial institutions, select corporatists and their criminal friends on Wall Street. The industries and the financial institutions are the money supply for campaign funding. Amtrak serves the public interest. Big difference.

Getting back to the subject; if the long distance trains run at the highest losses the only solution that I see is lengthening the sold out trains. During peak months the LSL, A/T, CZ, EB, and even the CDL sell out. Business is being turned away. Additional sleepers and coaches added during peak periods would help Amtrak increase revenue but the current equipment shortage hinders any effort to book more passengers. When Viewliner II's start being put into service next year the revenue on some LD routes should increase. Maybe this will finally satisfy some in congress that cutting Amtrak is not the solution that they are making it out to be.

 

[Eric S]

If in fact the Amtrak operating deficit ends up to be only $140-$220 million in terms of a $16 trillion Federal deficit that is nothing. The subsidy to keep the service running compared to the whole of federal spending is miniscule but I still envison Amtrak being targeted for possible cuts or even privatization in the next four years. Why? Both parties will continue to prefer to subsidize big oil, the corn industry, energy, the financial institutions, select corporatists and their criminal friends on Wall Street. The industries and the financial institutions are the money supply for campaign funding. Amtrak serves the public interest. Big difference.

Getting back to the subject; if the long distance trains run at the highest losses the only solution that I see is lengthening the sold out trains. During peak months the LSL, A/T, CZ, EB, and even the CDL sell out. Business is being turned away. Additional sleepers and coaches added during peak periods would help Amtrak increase revenue but the current equipment shortage hinders any effort to book more passengers. When Viewliner II's start being put into service next year the revenue on some LD routes should increase. Maybe this will finally satisfy some in congress that cutting Amtrak is not the solution that they are making it out to be.

That's not really a valid comparison. That is Amtrak's annual operating deficit and the total federal debt, not the annual federal deficits, which would be on the order of $1-1.5 trillion or so rather than $16 trillion.

 

[Ryan]

That's a pretty meaningless distinction. $220 million is still only about a tenth of a percent, which is comparatively nothing.

 

[Bob Dylan]

That's a pretty meaningless distinction. $220 million is still only about a tenth of a percent, which is comparatively nothing.

As the late Senator Ev Dirksen liked to say, "A Billion here, a Billion there, pretty soon we're talking about some real Money! Unless we're talking about Money for Illinois,then that's a necessity!" <_< (just keep in mind that more is stolen overseas by the thiefs, er Foriegn Allies we're giving it to than Amtrak has cost us in its 40+ year History!!! :angry2: )

 

[cirdan]

Getting back to the subject; if the long distance trains run at the highest losses the only solution that I see is lengthening the sold out trains. During peak months the LSL, A/T, CZ, EB, and even the CDL sell out. Business is being turned away. Additional sleepers and coaches added during peak periods would help Amtrak increase revenue but the current equipment shortage hinders any effort to book more passengers.

Additional sleepers would cost money and would be idle for the rest of the year, thus creating more deficit rather than solving it.

It might make sense to actually up the fares on peak travel days to minimize the number of passengers that are being turned away for lack of capacity despite being willing to pay the fare, while at the same time maximizing income.

Otherwise Amtrak is just losing a bit on every passenger but trying to make back the losses with the volume.

 

[Ziv]

Thanks for the reply, Anderson, it is frustrating to see how little, comparatively, money it would take for Amtrak to add a few cars to the more popular lines and decrease the operating deficit by a significant amount. Adding a sleeping car to every LD train would cost a pretty penny, but it would reap a good deal more revenue as well. They may have to reduce fares slightly in the off months to keep the trains close to capacity, but I think that increasing the fleet size would be revenue positive. I haven't read the Amtrak Fleet Strategy cover to cover, but it does look like they are planning on growing the Superliner fleet if possible. They talk about retiring 247 Superliners while building 508 over a 5 year period. I wonder where 261 new Superliners would go if they do get built?

I have also always thought that Amtrak would be well served to turn some of their daily LD trains into twice daily trains so that the investment Amtrak has in personnel and stations could see more use. Two Empire Builders departing Chicago and Seattle every day seems like a good place to start, though the California Zephyr would be good as well. Obviously, demand would drive that decision and I just don't see the demand being there at todays prices. But as gasoline prices continue to rise I think LD trains look better and better.

The other pipe dream I have is for an intermediate sleeper class that cost less than a roomette but more than a coach seat. Either slumbercoach type accommodations that allow more passengers per sleeper car, or a lay flat at an angle section of seats on an reno'd Superliner car. Remove 4 seats, install 40 LFAAA seats and charge 25% more for each of them.

Ryan, thanks for the heads up. I figured it might be something like that but I only skimmed the doc. It is too bad there isn't similar demand for auto trains from Chicago to Palm Springs or to Pensacola. It would be cool to have two or three autotrains instead of just the one.

 

[Eric S]

That's a pretty meaningless distinction. $220 million is still only about a tenth of a percent, which is comparatively nothing.

If that's in reference to my earlier comment, I agree completely. I just meant to point out the distinction between annual federal deficits and the accumulated federal debt.

 

[Ziv]

Cirdan, I respect your views, but I agree with dlagrua about lengthening the trains being a way for Amtrak to grow its revenue and reduce its deficits long-term. Amtrak is losing money on LD trains, but their major costs are set. They are paying for the staff and the diesel regardless of how many people are on the train. Add a sleeper car and you add one attendant. Add another car, say a coach car, and you might not even need to add an extra server in the diner car. It is almost all additional revenue. Amtrak is losing money on LD trains because they don't have enough people riding, and part of the reason they don't have enough people riding is that there aren't enough cars. In the slower months they could reduce the cost to travel on a sleeper by a bit more to increase demand and by keeping the amount of people riding up high enough you could still make the additional cars revenue positive. I do like the quote about losing money on LD and trying to make it up by increasing the volume, but I don't think that that truly applies since the majority of the costs are fixed and adding cars allows Amtrak to increase their revenue by a much larger amount than they are increasing their expenses.

But I can't say that you are completely wrong without studying the numbers a lot closer than any of us have the ability to do. I think that there is a way for Amtrak to grow its ridership by adding cars, and eventually, adding additional LD trains on existing routes or adding a train from Seattle or Portland through Denver to Texas or Florida.

I also think Amtrak has to grow or it will eventually get zeroed out of the federal budget, which would be a tragedy.

Getting back to the subject; if the long distance trains run at the highest losses the only solution that I see is lengthening the sold out trains. During peak months the LSL, A/T, CZ, EB, and even the CDL sell out. Business is being turned away. Additional sleepers and coaches added during peak periods would help Amtrak increase revenue but the current equipment shortage hinders any effort to book more passengers.

Additional sleepers would cost money and would be idle for the rest of the year, thus creating more deficit rather than solving it.

It might make sense to actually up the fares on peak travel days to minimize the number of passengers that are being turned away for lack of capacity despite being willing to pay the fare, while at the same time maximizing income.

Otherwise Amtrak is just losing a bit on every passenger but trying to make back the losses with the volume.

 

[alanh]

Although in theory a car shouldn't cost that much per unit, the overhead costs are huge because they can't just order a car "off the rack". They have to be custom built to the US's FRA requirements, and have to be built in the US or Canada. The design and tooling can't be spread over very many cars, increasing the cost significantly.

 

[afigg]

Although in theory a car shouldn't cost that much per unit, the overhead costs are huge because they can't just order a car "off the rack". They have to be custom built to the US's FRA requirements, and have to be built in the US or Canada. The design and tooling can't be spread over very many cars, increasing the cost significantly.

Which is why Amtrak has not been able to place small orders of 20 or 40 units for Superliner replacements. The overall design issue has been addressed by the establishment of the PRIIA act Next Generation specification for bi-level cars. The Superliner replacements will be based on the bi-level specification with the cars configured for the LD types: sleepers, diners, LD coach, lounge cars, etc.

The order for 130 corridor bi-level cars, which I expect will be increased with option orders, provides a large enough order base for a manufacturer to build the tooling and manufacturing capability for bi-level cars. If the winner of that contract does a good job, they will likely be favored to win follow-on orders for Superliner replacements. However, if Amtrak places an order for 250 to 300 Superliner I replacements, that is a large enough order to cover the start-up and tooling costs.

The cars can't be built in Canada, BTW. Buy American means they have to be built in the US.

 

[Anderson]

On the question of car use, the operative question is "how long are they sitting idle for?" If a car is only idle for a few weeks in September and February, that isn't the end of the world...you use that to carry out maintenance that can be moved around on the schedule and so forth. Moreover, that amount of "down time" isn't the end of the world and ought to be factored into things anyway.

On the other hand, if you're looking at cars that are idle 2/3 of the time (say, only used in peak seasons), that's another thing entirely...though if you have a steady growth pattern, having a couple of cars gathering dust for a little while so as to consolidate an order isn't going to be the end of the world, either.

As to the "buy American" constraints, I think there's probably some wiggle room on what counts as being "American enough" as far as components and the like.

With Amtrak needing to grow or risk getting its funding cut, I sort of agree...though in general, I think the answer there lies in bulking up enough regional corridors to protect the capital side of things, and using that to grow the LD network. The big things that Amtrak needs to get working on with various states, IMHO, are:

1) Growing the Midwest corridor network (based in Chicago; key here, IMHO, is going to be adding secondary hubs in places like STL or, if [i can always wish] the border silliness gets sorted out, Detroit [failing that, Cleveland works as well]);

2) An Atlanta hub of short corridors (I know the issues there, but it's something that should be actively pursued, if only as an extension of [hopefully] growing operations centered in NC); and

3) Corridor operations in Colorado along the Front Range.

With 1 and 3, there's existing political support. 2 can potentially be pursued indirectly if the FEC's projects go well and things in NC go well, I think it could be pushed indirectly (i.e. NC working to establish a train from Charlotte to Atlanta to serve Charlotte, and/or connections from JAX-SAV getting Florida support because the state would be paying and it would have potential for follow-through ridership on FEC services_.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

On the question of car use, the operative question is "how long are they sitting idle for?" If a car is only idle for a few weeks in September and February, that isn't the end of the world...you use that to carry out maintenance that can be moved around on the schedule and so forth. Moreover, that amount of "down time" isn't the end of the world and ought to be factored into things anyway.

On the other hand, if you're looking at cars that are idle 2/3 of the time (say, only used in peak seasons), that's another thing entirely...though if you have a steady growth pattern, having a couple of cars gathering dust for a little while so as to consolidate an order isn't going to be the end of the world, either.

As to the "buy American" constraints, I think there's probably some wiggle room on what counts as being "American enough" as far as components and the like.

With Amtrak needing to grow or risk getting its funding cut, I sort of agree...though in general, I think the answer there lies in bulking up enough regional corridors to protect the capital side of things, and using that to grow the LD network. The big things that Amtrak needs to get working on with various states, IMHO, are:

1) Growing the Midwest corridor network (based in Chicago; key here, IMHO, is going to be adding secondary hubs in places like STL or, if [i can always wish] the border silliness gets sorted out, Detroit [failing that, Cleveland works as well]);

2) An Atlanta hub of short corridors (I know the issues there, but it's something that should be actively pursued, if only as an extension of [hopefully] growing operations centered in NC); and

3) Corridor operations in Colorado along the Front Range.

With 1 and 3, there's existing political support. 2 can potentially be pursued indirectly if the FEC's projects go well and things in NC go well, I think it could be pushed indirectly (i.e. NC working to establish a train from Charlotte to Atlanta to serve Charlotte, and/or connections from JAX-SAV getting Florida support because the state would be paying and it would have potential for follow-through ridership on FEC services_.

Anderson, I think you are spot-on that secondary hubs are going to become pretty important, and should be a priority. A great addition to the STL network would be either the "River Cities" or the "National Limited" although I would prefer to have both!

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

On the question of car use, the operative question is "how long are they sitting idle for?" If a car is only idle for a few weeks in September and February, that isn't the end of the world...you use that to carry out maintenance that can be moved around on the schedule and so forth. Moreover, that amount of "down time" isn't the end of the world and ought to be factored into things anyway.

On the other hand, if you're looking at cars that are idle 2/3 of the time (say, only used in peak seasons), that's another thing entirely...though if you have a steady growth pattern, having a couple of cars gathering dust for a little while so as to consolidate an order isn't going to be the end of the world, either.

As to the "buy American" constraints, I think there's probably some wiggle room on what counts as being "American enough" as far as components and the like.

With Amtrak needing to grow or risk getting its funding cut, I sort of agree...though in general, I think the answer there lies in bulking up enough regional corridors to protect the capital side of things, and using that to grow the LD network. The big things that Amtrak needs to get working on with various states, IMHO, are:

1) Growing the Midwest corridor network (based in Chicago; key here, IMHO, is going to be adding secondary hubs in places like STL or, if [i can always wish] the border silliness gets sorted out, Detroit [failing that, Cleveland works as well]);

2) An Atlanta hub of short corridors (I know the issues there, but it's something that should be actively pursued, if only as an extension of [hopefully] growing operations centered in NC); and

3) Corridor operations in Colorado along the Front Range.

With 1 and 3, there's existing political support. 2 can potentially be pursued indirectly if the FEC's projects go well and things in NC go well, I think it could be pushed indirectly (i.e. NC working to establish a train from Charlotte to Atlanta to serve Charlotte, and/or connections from JAX-SAV getting Florida support because the state would be paying and it would have potential for follow-through ridership on FEC services_.

1. A hub in CIN could work with trains to DET, CLE/BUF, and CHI. Then add CHI-CLE and that would be great.

2. The Southeast definatey does not have enough trains. I think a ATL-NOL, ATL-CLT, ATL-JAX, ATL-SAV, ATL-Nashville, and ATL-CIN network would do quite well. The Nashville train could possibly run straight to STL. A CHI-MIA connecter would finish the system very well. Of course all this needs tons of funding and state support which GA apparently isn't giving. NS and CSX also want funds for upgrades.

3. Really need one to connect the CZ, SWC, and SL. EB will be hard to connect, though. Inconvinience is big when travelling north-south.

 

[Rob_C]

Why are the Superliner I's being replaced already? Being ~ 30 years old, seems like they should have another 20-30 years allowing for real increases in capacity of the fleet in the next few years. The original Hi-Level's served in many cases for ~ 50 years, with some recently in service > 10 years ago, and a few still in service. The Hi-Levels are hard to find parts for, which is understandable, but the Superliner's don't seem to have this problem with refurbishments happening every 20 years or so. Or is the "secret plan" to say they are replacing the I's and when the III's come online they'll just refurbish the I's and add to the capacity? What's the deal?

Rob

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Why are the Superliner I's being replaced already? Being ~ 30 years old, seems like they should have another 20-30 years allowing for real increases in capacity of the fleet in the next few years. The original Hi-Level's served in many cases for ~ 50 years, with some recently in service > 10 years ago, and a few still in service. The Hi-Levels are hard to find parts for, which is understandable, but the Superliner's don't seem to have this problem with refurbishments happening every 20 years or so. Or is the "secret plan" to say they are replacing the I's and when the III's come online they'll just refurbish the I's and add to the capacity? What's the deal?

Rob

The IIIs are still far from coming. Just because they predict they will come soon disen't mean they will.

 

[Anderson]

Why are the Superliner I's being replaced already? Being ~ 30 years old, seems like they should have another 20-30 years allowing for real increases in capacity of the fleet in the next few years. The original Hi-Level's served in many cases for ~ 50 years, with some recently in service > 10 years ago, and a few still in service. The Hi-Levels are hard to find parts for, which is understandable, but the Superliner's don't seem to have this problem with refurbishments happening every 20 years or so. Or is the "secret plan" to say they are replacing the I's and when the III's come online they'll just refurbish the I's and add to the capacity? What's the deal?

Rob

If you look at the replacement dates, the Is will be hitting 40 years old at the time of replacement. That tends to be when things more or less start breaking down and the problems start adding up. Even with maintenance, reliability becomes a problem; 50 years is, as a rule, pushing it (though British Rail and its successors have gone past this limit with some of the Mark I cars, in general there was a push to replace those still in use during the late 90s and early 2000s). Reliability starts getting spotty and upkeep can get to be uneconomical. Also note that Amtrak plans to keep at least some Is in service for a little while thereafter as backups/spares.

I don't see it so much as a "secret plan", but I think Amtrak hopes to get at least some seasonal capacity (and/or extra year-round capacity) out of the replacement cars. Of course, assuming that Amtrak manages substantially better than a 1:1 replacement ratio, they may run into an "embarrassment of riches" if they keep too many cars around: A rapid, massive surge in the available fleet could concievably far outstrip demand for a time. Naturally, there might be some "released demand" from a dip in fares and a lack of sold-out trains, but I'm not sure that you could (for example) fill a 15-car CONO on a regular basis. Some of this might be helped by second sections and/or "rotated schedule" trains (if Amtrak can get the slots for them), but an overnight "hard spike" in capacity might, in the short term, be unfillable. Likewise, if the dip in fares to fill that space is too much, it is possible that the new cars might not cover their net cost (or indeed, even come close to it). This could, in turn, lead to a very unpleasant situation where Amtrak is having to explain a major surge in subsidy needs in the short run while demand has time to "catch up" with supply.

 

[cirdan]

If you look at the replacement dates, the Is will be hitting 40 years old at the time of replacement. That tends to be when things more or less start breaking down and the problems start adding up. Even with maintenance, reliability becomes a problem; 50 years is, as a rule, pushing it (though British Rail and its successors have gone past this limit with some of the Mark I cars, in general there was a push to replace those still in use during the late 90s and early 2000s). Reliability starts getting spotty and upkeep can get to be uneconomical. Also note that Amtrak plans to keep at least some Is in service for a little while thereafter as backups/spares.

Also remember that BR's Mk1 s (in common with most predecessor types) were built as a solid frame with body panels bolted or riveted on. If properly looked after, that type of design can last for a very long time. If a particular panel starts to rust or gets a dent in a minor accident, you just undo the rivets and replace it by a new piece of sheet metal. The engineering skills required for that are fairly basic. The frames underneath were fairly massive and indestructable. Seeing the outer shell was maintained in good shpe there was little water ingress so not much of a rust problem internally. Of course there were fatigue issues at the joints but these too could be addresses by replacing individual parts. As recently as the 1990s there were proposals to rebuild the Mk1s with more modern bodies but retaining the old frames. Ultimately the Mk1s were withdrawn not because they were expired mechanically but because they no longer met current safety requirements.

More modern coaches are monocoque, that means there is no longer a massive load-bearing frame, but that the outer skin actually bears much of the load (think of a can of coke, the mechanical strength is in the skin). Much more use is made of welding and less riveting and bolting.This means that when fatigue sets in there is not much you can do short of rebuilding the entire structure. Modern coaches thus require much less heavy maintenance in the first 30 years or so, but when they do require heavy intervantion, all those savings hit back with vengeance and new builds are often the cheaper way.

 

[Ziv]

As late as the 90's there were still rail cars in Britain that had individual doors for each compartment. There were compartments with 3 seats facing 3, with a door to the hall/aisle on one side and a door that opened onto the platform on the other. It was very cool and of course at the time I took it for granted and didn't take a picture. But I have to imagine that those cars were at least 50 years old in the mid-90's. If I had to guess, I would imagine that they were built immediately after the war, or just before it, possibly. Good condition, very tall comfortable seats. Probably an old first class coach.