Fwd: This week at Amtrak - Dec. 7, 2005

[WICT106]

This Week at Amtrak; December 7, 2005

URL=http://www.unitedrail.org]http://www.unitedrail.org[/url]

Volume 2, Number 40

URPA is not a membership organization, and does not accept funding from

any outside sources.

1) "Follow the money" is the mantra of many who are trying to get to the

bottom of why some people and/or companies behave in a certain way.

Amtrak is no exception to this rule. Below is a brief chart of Amtrak

statistics from Fiscal Year 2004, the last complete year of information

posted on the Amtrak web site (It’s too early for figures from FY 2005,

which just ended at the end of September, 2005). Take a look at the

figures, and follow below for analysis.

Alabama: Ridership - 48,466; Expenditures - $11,477,849; Employment - 24

residents, $1,224,391 in payroll

Arizona: Ridership - 76,424; Expenditures - $952,736; Employment - 36

residents, $1,561,816 in payroll

Arkansas: Ridership - 23,814; Expenditures - $199,260; Employment - 32

residents, $1,802,173 in payroll

California: Ridership - 9,332,501; Expenditures - $29,649,815; Employment

- 3,589 residents, $154,921,344 in payroll [California hosts one of

Amtrak’s two telephone reservations centers]

Colorado: Ridership - 200,693; Expenditures - $18,998,202; Employment -

94 residents, $5,558,480 in payroll

Connecticut: Ridership - 1,392,393; Expenditures - $9,963,185; Employment

- 636 residents, $34,428,828 in payroll

Delaware: Ridership - 753,055; Expenditures - $5,109,985; Employment -

1,173 residents, $53,053,041 in payroll [Delaware hosts Amtrak’s national

operations center]

Florida: Ridership - 913,553; Expenditures - $13,689,114; Employment -

990 residents, $43,924,411 in payroll

Georgia: Ridership - 142,965; Expenditures - $8,402,900; Employment - 83

residents, $3,943,655 in payroll

Idaho: Ridership - 4,932; Expenditures - $51,537; Employment - 3

residents, $162,802 in payroll

Illinois: Ridership - 3,065,680; Expenditures - $56,759,840; Employment -

2,016 residents, $83,493,489 in payroll

Indiana: Ridership - 102,754; Expenditures - $19,762,401; Employment -

1,036 residents, $41,356,652 in payroll [indiana hosts Amtrak’s Beech

Grove heavy maintenance facility]

Iowa: Ridership - 54,365; Expenditures - $180,321; Employment - 13

residents, $572,091 in payroll

Kansas: Ridership - 31,549; Expenditures - $15,639,008; Employment - 26

residents, $1,213,867 in payroll

Kentucky: Ridership - 6,740; Expenditures - $6,428,567; Employment - 6

residents, $296,870 in payroll

Louisiana: Ridership - 180,475; Expenditures - $4,256,976; Employment -

363 residents, $14,212,305 in payroll

Maine: Ridership - 161,469; Expenditures - $972,711; Employment - 24

residents, $1,186,968 in payroll

Maryland: Ridership - 1,779,141; Expenditures - $22,142,799; Employment -

2,609 residents, $126,689,216 in payroll

Massachusetts: Ridership - 1,962,324; Expenditures - $13,837,498;

Employment - 1,477 residents, $41,904,152 in payroll

Michigan: Ridership - 604,721; Expenditures - $2,858,461; Employment -

133 residents, $6,434,967 in payroll [Amtrak owns and maintains 97 miles

of mainline track in Michigan]

Minnesota: Ridership - 172,177; Expenditures - $4,325,291; Employment -

72 residents, $3,768,858 in payroll

Mississippi: Ridership - 83,526; Expenditures - $868,272; Employment -

102 residents, $4,592,629 in payroll

Missouri: Ridership - 422,063; Expenditures - $9,160,987; Employment - 98

residents, $4,555,647 in payroll

Montana: Ridership - 129,044; Expenditures - $57,495; Employment - 57

residents, $3,293,052 in payroll

Nebraska: Ridership - 40,305; Expenditures - $322,463; Employment - 22

residents, $1,348,301 in payroll

Nevada: Ridership - 86,846; Expenditures - $4,910,032; Employment - 47

residents, $2,525,133 in payroll

New Hampshire: Ridership - 103,936; Expenditures - $48,136; Employment -

67 residents, $1,930,316 in payroll

New Jersey: Ridership - 3,855,311; Expenditures - $37,983,222; Employment

- 1,687 residents, $89,069,111 in payroll

New Mexico: Ridership - 103,042; Expenditures - Not Available; Employment

- 72 residents, $4,090,778 in payroll

New York: Ridership - 10,385,357; Expenditures - $49,277,453; Employment

- 2,051 residents, $96,624,973 in payroll

North Carolina: Ridership - 485,459; Expenditures - $5,440,589;

Employment - 176 residents, $8,321,782 in payroll

North Dakota: Ridership - 89,319; Expenditures - $28,354; Employment - 16

residents, $691,462 in payroll

Ohio: Ridership - 137,729; Expenditures - $9,567,180; Employment - 88

residents, $4,609,915 in payroll

Oklahoma: Ridership - 58,095; Expenditures - $686,799; Employment - 4

residents, $226,320 in payroll

Oregon: Ridership - 691,487; Expenditures - $1,166,188; Employment - 112

residents, $5,157,122 in payroll

Pennsylvania: Ridership - 4,849,022; Expenditures - $122,962,838;

Employment - 3,061 residents, $149,652,070 in payroll [Erie, Pennsylvania

received $29,464,199 from Amtrak because GE Transportation is located in

Erie, which provides locomotives to Amtrak; Philadelphia is home to one

of Amtrak’s two telephone reservation centers]

Rhode Island: Ridership - 616,122; Expenditures - $1,541,683; Employment

- 345 residents, $16,801,298 in payroll

South Carolina: Ridership - 176,300; Expenditures - $15,067,197;

Employment - 77 residents, $3,641,213 in payroll

Tennessee: Ridership - 50,295; Expenditures - $8,940,978; Employment - 21

residents, $906,524 in payroll

Texas: Ridership - 267,568; Expenditures - $9,332,108; Employment - 210

residents, $11,251,208 in payroll

Utah: Ridership - 34,914; Expenditures - $120,739; Employment - 51

residents, $3,106,249 in payroll

Vermont: Ridership - 59,860; Expenditures - $155,762; Employment - Not

Available

Virginia: Ridership - 803,695; Expenditures - $50,212,471; Employment -

970 residents, $51,446,428 in payroll [One of Amtrak’s advertising

agencies is located in Virginia; over $30,000,000 was technically spent

in Virginia on advertising which appeared elsewhere]

Washington: Ridership - 1,067,768; Expenditures - $7,500,299; Employment

- 504 residents, $23,190,224 in payroll

Washington, District of Columbia: Ridership - 3,744,710; Expenditures -

$18,322,022; Employment - 413 residents, $18,137,793 in payroll

[Washington, D.C. is Amtrak’s corporate headquarters]

West Virginia: Ridership - 50,699; Expenditures - $3,720,585; Employment

- 54 residents, $2,693,082 in payroll

Wisconsin: Ridership - 547,590; Expenditures - $7,788,648; Employment -

104 residents, $5,129,011 in payroll

Note: The Northeast Corridor is comprised of Washington, D.C.; Maryland;

Delaware; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; New York; Connecticut; Rhode Island;

and Massachusetts.

Who fights the hardest for "business as usual" for Amtrak? The members of

Congress from the NEC states. Any attempt to improve Amtrak, its

financial performance, or even financial transparency are met by yells

and screams of anguish by this coalition of protectors of the Amtrak

faith. Why?

More newspapers along the NEC write editorials in praise of the NEC and

against the Amtrak national system than any other part of the country.

Their attitude is, "we've got ours, who cares if you get yours?".

Much of this is due to Amtrak itself, which for years has erroneously

plugged the NEC as the savior of passenger rail in the United States. If

only the NEC could survive and prosper, the company has said over and

over and over again, then Amtrak will be saved, the Republic will stand,

and there will be peace and harmony throughout the land.

The really sad thing is how many otherwise rational people have believed

this hogwash.

Look at the numbers for the NEC and you'll understand that to the NEC

members of Congress, Amtrak is just another giant federal jobs and pork

barrel project. They desperately don't want any of these costs shifted

away from Amtrak, even to another federal entity which they must fear

they can't control as much as Amtrak. The worst nightmare of NEC

politicians is that one day, these huge costs may be put where they

ultimately belong - as a burden of the states, and not the federal

government. The NEC politicians want the flow of money (in the disguise

of Amtrak) to keep coming as long as possible, even to the ultimate

detriment of every other state in the union. Their attitude? Who cares

about the rest of the country when the flow of money to the NEC is at

stake?

Collective NEC state Amtrak expenditures (for all trains that serve these

states, including regional and long distance trains) - $281,140,685

Collective NEC state Amtrak employees (for all trains and services that

serve these states, including regional and long distance trains, and the

company headquarters in Washington, D.C.) - 13,452

Collective NEC state Amtrak employee payroll (for all trains and services

that serve these states, including regional and long distance trains, and

the company headquarters in Washington, D.C.) - $626,356,482

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured

raw cash of $907,497,167 into these eight states and the District of

Columbia for Fiscal Year 2004.

California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia were the next

largest recipients of Amtrak largess. California has the Pacific

Surfliner, San Joaquin, and Capital Corridor routes; Florida has the

Hialeah maintenance facility and crew base for the Florida trains and

many stations; Illinois has the Chicago hub and Midwest corridor trains;

Indiana has the Beech Grove heavy maintenance facility, and Virginia has

many of the corporate headquarters workers living in the northern part of

the state.

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak

expenditures - $170,073,641

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak

employees - 8,601

Collective California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia Amtrak

employee payroll - $220,376,245

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured

raw cash of $390,449,886 into these five states for Fiscal Year 2004.

This is equal to 43% of the cash poured into the NEC states.

The five bottom states, where Amtrak has operations but spends the least

amount of money are Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. No

significant facilities other than stations are in these states.

Expenditures are high due to supply purchases Amtrak made from national

vendors located in these states; not necessarily due directly to train

operations in these states.

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak

expenditures - $16,288,202

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak

employees - 47

Collective Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee Amtrak employee

payroll - $2,164,607

When you add the expenditures and payroll figures together, Amtrak poured

raw cash of $18,452,809 into these five states for Fiscal Year 2004. This

is equal to 4.7% of the cash poured into the top five states after the

NEC states, and .02% of the cash poured into the NEC states.

Here are some observations:

- FY 2004 ridership was 25,053,564 passengers. 5,557,588,000 revenue

passenger miles were generated, from 37,227,000 train miles and

11,655,692,000 seat miles. Ticket yield was 22.61 cents per revenue

passenger mile. It cost $74.01 per train mile to generate $42.32 in

income per train mile. One obvious conclusion from these numbers is that

either fares were too low, or costs were too high. A second conclusion

would be a combination of those two factors.

- Amtrak ticket revenue for FY 2004 was $1,256,424,267 (with an average

ticket price of $50.15, a very low figure). Of the revenue, 53% was

generated in the NEC. Yet, Amtrak spent $907,497,167 in the NEC states,

or 72% of its ticket revenue, a very negative return on investment. Note

that for FY 2004, Amtrak somehow with a straight corporate face claimed

that Wondertrain Acelas made a profit of $61,100,000 on revenues of only

$287,300,000, and that Metroliners made a profit of $7,400,000 on

revenues of only $47,400,000, while Northeast Regional and Clocker

services had a loss of $61,900,000 on revenues of $356,100,000. (The

alleged profit of Wondertrain Acelas and Metroliners remains suspect

because these two services shared the identical track, dispatching,

stations, crew bases and other support services of the Regional and

Clocker services. It’s highly suspect that Amtrak assigned a high amount

of losses to the Regional and Clocker services inorder to make the

Wondertrain Acela and Metroliners look profitable on paper, in the best

fashion of Enron and WorldCom.)

- The systemwide average load factor for FY 2004 was 47.7%. Load factors

of 65% are considered breakeven by most common carriers. National system

long distance trains averaged load factors of 51% to 63%, while NEC

trains averaged load factors of 36% to 49%. Most long distance trains

operated over routes where there is only one train a day in each

direction (there are 16 long distance routes; the Cardinal and Sunset

Limited offer only tri-weekly service), while the NEC hosted an average

of 55 trains per day in each direction (weekday service). The sparsely

populated long distance system routes, with absolute minimal travel

choices (and many of those only in the middle of the night) created a

higher load factor for the company than the over-populated NEC, which

offers too many travel choices and wastes valuable and scarce assets.

- In FY 2004, Amtrak had approximately 24,841 employees when the

individual state counts are totaled. Of those employees, 13,452 lived in

NEC states, or 54% of the company’s workforce lived in just eight states

and the District. When you add the employee count in California, Florida,

Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia of 8,601 to the NEC total, you reach

22,053 employees, or 89% of the total Amtrak workforce. Amtrak likes to

talk about the number of employees that changes the workforce totals from

year to year. In FY 1998, Amtrak had a net gain of 787 employees, a gain

of 765 in FY 1999, 528 in FY 2000, a loss of 642 in FY 2001, a loss of

1,179 in FY 2002, a loss of 492 in FY 2003, and a net gain of 27 in FY

2004.

- Amtrak’s corporate headquarters is in Washington, D.C. This location

was determined by Congress when the company was founded. Any attempts to

move the company away from this highly expensive employee environment is

fiercely fought by the one non-voting member of Congress who represents

the District, Eleanor Holmes Norton. Non-voting Representative Norton

apparently considers Amtrak more of a federal jobs program than a company

which needs to show fiscal responsibility. Also, as a result of this

unfortunate location, Amtrak’s headquarters is peopled by professional

bureaucrats who shift from one bureaucracy to another as opportunity

arises versus experienced private sector workers that understand basic

business principles.

- Both of Amtrak’s highly populated telephone reservations centers are

located in high payroll and high payroll taxes states, California and

Pennsylvania. While Amtrak is exempt by Congress from paying most

federal, state, and local taxes, it is not exempt from any type of

payroll taxes or associated costs on any level. While most common

carriers and other res center-high employee count companies such as hotel

chains locate their telephone reservation centers in the lowest cost

locations possible, Amtrak does just the opposite.

2) What does all of this mean? Amtrak, which was chartered with a mission

statement to be a national passenger railroad, instead concentrates the

majority of its resources and efforts in the Northeast and just five

other states, of which California and Illinois have a heavy concentration

of commuter operations instead of Amtrak’s original - and still - purpose

of operating long distance trains.

While much of Amtrak’s circumstances have been as a result of what it

inherited at various points in the past, very little effort has been made

to make changes which would have a dramatic effect on the financial

bottom line. Beech Grove in Indiana is an example of this. Beech Grove

migrated to Amtrak from its original freight railroad owner. Even at the

time three decades ago, Beech Grove was old and antiquated, and would

cost a lot of money to modernize. While the Beech Grove workforce has

done exemplary work on projects such as the head end power project for

the Heritage fleet inherited from the private passenger operators, it has

been doing this with one hand tied behind its collective back because of

the constraints of an outdated facility. Little effort has been made to

either get out of the car rebuilding business and outsource this work to

private firms, or to put together a new, modern and efficient facility.

3) Passenger rail economics have continually been ignored by past Amtrak

staff managers and previous boards of directors.

As Andrew Selden has said for many years, "Amtrak gets terrible financial

results (getting steadily worse, too) because of, not despite, its

investment strategy and business model (both largely unchanged from the

1960s). Amtrak continues to invest the greater share of its free federal

capital into short corridor markets, including the NEC, where it earns

negative rates of return on investment, while it neglects its long

distance markets where it earns returns in revenue and transportation

output, per dollar invested, that are five to seven times greater than

the corridors.

"It would be instructive for anyone to do what congress never has done:

divide Amtrak's revenues in the Northeast Corridor from corridor services

alone by the total federal subsidy, whether labeled ‘capital’ or anything

else, incurred to produce that revenue, to ascertain a federal cost per

dollar of revenue. Then do the same with the long distance markets as a

group. Then do the same long division, but this time divide revenue

passenger miles in the NEC by their total cost of production, and RPMs

from long distance trains by their total cost of production. The results

are illuminating, and explain completely why Amtrak is such a perennial

loser in both financial results and transportation relevance."

4) This all adds up to several factors working against Amtrak becoming a

financially healthy company that provides more than incidental

transportation in the total scheme of America’s domestic transportation

network.

- Amtrak concentrates far too much of its resources in one area of the

country, which provides a regional focus, not a national focus. While

many cite the philosophy of federalism and how national resources can

help individual problems, this concept does not explain how Amtrak can so

heavily favor one part of the country over the rest of the country, which

provides heavy annual doses of free federal monies running into the

billions.

- Politics play too large of a role in Amtrak’s decision making process.

Often, decisions are made to placate politicians, versus making sound

business decisions.

- Until now, Amtrak has had a deeply flawed business plan that guarantees

failure. Hopefully, the current board of directors, which seems to be

moving quickly away from continuing this flawed plan, will move the

company back to its original mission, of providing a relevant national

passenger railroad, not a set of disjointed, non-profit corridors.

5) Where does following the money lead? Apparently, not very far away

from Washington, D.C., especially if you're in Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky,

Oklahoma, or Tennessee. If you're snuggled up against Washington, D.C.

like an NEC state, you're OK. If you're part of the rest of America, in

Amtrak’s book you must not be very important.

If you are reading someone else’s copy of This Week at Amtrak, you can

receive your own free copy each week by sending your e-mail address to

[email protected]

Be sure to include your name, preferred e-mail address, and city and

state where you live. A number of requests have been initiated, but not

received due to virus protection software guarding against incoming

e-mail. If you do not receive your personalized copy of TWA within two

weeks, check your outgoing e-mail for viruses and please resend your

request. This mailing list is kept strictly confidential and is not

shared or used for any purposes other than the distribution of This Week

at Amtrak or related URPA materials.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I don't buy it. It says ridership in GA was only 142,965 but 7 or 8 times that in Florida. Did all those folks get off at Jax or in SC and take a bus through GA and then get back on trains 97, 98, 91, and 92? How about all those folks on the Crescent? DId they all get off in SC or NC or AL and get bused to to the far side of GA? NO! They were on those trains, as pax, but because they didn't happen to get on or off in GA, they're not considered riders in that article. Hogwash!!

 

[Guest_Amtrak_flyer]

URPA has always been anti-amtrak.

 

[haolerider]

These statistics are from the On & Off reports that reflect activity in each city Amtrak serves. They are meant to show the number of people arriving and departing from each city and the impact it has on the city/state. They are not meant to determine how many people pass through the state.

The report is available on the Amtrak website and also reflects the economic impact the passengers and the Amtrak expenditures have in each state. The statistics are useful when dealing with local and state officials and allow Amtrak to accurately show how much it can produce for each location - from passengers, employees and dealings with vendors in the regions.

Passengers passing through a city or state do not have any economic impact on the individual location.

URPA is definitely anti-Amtrak in its present condition. They have lots of ideas, but not a lot of real world know-how and/or logic behind their statements. In an ideal world, URPA would function fine, but as we all know, we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[Orange Blossom Special]

I don't buy it.  It says ridership in GA was only 142,965 but 7 or 8 times that in Florida.  Did all those folks get off at Jax  or in SC and take a bus through GA and then get back on trains 97, 98, 91, and 92?  How about all those folks on the Crescent? DId they all get off in SC or NC or AL and get bused to to the far side of GA?  NO!  They were on those trains, as pax, but because they didn't happen to get on or off in GA, they're not considered riders in that article.  Hogwash!!

You just stole my thunder.

Florida ridership sure would be higher, along with Georgia if there was a train that went through Atlanta up to chicago. It's amazing that a city so big has a connection as crappy as Birmingham or Jackson.

Also, same with Tennessee, possibly kentucky too. Why doesn't that train go up through to Nashville? Doesn't make sense.

And if the train could somehow go through Savannah on the way to Atlanta, that would bring a lot of in-state travel.

The low ridership has nothing to do with people not wanting to go to these places, it's from not having the option given to them. And Florida still needs a Silver Star extention with a Sunset Limited being reinstated.

Actually, Florida really needs a california style service, if the HSR plan still being worked on falls through again. You ever "drive" on these roads?

 

[Viewliner]

I never really enjoy reading URPA's "This Week at Amtrak" as it doesn't conform to my beliefs. Often in these issues I find a conservative slant and not so much an Anti-Amtrak sentiment as an Anti-NEC one. I find their opinion that the NEC should be an entity separate from Amtrak a moronic one to be frank. To strip the NEC is to strip a certain level of control and safety as well as the potential to accomodate Amtrak and High-speed service, as well as bargaining power for funding. Wouldn't doing that basically be as though you owned your home, sold it and then paid to live in it? Bottom line there is a slant that I disagree with, and while some out there may agree with it, I don't...I don't think they take Amtrak/NEC's interest seriously and realistically enough. Amtrak isn't perfect, but it works and repairing it is the solution, not stripping it.

 

[Trogdor]

The last couple of issues of TW@A have been toned down a bit.

Unfortunately, I think Bruce Richardson destroyed all of URPA's credibility (assuming they ever had any to begin with) with his past issues of that newsletter, which were nothing but second-grade-level childish name-calling and personal attacks against David Gunn, NARP, and anyone that dared think that the Bush Administration was not in favor of improving passenger rail.

I no longer even read that newsletter, I got so fed up with the name-calling.

 

[AmtrakFan]

I don't like the URPA and if Amtrak were to go under IL economy would be killed over this both senators threw a fit when Bush annonuced Zero Funding and when the Board Fired Gunn.

 

[WICT106]

This was placed here in order to provoke discussion. There have been reports going back two decades that assert it is the LD trains which are financial successes, while it is the NEC that is the financial chain around Amtrak's neck. That, and the lack of a stable capital funding source.

Here, we have some figures that indicate and refute the oft-repeated "Big Lie" that the LD trains are money loseing ventures. Some of the figures presented in the first post contradict this assertion. If the LD trains aren't losing money, then where are the losses coming from? why are there these assertions that the LD trains (example: the Empire Builder) being made, despite the evidence to the contrary?

In a separate question, we have an ax hanging over Amtrak regarding the sleepers and the dining cars. There is evidence suggesting that sleepers are more profitable per passenger-mile than coach cars, because they are "value-added" service. Where are the figures regarding those?

Hoping to provoke more discussion. Economic analysis of the Empire Builder

 

[Guest]

Ok, two quick questions from this article...

1. It mentions a customer service center in Philadelphia. This seems to be a fair criticism. How many employees are we talking here? Would not it be cheaper to farm this work out somewhere (A little southern/midwestern hospitality)? What I sort of suspect is Amtrak has lots of real estate.. Are they simply utilizing the real estate they have (without having to lease/build another site somewhere else)?

2. The Acella's are fixed trainsets..right? So it's not like they can adjust the consist to achieve a XX% load. In fact, I think it is proven that offering less departures leads to less overall passengers.. so what is their argument here?

 

[Trogdor]

URPA constantly complains about "low load factors" on NEC trains. However, I don't see what all could be done (assuming that their claims of low load factors are true).

Switching cars en route on the NEC is going to take way too long (i.e. setting out a couple of coaches at NYP while the rest of the train goes through to Boston). It's not like you can just run the whole trainset with fewer cars end-to-end, because at some point during the trip, those cars will be needed. Even if one trip doesn't need all of those cars, when that train turns to the next train in the opposite direction, those cars will likely all be filled.

URPA just has a problem with the fact that the NEC has a lot of service. While most rail advocates would like to see better service in the rest of the country, the way to do so is *not* to attack the NEC.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I'm sure they could have the call centers in less-expensive locations. Like all the major corporations seems to be doing. Overseas. Then we'd have to change the system's name to Juliesandratta (India), or maybe Julie-San "I'm sorry, I didn't understand your response. Did you say 'Hai', or 'Iye' ''?. Of course, if it's our tax money paying those folks, I'd be really ticked if they outsourced it. But sure, it would be cheaper. And more Americans would be out of work.

 

[AlanB]

Ok, two quick questions from this article...
1. It mentions a customer service center in Philadelphia. This seems to be a fair criticism. How many employees are we talking here? Would not it be cheaper to farm this work out somewhere (A little southern/midwestern hospitality)? What I sort of suspect is Amtrak has lots of real estate.. Are they simply utilizing the real estate they have (without having to lease/build another site somewhere else)?

2. The Acella's are fixed trainsets..right? So it's not like they can adjust the consist to achieve a XX% load. In fact, I think it is proven that offering less departures leads to less overall passengers.. so what is their argument here?

1) AFAIK, the call center is in an Amtrak owned building, so yes they saved money by not buying/building a call center. Additionally, since the equipment is already installed, moving it would cost quite a bit of money.

It should also be noted that Amtrak just closed a call center in Chicago within the last two years. It was closed for two reasons, one increased sales via the internet and therefore decreased call volume and two, Amtrak did not own that building if I recall correctly.

2) Yes, Acela's are fixed consists. It takes a few hours in a shop, to remove a car from an Acela trainset. I suspect, not positive, that the computers that deal with the tilting also need to be reset to compensate for the shorter/longer consist too.

 

[AlanB]

Switching cars en route on the NEC is going to take way too long (i.e. setting out a couple of coaches at NYP while the rest of the train goes through to Boston).  It's not like you can just run the whole trainset with fewer cars end-to-end, because at some point during the trip, those cars will be needed.  Even if one trip doesn't need all of those cars, when that train turns to the next train in the opposite direction, those cars will likely all be filled.

It also doesn't pay to switch cars off in NYP for two reasons. One, business people won't understand the delay and its increased travel times, sending potential business to the airlines. Secondly, now you have to have crews and a switch engine available for hours per day, for a minimum of work. It cost far more to take the cars off and on, than it does to just run them through.

Additionally, during many hours of the day, one can't perform switching operations at Penn. The station is simply too busy and leaving a train sitting at a platform for a half an hour to switch cars off/on, entrain/detrain passenger, and perform a brake test, simply means that 3 other trains be it Amtrak or commuter can't use the station.

 

[haolerider]

As far as the former call center in Chicago, Amtrak did not own the building and it was in the middle of the Loop - very high priced real estate. The closure of that call center served several purposes - it cut down on the employee base and relocated the Group Desk to Riverside, CA - resulting in better levels of service from the CA employees. It also allowed calls to be split between the Phildelphia center and the Riverside center. Moving a call center to a location, such as SD, ND or NE would be difficult with a product as difficult to book and service as Amtrak. It is not as easy to sell the product as it is to sell a point-to-point airline seat or a hotel room in a single location.