Auto Train Cuts

[Anderson]

Will the cost of upgrading the cars and providing the higher end service generate enough additional revenue to make the whole effort worthwhile? Doubtful.

It depends on what market(s) you might be targeting and how much of an overhaul you're planning. If you overhaul one sleeper on a train into larger (but more expensive) rooms with booking restrictions, you can make a model work...and that model could probably fly on the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder, where you get lots of Asian tourists. On the Auto Train, I'm not sure; ditto the Silvers. The issue there is capacity, yes, but not necessarily super-high-end capacity.

 

[Bus Nut]

Hate to say it, but given the passenger load and financial performance, sounds like there's even more cost cutting they could squeeze out of the route.

I've said this several times on here, but nearly every single European night train I've come across is pretty spartan...you get a box breakfast with a room or couchette, (slightly nicer in a first-class room), and that's it. There's a bistro car, but you pay for your meal. Most people eat beforehand or bring a picnic on board (alcohol allowed in coach as well).

European rail services aren't required to do this Kabuki dance (actually, it's probably more like Noh in terms of being esoteric to the casual observer, but political wonks call it kabuki, so kabuki) of running a public transportation service at a profit. Airports and roads depend on taxes but railroads are expected to pay taxes, as if the one is a maker and the other is a taker--but they all provide economic-social-physical connections. European countries make hard-nosed calculations about what routes to subsidize with air and which to subsidize with rail. The US treats each mode like the other doesn't exist.

European governments want to subsidize medium-length journeys on rail, and corridor travel. But the NPRC has to run a network across vast, sparsely populated areas on privately-owned trackage and food service on a multi-day journey like that is a serious expense. Add to that the weird political dance and Amtrak does these weird gyrations including diner in first class tickets and then crediting the meals back to the F&B revenue line to please their fickle political masters and keep the whole threadbare system together.

Yeah, you're right, European travelers don't really give a polished farthing about food service on their trains but their politicians aren't demagoguing about cutting F&B jobs or insisting on "only the most horrible food" for our rail customers. Even the cafe food on European trains is worlds better than anything I've had on Amtrak with the exception of some of the fresh cuts packs (before they run out, which they always do). Even Cascades, sorry PNW.

 

[Bus Nut]

Boils down to how much of the dining car's expense you throw onto the sleepers and is somewhat route dependent. Part of the problem is that we don't know how much gets transferred from the sleeper account to the F&B account which would allow for a fairly simple look at it. On a per car basis, coach has higher revenue on most Eastern LDTs thanks to high turnover while the vast expanses of nothing combine with more seating on the Western LDTS to reduce turnover and revenue so that sleepers appear to be higher.

You're almost on something here - Western trains have missed opportunities with corridor services especially on the ends. If there are multiple daily departures you get these virtuous "induced demand" effects (induced demand is a terrible term but you hear it a lot so it'll do for now) that increase ridership on all trips. The reasons are obvious, if you have to go to Kalamazoo and back the one a day departures might not work for you in both directions but if you have multiple options it's more likely that one will work for you, so you go Amtrak instead of rent-a-car.

The performance improvement reports did talk about changes to timing to pick up more medium-range travelers in the more densely populated areas. But there also have to be state partnerships to add additional trains. Chicago to Minneapolis. Eastern Wash to Western Wash? Coast Daylight? Texas service corridors.

The Eastern trains have a lot of city pairs where there are multiple daily options.

Although the vast wilderness doesn't help, exactly.

 

[Bus Nut]

If the A-T continues to operate at capacity, even with reduced amenities, then it's not a question of getting more passengers. And we know the consist size is fixed. My question is, why doesn't Amtrak offer a premium Pullman type service with existing, but upgraded, SL equipment for a significantly higher price. The questions isn't how do we get more passengers (especially if a second section is impractical), but rather how do we get more revenue per passenger. Even the airlines, who seem to enjoy cramming as many bodies into the plane as possible, still offer first class seating because they know they can get top dollar. Maybe it's not possible with a government based operation with rigid work rules?

Well, I respectfully disagree.

Operating at capacity: hopefully, yes. But the full impact of the changes won't be felt until we're 12 months in. So it's too early to tell (unless you're Amtrak and sweating over early sales right now ... but they're not telling us what they're thinking except for cryptic notes in monthly reports).

More passengers: secular passenger growth may have leveled off. Or not. But it's clearly not exploding at the moment. Maybe if the economy picks up steam and wages go up pushing travel demand? Who knows, right? But we're not experiencing the insane YOY growth we've seen in the past in most of the system right now.

Consist size: see neroden's comments on this

Pullman service: well, Iowa Pacific is doing just this for a small consideration to Amtrak on the CONO and while none of us know their internals if this was the win you imagine they'd be expanding a lot faster and with competition. Which is not happening.

First class on airlines: not necessarily a money maker on domestic travel. It's a complicated issue made more complicated by arcane airline loyalty programs and the desire to fill seats at the last minute. Airlines struggle with first/business/coach on small planes and shorter runs. This is also a place where economics of planes and trains diverge. Trains can add capacity more easily than planes, and can still make money with empty seats and they turn seats which means they can sell the same seat multiple times.

Rigid work rules: most of the constraints on Auto Train, which you would know if you read the PIP, have to do with all things rolling stock and not with staff. Kinda insulting to the AT staff who are often considered some of the best customer-facing staff in the system.

More revenue per passenger: again if you read the PIP and were following events over last two years you would know that Amtrak implemented a premium upcharge to get your car offloaded in the first batch, which is a thinking-out-of-the-box premium service that people are very evidently willing to pay for. They're also upcharging for pillows. And charging for the a-a-a-a-a alcohol.

None of this had to do with workrules or copying the airlines' wonderful example of losing money despite 20B USD infusion from Congress (where's Amtrak's $20B?), oh I'm sorry that was #sarcasm. It's about stepping to the side and rethinking the revenue model and, well, questioning assumptions.

Now Amtrak Joe may be totally wrong about what customers want and went too far in terms of degrading the food. If so they will have to scramble and regroup. We'll see.

 

[jis]

Will the cost of upgrading the cars and providing the higher end service generate enough additional revenue to make the whole effort worthwhile? Doubtful.

It depends on what market(s) you might be targeting and how much of an overhaul you're planning. If you overhaul one sleeper on a train into larger (but more expensive) rooms with booking restrictions, you can make a model work...and that model could probably fly on the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder, where you get lots of Asian tourists. On the Auto Train, I'm not sure; ditto the Silvers. The issue there is capacity, yes, but not necessarily super-high-end capacity.

One factor that works against such fracturing of car inventory into multiple types is that at the time of need it becomes harder to redeploy cars, and also each subfleet now needs its own set of contingency, which becomes quite expensive for many small subfleets. So it is necessary that such service makes money year in and year out to make it worthwhile. Even without different fare classes Amtrak had a highly fractured car inventory in the Amfleet Is as originally acquired, It took them years to boil it down to four types of cars making them more flexibly allocatable for service. Making 4 different types of Sleeping Cars in an already miniscule fleet is not necessarily the best way to go. OTOH, if you had a vast fleet of several hundred cars, creating a small subfleet of special cars is much easier to handle.

 

[rrdude]

Will the cost of upgrading the cars and providing the higher end service generate enough additional revenue to make the whole effort worthwhile? Doubtful.

No, but I bet (This is starting to feel like Don Quixote, tilting at the Windmill) if Microsoft, or Apple, or IBM, or Disney, or Budweiser or Coors, yada, yada, yada, were to foot the bill, they'd do a nice job, AND get some great PR.........

 

[Mark Matarella]

For those who think it would not be possible to run two Auto Trains in a day I point out that in my Auto Train Corporation brochure from the old days there was a third train that ran northbound one day, southbound the next. At least it is said it was available in this brochure. It departed at 8:00 pm with a arrival or 11:30 am. While I don't recall (I was a teen then) personal knowledge that they did indeed run this I do recall the stations at the time. The location was the same and the infrastructure for the public at least was a fraction of what exists now. The brochure mentions that this train plus a schedule change for the regular trains went into effect on December 1st, 1973

So however unlikely it might be it seems like there could be a second run if they REALLY wanted to.

 

[user 1215]

If the A-T continues to operate at capacity, even with reduced amenities, then it's not a question of getting more passengers. And we know the consist size is fixed. My question is, why doesn't Amtrak offer a premium Pullman type service with existing, but upgraded, SL equipment for a significantly higher price. The questions isn't how do we get more passengers (especially if a second section is impractical), but rather how do we get more revenue per passenger. Even the airlines, who seem to enjoy cramming as many bodies into the plane as possible, still offer first class seating because they know they can get top dollar. Maybe it's not possible with a government based operation with rigid work rules?

Why do folks keep saying there is a capaicity issue? Maybe it's true. But the next 30 days show availability for COACH and one train completely sold out of sleepers. Looks like they need to put another sleeper back on. And another diner.

Will the cost of upgrading the cars and providing the higher end service generate enough additional revenue to make the whole effort worthwhile? Doubtful.

No, but I bet (This is starting to feel like Don Quixote, tilting at the Windmill) if Microsoft, or Apple, or IBM, or Disney, or Budweiser or Coors, yada, yada, yada, were to foot the bill, they'd do a nice job, AND get some great PR.........

If Microsoft, or Apple, or IBM, or Disney, or Budweiser, or Coors were to fit the bill, you would bet that they would probably double the cost of the fares, but people would ride precisely because it isn't Amtrak.

 

[neroden]

One factor that works against such fracturing of car inventory into multiple types is that at the time of need it becomes harder to redeploy cars, and also each subfleet now needs its own set of contingency, which becomes quite expensive for many small subfleets. So it is necessary that such service makes money year in and year out to make it worthwhile. Even without different fare classes Amtrak had a highly fractured car inventory in the Amfleet Is as originally acquired, It took them years to boil it down to four types of cars making them more flexibly allocatable for service.

I'd be interested to read more about this. The Amfleet Is are all very similar and the variations appear minor...
The Heritage cars were a *ridiculously* fractured inventory, of course.

Making 4 different types of Sleeping Cars in an already miniscule fleet is not necessarily the best way to go. OTOH, if you had a vast fleet of several hundred cars, creating a small subfleet of special cars is much easier to handle.

Much better to have a large fleet of identical Viewliner sleepers, IMHO.
I think a second Auto Train operating at the 8 PM - 11:30 AM schedule would probably be a big hit. Given that the first one is generating nearly enough to cover its overhead (!!!), a second one would probably do well at leveraging fixed costs. But.... where's the equipment? I don't think there are even enough autoracks, let alone enough Superliners or locomotives.

 

[FormerOBS]

Mark ---

When you reference the third Auto Train in days gone by, are you talking about the short-lived Louisville service, which was one of the factors that helped to drive the original Auto Train Corporation into bankruptcy? I have never discussed this service with anyone who actually worked for the A-T Corporation at that time, so I don't know how they managed to accommodate all that equipment at the same time. I'm just glad I never had to deal with it.

Neroden ---

One important thing to remember: the second Auto Train might be a big hit with passengers, but it definitely won't be a big hit with CSX. So Mark's comment "if they REALLY wanted to" is better applied to CSX than to Amtrak.

Them's the facts, guys.

Tom

 

[Mark Matarella]

No, the third train is listed as a second train on the Lorton - Sanford route. Alternate days North and South, and only in the winter and summer. Of course just because it's in the flyer doesn't mean it happened, or lasted long. Shall I scan the brochure and post a link? It predates Amtrak running it, so not sure if appropriate or if there is interest.

FYI, the one way fare then was $198 for one vehicle AND included two passengers. Additional occupants up to the car's rating $25 each. A compartment started at $45

 

[jis]

To start a second Autotrain, figure on getting two more consists, that is about 30 or so Superliners and 50 or so additional auto racks as a starter + some six or so locomotives. The figure out the logistics of handling two trains simultaneously at each end for at least a few hours worth of overlap time each day. The startup costs are not going to be cheap and will be pretty hard to recover in the short term.

I suppose you could start small by cutting all those numbers by a third, but then it will be that much less revenue to play with to recover the startup cost too.

 

[Mark Matarella]

I figure a couple links won't do any harm. Doesn't take up file space here. If you'd like to see a brochure for the 'auto-train' corporation version from late 1972 see these jpgs. Front and back images.

http://www.matarella.com/mark/auto-train1.jpg

http://www.matarella.com/mark/auto-train2.jpg

 

[Ryan]

Thanks, those are great.

This seemed relevant:

 

[chakk]

I think this is a bad idea; it's these little extras that people remember. I work as an insurance adjuster, and I see some body shops giving customers "freebies" like cookies and gift bags at the end of their repairs; it's this kind of unexpected, "chotchke" (sp?) stuff that leaves a lasting impression in people's mind, along with of course friendly

Close. The correct spelling is tchotchke

 

[neroden]

To start a second Autotrain, figure on getting two more consists, that is about 30 or so Superliners and 50 or so additional auto racks as a starter + some six or so locomotives.

So, at $2.7 million per bilevel, that's $81 million in coaches. At $7 million per locomotive, that's $42 million in locomotives. I can't find any estimate for the cost of autoracks, but the lowest estimate I've seen for the cost of a freight car is $30K, so that's another $1.5 million (this is probably a lowball, it could be twice that). So call it $125 million in startup costs.

The figure out the logistics of handling two trains simultaneously at each end for at least a few hours worth of overlap time each day.

Eh, it wouldn't be a serious problem if you timed it right. Three trains would be impossible, of course.

The startup costs are not going to be cheap and will be pretty hard to recover in the short term.

Yeah, you can say that again. Ignoring overhead, the Auto Train is realizing about $35 million in profits per year. We might expect the second train to do somewhat worse, but optimistically suppose it's the same amount. (After all, station costs are "direct costs" for the Auto Train, but they'd be split over two trains now, so that would help the second train.) Suppose Amtrak got a 10-year loan for the startup costs, with 4% interest (I'm being optimistic here); this would use up more than half the profits for the first 10 years. With 8% interest rates, it wouldn't pencil out.

And of course, due to the idiotic overhead allocation rules, it wouldn't *look* like it was profitable even at the 4% rate. :sigh:

However, one thing about doing this: it seems that most of the cost would be in Superliners and locomotives. Should the service perform poorly, these can be moved to other trains.

 

[FormerOBS]

Mark ---

Maybe you're right about the second train. I dunno. It was over 40 years ago --- over 14 years before I started working on Amtrak's version of the A-T. I wonder how long that service lasted, and I wonder what happened when one or both --- or all three! --- consists ran off schedule due to traffic, weather, grade crossing "incidents", etc. I'd also be curious how many passengers and autos were processed in one day back in 1973, with station facilities that were much smaller than today's Amtrak stations. It sounds like a living nightmare.

Nowadays the train is handling something on the order of 600 passengers and 300 vehicles each way. That means each A-T terminal can handle something like 1200 passengers and 600 vehicles per day. I guess I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if the A-T Corporation exceeded that, even with two trains.

Tom

 

[jis]

From what I have read, apparently the Louisville Auto Train ran tacked onto the Floridian for a period of time too. Is this accurate or am I remembering wrong?

The current Auto Train occupies each terminal from 9:30am to 4pm, if on schedule. So things must be scheduled so that the other train occupies the terminal when the current one is not there, which basically says that the other train has to be effectively a day train, which probably won't work out that well.

The alternative would be to do some significant augmentation of storage tracks at both the terminals and run the second train something like 8pm departure with 1:30pm arrival. Anything like that will require doubling the number of auto loading/unloading tracks, which could be quite a challenge, and is going to be expensive too.

Afterall it will involve at least some period of time when at the same time while one train is being loaded, the other is being unloaded. It typically take 90 mins or more to unload a train, and the departing trains starts loading cars about 3 hours before departure as far as I can tell, though that might vary quite a bit. I am sure Tom can give more precise info on that.

 

[FormerOBS]

OK. I finally managed to reach somebody who worked for the Auto Train Corp. back in 1973. Just got off the phone with him. Back then all the passenger cars were single level. Nowadays we call them Heritage cars, although that term hadn't been invented at the time. Climate control was through steam heat, which was provided by a special auxiliary car with a steam generator. That steam source provided steam heat for the entire train. The train got so long that the steam got cold by the time it reached the other end of the train. As a result, they had to break the train and run it in two sections. One section left at the usual time, 4:00 P.M.; the second section followed 3-1/.2 hours later. The amount of available equipment dictated that this could not be done every day, so it was scheduled to be done on the days of heaviest demand. I suspect the most important consideration may have been the number of available locomotives and steam generator cars. My friend said he does not remember specific numbers, but he doubts that the Auto Train was serving as many as 600 passengers per day, even with the extra train. This is because each modern Amtrak Superliner has a much greater capacity than the old single level cars. For example, one 10-6 Heritage sleeper had 22 berths, one of which was often required for that car's attendant. In contrast, one standard Superliner sleeper has 42 berths for passengers, plus one for the SCA on the current Amtrak Auto Train.

Tom

 

[FormerOBS]

jis:

You're pretty much right. I don't know how the Louisville train --- which did, indeed, run as part of the Floridian --- fit into the Sanford operation because I wasn't there at the time. In order to run additional service, the terminals would need to be expanded, and there just isn't any space to do that, as I explained on this thread Feb. 9, 2015 at 10:07 P.M.

Three words stand out in your post: "...if on schedule." As you point out, it would be difficult to manage if on schedule. If one or two trains are late, it would be nearly impossible to get back on schedule. Until it does get back on schedule, logistics would be a nightmare.

Tom

 

[Bob Dylan]

Interesting discussion but in reality we know this proposal is DOA for all the usual reasons!

IF Amtrak is ever able to increase LD service the first step is to make all of the LD Trains Daily! The Cardinal, (but run from WAS-STL sort of a National Ltd. II) and a Daily Texas Eagle from CHI- LAX with a stub train between SAS and NOL.

Then bring back the Broadway Limited from NYP- CHI! This should be a real hit, never should have been cut!

Other long proposed improvements to the LD network that should be implemented as equipment becomes available include a CCC for the PDX Section of the EB, reschedule the Silver Trains so the Star and Meteor run 12 hours apart and being back the Silver Palm to Florida, possible Running it or one of the Silvers down the East Coast to Miami!

Everyone has their favorite LD trains and self interest in " their" train so YMMV!!

 

[Mark Matarella]

OK. I finally managed to reach somebody who worked for the Auto Train Corp. back in 1973. Just got off the phone with him. Back then all the passenger cars were single level.

At some point in time auto-train corporation DID run full domes which were two level coaches as I recall. And according to a online photo index such as this one example photo dated July 1972, they had them by then. http://www.themetrains.com/images/auto/jackowski/jackowski-auto-train-515-full-dome-coach-dorm-sanford-fl-073072_143_1024x.jpg. I panicked when I read of the employee saying auto-train didn't have them (at least at that point in time) and started to doubt my own memory. Panicked because I've been acquiring auto-train livery locos, full dome passenger cars, and auto carriers in HO scale models for a shelf train that is going to run around my kitchen.

The base of the 'theme train' page with auto-train equip is http://passcarphotos.info/Indices/AT.htm and has lots of photos, a photo index of the rolling stock. I do recall riding it and being in coach in the upper level. I loved it since you could see the train stretching out ahead and behind on the curves. The lounge was also in a upper dome with either a guitar player or keyboardist singing. THOSE were the days!

I can't imagine them doing two trains now with the current set up. As others have pointed out, when one is several hours late things would be unmanageable. I don't know how they dealt with it then.

v/r

Mark

 

[tonys96]

Thanks, those are great.

This seemed relevant:

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 3.30.45 PM.png

And it went bankrupt.

 

[FormerOBS]

You're right, Mark. I misspoke. What I meant to say was that the cars used by the old Auto Train Corp., as well as those used on Amtrak's original version of the train, were not Superliner-style double deckers. They were all designed and operated as versions of Heritage equipment. Passage from car to car was on the same level as you would find on any Heritage car. The domes in each car were accessed from the main (lower) floor. I'm not sure about the origin of the Auto Train Corporation's domes except that they had some full domes from the Santa Fe. Amtrak's early Auto Train had coach domes which came (I think) from the Northern Pacific. The coach lounges were full-length "Great Domes" that had been built for the Empire Builder. Those heavy Great Domes, with their 6-wheel trucks, were among the smoothest-riding cars I ever worked. The full-length dome that Amtrak still uses, is one of the three cars that Amtrak used in this service.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify that.

Tom

 

[jebr]

Thanks, those are great.

This seemed relevant:

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 3.30.45 PM.png

And it went bankrupt.

Considering the federal government stepped in to save passenger rail in general, I don't think that the Auto Train went bankrupt because they allowed pets.