Broadway Limited ---> Three Rivers

[johnny.menhennet]

I was wondering about the reason for the startup of the Three Rivers. The change happened in 1995. On Sept. 9, the last Broadway Limited ran, and on September 10th, the Three Rivers ran. At first, I thought that this was because the route had switched from Fort Wayne up to Nappanee, but after some prodding at timetables.org, I discovered that the Broadway Limited had been rerouted slightly north many years prior. The route stayed the same, the schedule didn't really change, and the equipment would have probably been the same. In addition, the last timetable with the Broadway Limited had no mention of the Three Rivers even though it was only three months ahead. I was wondering what the reason was for justifying a name change to something with less meaning and prestige, and possibly causing passenger confusion. Any answers would be cool.

 

[railbuck]

The route stayed the same, the schedule didn't really change, and the equipment would have probably been the same.

The route was cut back to NYP-PIT (see this timetable). That was the initial reason for the name change.

It was re-extended to CHI about a year later (see this timetable), but without a dining car or sleepers. Since the original PRR Broadway Limited was an all-sleeper train, using the name for a no-sleeper train would have been an insult to its heritage. By the time a sleeper was added to the consist (see this timetable), the name was sufficiently established to remain unchanged.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Thank you railbuck

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

Similarly, the Santa Fe RR did not want the name "Super Chief" used for what is now known as the Southwest Chief. It had some other names as well.

Names like the Broadway Limited, the Super Chief and the 20th Century Limited are not names to mess with it.

They each represented a special all pullman elegance in the preAmtrak days. (though each had coaches at the end.The Super Chief's sleepers ran with El Capitan's coaches).

 

[Donctor]

Amtrak had planned to assign Viewliners to the Broadway. They, of course, didn't have the opportunity to do so. When the Three Rivers became an overnight run, those sleepers had been assigned to 448/449 and 89/90, thus the 4 Heritage cars.

 

[Acela150]

Names like the Broadway Limited, the Super Chief and the 20th Century Limited are not names to mess with it.

This I can agree with. If they were to bring back any of the routings. Choose a different name. While I was a fan of the Broadway Limited. It's a classic name.

 

[BOS-T-Time]

Hello,

With the last timetable shown did both the Pennsylvanian and the Three Rivers continue on to Chicago? Sometimes the Amtrak timetables throw me for a loop when attempting to read them.

 

[NE933]

My feeling is that Amtrak can and should, once enough Viewliner II Diners and Sleepers are delivered, restore the Broadway Limited from the present, silly, Pennsylvanian thingy, into a train that once again goes to Chicago. Given the Cardinal's everpresent problems with freight interference and roulette wheel dispatching, and the Lake Shore's outstripped capacity, there needs a second NY - Chicago route with full overnight accommodations. I'm assuming there is a demand for this on the grounds of Amtrak's planning to re-do the convoluted arrangement of the mid-90's, to switch off some cars of the Pennsylvanian and attach to Capitol Limited.

 

[Trogdor]

Hello,

With the last timetable shown did both the Pennsylvanian and the Three Rivers continue on to Chicago? Sometimes the Amtrak timetables throw me for a loop when attempting to read them.

During Amtrak's foray into the freight business, the Pennsylvanian was converted from a NYP-PGH train into a PHL-CHI train (via CLE). It had a couple of different schedules, but never had particularly good scheduled times in Chicago (at some point, the 6 am eastbound departure was converted into a late-night departure).

It was dropped sometime around, IIRC, 2002 or 2003 and cut back to a NYP-PGH train.

Then, when Amtrak exited the mail/freight business and posted the 180-day notice, it was temporarily eliminated, making the Three Rivers the only train along the route (NYP-CHI) until service west of PGH was terminated, at which point it went back to being the Pennsylvanian.

 

[dlagrua]

Since they generate more revenue than coaches I often wonder why Amtrak never pursued running all sleeper trains from the beginning. Right now there is no equipment to do this but IMO they would be better off today if they kept the Pullman heritage going. Coach travel can be economical but uncomfortable for many on long trips.

 

[cirdan]

Southwest Chief is a good name as it does tribute to the Super Chief without actually copying it. People will know what the train is and approximately what route its' taking, but will also know its not actually the Super Chief, which now part of history and which it would be wrong to bring back unless the highest of standards could be applied.

But Three Rivers doesn't link to Broadway Limited. The name sounds a bit superficial and tacky to my ears. I'm sure they could have done better.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Since they generate more revenue than coaches I often wonder why Amtrak never pursued running all sleeper trains from the beginning. Right now there is no equipment to do this but IMO they would be better off today if they kept the Pullman heritage going. Coach travel can be economical but uncomfortable for many on long trips.

Well not quite. When looking at the PIP's, you'll see that the Palmetto, the only real LD day train, has by a good margin the best CR. If an LD coach will carry 60 in a single level and assuming 1.75 occupancy (1/4 single occupancy 3/4 double) gives you maybe 17 in roomettes and then 4 for the bedrooms, plus 2 for the H. That gives like 23-25 per car. Then that means since you're charging the base fare in addition to the sleeper cost, you would need the overall accommodations charge to be about 2.25x the base fare. So it would take even more than that to help further subsidize the diner, which has crew and food costs because of providing the food for free. This may not make a lot of sense, but I'm trying to convey the point that the sleeper fares just based on density must be higher price. The other factor is that coach seat turnover is higher. For example, many more of the sleeper passengers travel from end-to-end than do coach passengers. For example, a coach seat from LAX-EMY is $56 and EMY-SEA is $100. A fare LAX-SEA is $106. So you can get $50 more out of a coach seat if there is more turnover. Because sleeper travelers go longer distances, there is less turnover and therefore opportunities to maximize revenue.

 

[Trogdor]

Since they generate more revenue than coaches I often wonder why Amtrak never pursued running all sleeper trains from the beginning. Right now there is no equipment to do this but IMO they would be better off today if they kept the Pullman heritage going. Coach travel can be economical but uncomfortable for many on long trips.

Well not quite. When looking at the PIP's, you'll see that the Palmetto, the only real LD day train, has by a good margin the best CR. If an LD coach will carry 60 in a single level and assuming 1.75 occupancy (1/4 single occupancy 3/4 double) gives you maybe 17 in roomettes and then 4 for the bedrooms, plus 2 for the H. That gives like 23-25 per car. Then that means since you're charging the base fare in addition to the sleeper cost, you would need the overall accommodations charge to be about 2.25x the base fare. So it would take even more than that to help further subsidize the diner, which has crew and food costs because of providing the food for free. This may not make a lot of sense, but I'm trying to convey the point that the sleeper fares just based on density must be higher price. The other factor is that coach seat turnover is higher. For example, many more of the sleeper passengers travel from end-to-end than do coach passengers. For example, a coach seat from LAX-EMY is $56 and EMY-SEA is $100. A fare LAX-SEA is $106. So you can get $50 more out of a coach seat if there is more turnover. Because sleeper travelers go longer distances, there is less turnover and therefore opportunities to maximize revenue.

Another reason is that the marginal cost of carrying coach passengers is less than the marginal revenue gained from carrying coach passengers, given that the train is already running.

 

[cirdan]

The other factor is that coach seat turnover is higher. For example, many more of the sleeper passengers travel from end-to-end than do coach passengers. For example, a coach seat from LAX-EMY is $56 and EMY-SEA is $100. A fare LAX-SEA is $106. So you can get $50 more out of a coach seat if there is more turnover. Because sleeper travelers go longer distances, there is less turnover and therefore opportunities to maximize revenue.

On the other hand you cannot re-sell every coach seat for every slot along the full length of the trip. Maybe you have close to 100% occupancy as the train leaves LAX but at intermediate stops after that more people may tend to get off than get on. So a coach seat may be empty for some time before somebody else joins the train to occupy it (if at all). End to end passengers thus make it easier to gain high occupancy rates and are thus the more lucrative market. I guess this is why Iowa Pacific is offering only end end fares.

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

 

[jis]

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

If you look at how fares are set up at least on the NEC, clearly a bunch of short distance segments sold on the same seat would earn way more revenue (provided the seat does not go empty for significant distance) than one end to end one. OTOH, there is a significant probability that a short segment seat will not get resold. Balancing all this out is pretty tricky.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The other factor is that coach seat turnover is higher. For example, many more of the sleeper passengers travel from end-to-end than do coach passengers. For example, a coach seat from LAX-EMY is $56 and EMY-SEA is $100. A fare LAX-SEA is $106. So you can get $50 more out of a coach seat if there is more turnover. Because sleeper travelers go longer distances, there is less turnover and therefore opportunities to maximize revenue.

On the other hand you cannot re-sell every coach seat for every slot along the full length of the trip. Maybe you have close to 100% occupancy as the train leaves LAX but at intermediate stops after that more people may tend to get off than get on. So a coach seat may be empty for some time before somebody else joins the train to occupy it (if at all). End to end passengers thus make it easier to gain high occupancy rates and are thus the more lucrative market. I guess this is why Iowa Pacific is offering only end end fares.

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

I really don't think it costs that much to start and stop a train, you probably would have to do that anyway for meets, signals, other operating conditions. Servicing, refueling, crew change, etc., occur only a few times on each trip and would have to be done whether any passengers board and depart. Stops at small towns along the way, which may not have any other form of public transportation, are an additional justification for long distance routes. Coach seats can be sold several times during the course of a long distance run. Running a train with only sleeper cars would be subject to criticism, just look at the Canadian. It's basically a tourist run with few intermediate coach passengers that costs Canadian taxpayers $50 million a year and is now the target for off-season cuts.

 

[Trogdor]

On the other hand you cannot re-sell every coach seat for every slot along the full length of the trip. Maybe you have close to 100% occupancy as the train leaves LAX but at intermediate stops after that more people may tend to get off than get on. So a coach seat may be empty for some time before somebody else joins the train to occupy it (if at all). End to end passengers thus make it easier to gain high occupancy rates and are thus the more lucrative market. I guess this is why Iowa Pacific is offering only end end fares.

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

I don't have specific numbers, but my general experience says your assessment is wrong.

For one, Amtrak pays very little rent at many of the smaller intermediate stops. If the stop is unstaffed, then the general cost of upkeep of that stop is very close to nothing. If it's a small stop, then the time penalty for stopping there is generally very small (three to four minutes). Having seen some analysis of stopping vs. not stopping, in most cases (excluding premium/time-sensitive service such as the Acela, and stations that are too close together to the point where they cannibalize their own market) the lost revenue from not stopping exceeds any small cost saving from skipping the stop, and added revenue from the faster trip doesn't make up for it.

The cost to issue a ticket (assuming that all ticketing infrastructure is already in place) is next to nothing. With e-ticketing, it will be even lower.

Iowa Pacific is not Amtrak. They are mainly a tourist-oriented railroad, and don't have the on-and-off transportation function that an Amtrak train does.

As Johnny pointed out with a few examples, the fares for end-to-end trips tend to be lower than if you buy separate tickets, breaking at an intermediate point. Therefore, the yield is higher on shorter-distance trips than longer-distance ones. Selling a train out with end-to-end tickets may give you high occupancy, but it won't necessarily generate the highest revenue.

And while there is no guarantee that you're going to resell a specific seat, general experience shows that the seats do resell. You're not going to have 100% occupancy for 100% of the trip, but that's not a realistic expectation, anyway.

Using the Coast Starlight as an example, the train has several stops with significant turnover, including San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento and Portland.

The train hits its peak a couple of different times during the route, and the total passengers to be carried for today's 14 is 2.5 times its peak capacity.

There's no way you'd achieve the same revenue if you only sold LAX-SEA tickets on that trip.

 

[cirdan]

On the other hand you cannot re-sell every coach seat for every slot along the full length of the trip. Maybe you have close to 100% occupancy as the train leaves LAX but at intermediate stops after that more people may tend to get off than get on. So a coach seat may be empty for some time before somebody else joins the train to occupy it (if at all). End to end passengers thus make it easier to gain high occupancy rates and are thus the more lucrative market. I guess this is why Iowa Pacific is offering only end end fares.

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

I don't have specific numbers, but my general experience says your assessment is wrong.

For one, Amtrak pays very little rent at many of the smaller intermediate stops. If the stop is unstaffed, then the general cost of upkeep of that stop is very close to nothing. If it's a small stop, then the time penalty for stopping there is generally very small (three to four minutes). Having seen some analysis of stopping vs. not stopping, in most cases (excluding premium/time-sensitive service such as the Acela, and stations that are too close together to the point where they cannibalize their own market) the lost revenue from not stopping exceeds any small cost saving from skipping the stop, and added revenue from the faster trip doesn't make up for it.

The cost to issue a ticket (assuming that all ticketing infrastructure is already in place) is next to nothing. With e-ticketing, it will be even lower.

Iowa Pacific is not Amtrak. They are mainly a tourist-oriented railroad, and don't have the on-and-off transportation function that an Amtrak train does.

As Johnny pointed out with a few examples, the fares for end-to-end trips tend to be lower than if you buy separate tickets, breaking at an intermediate point. Therefore, the yield is higher on shorter-distance trips than longer-distance ones. Selling a train out with end-to-end tickets may give you high occupancy, but it won't necessarily generate the highest revenue.

And while there is no guarantee that you're going to resell a specific seat, general experience shows that the seats do resell. You're not going to have 100% occupancy for 100% of the trip, but that's not a realistic expectation, anyway.

Using the Coast Starlight as an example, the train has several stops with significant turnover, including San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento and Portland.

The train hits its peak a couple of different times during the route, and the total passengers to be carried for today's 14 is 2.5 times its peak capacity.

There's no way you'd achieve the same revenue if you only sold LAX-SEA tickets on that trip.

I never meant to suggest that small stops should be eliminated. On the contrary, I'm very much aware how in many cases Amtrak is the only public transportation lifeline to the outside world, or how some places benefit from tourism that wouldn't be there if Amtrak wasn't there.

But nevertheless my feeling is that sleeper passengers and long-distance passengers have a higher fare to cost ratio than short hop passengers.

Concerning the costs of issuing a ticket. It may be that the actual paper and ink cost virtually nothing. But those Fast Track machines don't. There are plenty of smaller stations that don't have them, and if they really did cost peanuts to install and maintain Amtrak would have put them everywhere by now. Similarly there must be an entire IT support staff making sure they work properly and that the booking system does what it should and people who jump to fix the webiste when something breaks. Then there are the booking office staff and the phone staff, and there are the people who manage the buckets and move seats around in accordance with demand and the people who deal with complaints and lost luggage. All that doesn't come for free. But long trip passenger don't cause more costs in that department than short trip passengers. It's not actually more difficult to issue a ticket from Los Angeles to Chicago than it is to issue one from Cleburne to Temple, and if they call to change their booking, the extra costs etc are again more or less equal. So maybe the higher price per distance for short trips reflects that to some extent.

I'm not saying one type of passenger is better for Amtrak than the other. Amtrak has to serve all the passengers its gets, and its the sume of all the small bits that make the overall result. It would be wrong to turn their back on short-haul riders just as much as its wrong to turn their back on the end-to-end sleeper passengers. They are all important. But I'm saying that the long distance passengers are good for Amtrak because they cause proportianately low costs while paying the most for their tickets.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

On the other hand you cannot re-sell every coach seat for every slot along the full length of the trip. Maybe you have close to 100% occupancy as the train leaves LAX but at intermediate stops after that more people may tend to get off than get on. So a coach seat may be empty for some time before somebody else joins the train to occupy it (if at all). End to end passengers thus make it easier to gain high occupancy rates and are thus the more lucrative market. I guess this is why Iowa Pacific is offering only end end fares.

Also, I don't know how much it actually costs Amtrak to sell and issue a ticket. So just because two short trips cost more than one long one does not mean Amtrak is making more money on it. Furthermore, intermediate stops cost money (it costs fuel to stop and re-start the train, it costs time, the station has to be looked after, cleaned, maybe staffed, regularly inspected etc). I believe many of the smaller stops do not come anywhere near to paying their way. I am not saying they should be closed, but from a purely finnacial perspective, I think end to end passengers have a higher fare to cost ration.

I don't have specific numbers, but my general experience says your assessment is wrong.

For one, Amtrak pays very little rent at many of the smaller intermediate stops. If the stop is unstaffed, then the general cost of upkeep of that stop is very close to nothing. If it's a small stop, then the time penalty for stopping there is generally very small (three to four minutes). Having seen some analysis of stopping vs. not stopping, in most cases (excluding premium/time-sensitive service such as the Acela, and stations that are too close together to the point where they cannibalize their own market) the lost revenue from not stopping exceeds any small cost saving from skipping the stop, and added revenue from the faster trip doesn't make up for it.

The cost to issue a ticket (assuming that all ticketing infrastructure is already in place) is next to nothing. With e-ticketing, it will be even lower.

Iowa Pacific is not Amtrak. They are mainly a tourist-oriented railroad, and don't have the on-and-off transportation function that an Amtrak train does.

As Johnny pointed out with a few examples, the fares for end-to-end trips tend to be lower than if you buy separate tickets, breaking at an intermediate point. Therefore, the yield is higher on shorter-distance trips than longer-distance ones. Selling a train out with end-to-end tickets may give you high occupancy, but it won't necessarily generate the highest revenue.

And while there is no guarantee that you're going to resell a specific seat, general experience shows that the seats do resell. You're not going to have 100% occupancy for 100% of the trip, but that's not a realistic expectation, anyway.

Using the Coast Starlight as an example, the train has several stops with significant turnover, including San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento and Portland.

The train hits its peak a couple of different times during the route, and the total passengers to be carried for today's 14 is 2.5 times its peak capacity.

There's no way you'd achieve the same revenue if you only sold LAX-SEA tickets on that trip.

Thank you Trog. That was exactly what I meant.

 

[Trogdor]

But nevertheless my feeling is that sleeper passengers and long-distance passengers have a higher fare to cost ratio than short hop passengers.

Sleeper passengers certainly pay more per mile/unit of space taken up on board than coach passengers do, but I don't know that their fare-to-cost ratio is necessarily any better. It requires one sleeper attendant per car, plus dining car staff that might not otherwise be needed, which are part of the "cost" of the sleeper passenger. However, I don't want to get into another discussion about Amtrak finances and accounting. Nothing good ever comes of those threads.

Now, if we take "long-distance passengers" to include coach passengers and not just sleeper passengers, then that becomes less true. A long-distance passenger requires more amenities than a short-distance passenger, and, as already noted, they pay less per mile than the short-distance passenger does.

Concerning the costs of issuing a ticket. It may be that the actual paper and ink cost virtually nothing. But those Fast Track machines don't. There are plenty of smaller stations that don't have them, and if they really did cost peanuts to install and maintain Amtrak would have put them everywhere by now. Similarly there must be an entire IT support staff making sure they work properly and that the booking system does what it should and people who jump to fix the webiste when something breaks. Then there are the booking office staff and the phone staff, and there are the people who manage the buckets and move seats around in accordance with demand and the people who deal with complaints and lost luggage. All that doesn't come for free.

Those costs are certainly there, but two points come to mind. First, when spread over the entire 30 million+ tickets that are used annually, the cost per ticket is very low. Second, a lot of those costs are more or less fixed. Granted, if significantly fewer people rode, you might get away with fewer ticket machines, but the IT staff needed to keep Arrow running, and keep the website up and running, aren't going to get cheaper to hire just because we carry fewer people to/from intermediate stops on the Coast Starlight. Essentially, the marginal cost of issuing an additional ticket is close to zero.

But long trip passenger don't cause more costs in that department than short trip passengers. It's not actually more difficult to issue a ticket from Los Angeles to Chicago than it is to issue one from Cleburne to Temple, and if they call to change their booking, the extra costs etc are again more or less equal. So maybe the higher price per distance for short trips reflects that to some extent.
I'm not saying one type of passenger is better for Amtrak than the other. Amtrak has to serve all the passengers its gets, and its the sume of all the small bits that make the overall result. It would be wrong to turn their back on short-haul riders just as much as its wrong to turn their back on the end-to-end sleeper passengers. They are all important. But I'm saying that the long distance passengers are good for Amtrak because they cause proportianately low costs while paying the most for their tickets.

If you're only counting the costs of issuing tickets, then perhaps yes. But long-distance passengers come with two costs that are certainly not "low." First is the cost of amenities required (as I noted above) for people traveling for 36+ hours that wouldn't be needed for someone traveling even 3-6 hours. A full-service dining car certainly costs a lot more than a simple cafe car. Also, coaches configured for long-distance travel have more legroom than those configured for short-distance travel, so you sell fewer seats per car (limiting capacity, or increasing the cost to provide the same capacity). The second comes in the form of opportunity cost. Using Johnny's fare example, if you have one coach seat left on the Starlight and you sell it for $106 for someone traveling LAX-SEA, then there's an implied opportunity cost in that you can't sell two tickets (LAX-EMY and EMY-SEA) for a combined $156.

We're both in agreement that it's neither practical nor advisable to limit sales to one type of passenger or the other, just disagreeing over which type (end-to-end or intermediate) has the better revenue/cost ratio.