FY12 ridership was 31.2 million

[Anderson]

Huh...I can't help but wonder if they couldn't shake an extra couple of percentage points out of OBS CR with better management. I doubt they could get the cafes close to break-even, but even an improvement of 5% would be substantial. Then again, this might happen on some of the state services, since the states are paying for all OBS expenses and therefore have their own rationale to try and maximize cost recovery (rather than "just" minimizing spoilage).

As to car disposal...while technically you might be right, doing so could screw up future car funding. I can just hear the incredulous comments now: "We gave them money for new cars and they used it as an excuse to get rid of perfectly usable cars...and NOW they're complaining about capacity problems!" With the Heritage cars, you have real operating issues that are impeding the train's speed; likewise, you have the fact that the fleet is quite small. With the Amfleets, however..aren't the Is and IIs pretty much identical when it comes to fundamental mechanics? If so, you've got a fleet of something presumably over 500 cars [642 delivered less any attrition since then], which should be enough to keep a supply of parts coming (as compared with the Heritage cars, which at this point consist of about 20 diners and a miscellaneous mix of baggage and ex-coach baggage cars...less than 100 cars won't cut it, while 500-600 should be enough).

A final thought: Is there any chance that Amtrak will look into any coach-baggage single-level cars? I strongly suspect that on the shorter runs, a full baggage car isn't needed (consider how they're shifting to baggage-dorms on a number of single-level routes; that hints at a lack of baggage space needs), and (as usual) I can't help but see that as workable revenue space for another 30 or so passengers.

 

[Eric S]

A final thought: Is there any chance that Amtrak will look into any coach-baggage single-level cars? I strongly suspect that on the shorter runs, a full baggage car isn't needed (consider how they're shifting to baggage-dorms on a number of single-level routes; that hints at a lack of baggage space needs), and (as usual) I can't help but see that as workable revenue space for another 30 or so passengers.

It's been a while since I've looked through the single-level car specs that were developed, but I seem to recall a number of different configurations, including a cab/baggage option, being mentioned.

OK, just quickly googled and found the specs at highspeed-rail.org do mention 3 configurations of single-level cars: coach, cab/baggage, and cafe/lounge.

 

[AlanB]

A final thought: Is there any chance that Amtrak will look into any coach-baggage single-level cars? I strongly suspect that on the shorter runs, a full baggage car isn't needed (consider how they're shifting to baggage-dorms on a number of single-level routes; that hints at a lack of baggage space needs), and (as usual) I can't help but see that as workable revenue space for another 30 or so passengers.

The baggage/dorms hint more at the fact that Amtrak needs to get the crew out of revenue space and not so much a lack of baggage. In fact, I have to wonder if the Silver's aren't going to have issues with only half the car available to luggage.

Amtrak is putting in shelving units to these new baggage cars, something that the current cars don't have. Current cars just see the crews forming piles by destination within the car in an effort to get everything in and keep it straight. The hope is that the shelving units will allow them to compensate for the lack of floor space by being able to use more vertical space within the car. This however is untested in real life on Amtrak and it remains to be seen just how well it will work, if it does work at all.

It could well turn out to be a total failure and they could well have problems carrying checked bags on all routes save the Cardinal & the LSL.

Now, that said, it is quite likely that a coach/bag might well work very well on routes like the Adirondack, Carolinian, and others like them.

 

[OBS]

The issue here seems to be planning in the commissary department. It's almost like they've looked at what gets sold on the trains, and then picked the day where the least amount got sold and used that as the model for every day so as to be certain to avoid any spoilage. IMHO, they need to be far more proactive in varying things to time of year, passenger loads indicated a day or two before departure, etc.

You are correct that the issue is planning, but the commissary just supplies the food. The quantities are determined by the Amtrak F&B dept. as well as the Train Manager for the train. This is where the lack of oversight arises. Kudos to the LSA who had the foresight to prepare properly for the trip. Unfortunately, you cant rely on all attendants to do this, especially if you have a replacement attendant filling in on a trip.

 

[afigg]

The baggage/dorms hint more at the fact that Amtrak needs to get the crew out of revenue space and not so much a lack of baggage. In fact, I have to wonder if the Silver's aren't going to have issues with only half the car available to luggage.

Amtrak is putting in shelving units to these new baggage cars, something that the current cars don't have. Current cars just see the crews forming piles by destination within the car in an effort to get everything in and keep it straight. The hope is that the shelving units will allow them to compensate for the lack of floor space by being able to use more vertical space within the car. This however is untested in real life on Amtrak and it remains to be seen just how well it will work, if it does work at all.

It could well turn out to be a total failure and they could well have problems carrying checked bags on all routes save the Cardinal & the LSL.

Now, that said, it is quite likely that a coach/bag might well work very well on routes like the Adirondack, Carolinian, and others like them.

How much seasonal variation is there in the amount of checked baggage on the Silvers and the Crescent? I certainly don't know, but I would hope Amtrak managers have the numbers. If there are clear peaks during the holidays and vacation periods, the solution could be to add a full baggage car for just those peak periods if the baggage-dorm does not have enough room.

The PRIIA single level spec includes a cab/baggage car with a ~1/2 baggage, 1/2 coach configuration. Since a cab car is not needed in many medium distance corridors, a coach/baggage car minus the cab would be useful and should have enough baggage and bike rack space for the day trains. Obviously helps to have a 1/2 and 1/2 car generate ticket revenue over a baggage car with no direct revenue except for people paying baggage fees for extra bags. The Carolinian, Palmetto, Adirondack, others, maybe NE Regionals with checked baggage would be a good fit for a coach/baggage car at one end.

If the plans are to order some coach/baggage and cab/baggage/coach cars as part of a large coach car order with the full length baggage cars to be used only on the overnight LD trains, then the order for 55 baggage cars is sufficient to support the LD trains with a reserve for peak periods and restoration of an LD train or two.

Meanwhile, neither the August monthly report nor the 2012 PIP reports have been posted to the Amtrak website. Wonder what is going on with the 2012 round of PIP reports?

 

[Nathanael]

In general, I don't advocate switching trains to single-level because of inherent benefits in doing so (though potentially reviving the Crescent-Sunset sleeper to make through-NOL travel more enticing would be one potential benefit). Rather, the reason is nasty practicality: We currently have a Viewliner order and it might be possible to convert some of the baggage options to sleeper options.

I don't think Amtrak will do this because of the current ADA requirements. Any station which is located on a siding (off freight tracks) and is served only by a single-level train might have to be provided with a 48" platform. Any station served also by a double-level train would only have to be provided with 18" platforms.

But perhaps Amtrak will decided that this can be worked around (perhaps every station on the CONO which isn't shared with the Illini/Saluki or Sunset Limited is directly on the freight main).

Unless Amtrak exercises the options, there are no "extra" sleepers for converting the CONO to single level. Nearly all the new sleepers will go directly into beefing up capacity on the existing single-level trains, and if you look at the prices, that's where they *should* go. Some will go for the Pennsylvanian-Capitol Limited through cars. Two will probably go to #66/67. If Amtrak can get agreement, some will go to a daily Cardinal.

Amtrak actually needs all the baggage cars it's ordering, too (believe it or not). They're trying to replace all of the current cars. (I think the 25 Heritage baggage cars being retained are intended for 'overflow' or large group conditions, not for regular use.) The number of baggage cars currently running surprised me when I actually counted it.

And the key thing is: people are taking MORE baggage, not less. The Cardinal may be able to take a bag-dorm *instead* of a full baggage car, but I'm not sure any of the other trains can -- it may be a full baggage car PLUS a bag-dorm. The LSL is going to need a full baggage car on the NY section in *addition* to the bag-dorm, at least during the summer months (and they'll both fill up). The same is probably true of the southern trains, though I haven't ridden them myself and couldn't say for sure.

(The Boston section of the LSL could probably suffice with a bag-dorm instead of a full baggage car. Current procedure appears to be, AFAIK, to use the Boston baggage car for all Chicago-Upstate NY luggage -- three full baggage floats, which I would estimate would be about 2/3 the capacity of a bag-dorm, got off in Syracuse on my most recent trip. Then there were the floats unloaded in Rochester, and the ones unloaded in Buffalo.... Chicago-Upstate NY traffic is practically filling a baggage car by itself. Not sure why people from Boston travel with less luggage than people from NY...)

(Thinking further about baggage cars, I suspect that the bag-dorms will run year-round, with full baggage cars added "as needed" during high usage periods, such as April-August. In February the baggage cars on the LSL run a lot emptier. This will still mean full baggage cars for most months.)

And there's barely enough new diners in the order -- not really enough for an additional train, not while maintaining the desired shop count.

But that's if Amtrak doesn't exercise any options. If Amtrak exercises the *options*, there might be enough sleepers and diners to allow for single-level operation of the CONO. But then you run up against the shortage of Amfleet IIs.

I suppose Amtrak could convert lots of the Horizons or Amfleet Is to long-distance seating in 2015-2016, and then combine them with options on the CAF Viewliner order, to assemble a single-level long-distance train. But by 2015-2016, I'm expecting any additional Viewliners or new long-distance coaches to be sinking right back into the trains which go into NY Penn, which will still need it. Lake Shore Limited demand isn't going down, it's going up, and the schedule changes will only improve that situation.

However, if there is a conversion to single-level equipment, the Capitol Limited is actually a more reasonable case for a conversion than the CONO because it already shares stations with single-level trains at multiple points (Chicago-Cleveland, Pittsburgh, DC) and it's planned to have through-cars for the Pennsylvanian (which will definitely be single-level).

 

[Nathanael]

The PRIIA single level spec includes a cab/baggage car with a ~1/2 baggage, 1/2 coach configuration. Since a cab car is not needed in many medium distance corridors, a coach/baggage car minus the cab would be useful and should have enough baggage and bike rack space for the day trains.

I suspect Amtrak would go ahead and order the cab/coach/baggage version. Soon the entire single-level fleet will be push-pull ready.

Amtrak

- has a shortage of diesel locomotives

- is getting close to having a shortage of NPCUs

- probably wants to replace the ex-Metroliner cab cars relatively soon. The CAF order will eliminate regular use of most Heritage cars and the Pacific Parlour Car replacement will eliminate the rest, after which the ex-Metroliners will be the oldest cars in regular service.

So there's a lot to be said for getting the cab cars. (And there's your NE Regional baggage solution.) They would probably be deployed on all routes where the locals will allow them to run cab-end first; avoiding wyeing saves trouble.

Meanwhile, neither the August monthly report nor the 2012 PIP reports have been posted to the Amtrak website. Wonder what is going on with the 2012 round of PIP reports?

Amtrak's reports department first had to catch up on the revision of the monthlies which originally said "unavailable due to a financial system conversion", then had to do the annual report. I'm expecting there's a limited staff for producing reports; it seems like whenever there are a whole bunch of reports to do at once, they get backlogged. I'm not sure whether we'll see the August monthly first or the PIPs first, but I'm sure they're working on both of them.

---

The food business is interesting. I'm hoping that with the deployment of Point-Of-Sale it will become easier for the on-board staff to convince Amtrak that they need to be ordering more food. ("Look at your own records. We sold every single one of the pizzas -- before we reached Buffalo. We need to stock more.")

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Right now I think Amtrak's biggest issue is that they don't have enough Sleepers. The shortage of diesels isn't really that big of a problem. I can just point out train after train that has too little Sleepers, turning away pax that don't want to go coach.

So how do we solve this problem?

 

[jis]

Meanwhile, neither the August monthly report nor the 2012 PIP reports have been posted to the Amtrak website. Wonder what is going on with the 2012 round of PIP reports?

I have heard rumors that the organization that was doing the PIPs has essentially been disbanded. At least the two guys that I knew that were working on PIPs are doing something else now. That is not to say that eventually a PIP or two may not come out, but clearly it is not the highest priority in the broader scheme of things.

 

[Anderson]

Meanwhile, neither the August monthly report nor the 2012 PIP reports have been posted to the Amtrak website. Wonder what is going on with the 2012 round of PIP reports?

I have heard rumors that the organization that was doing the PIPs has essentially been disbanded. At least the two guys that I knew that were working on PIPs are doing something else now. That is not to say that eventually a PIP or two may not come out, but clearly it is not the highest priority in the broader scheme of things.

*winces*

This...could be a problem, considering that the PIPs were required by PRIIA. That's going to be a nasty whipping boy for Mica et al to raise (if they think to).

As to the August MPR...give it until the end of the week and then I'll say they're late.

 

[jis]

Meanwhile, neither the August monthly report nor the 2012 PIP reports have been posted to the Amtrak website. Wonder what is going on with the 2012 round of PIP reports?

I have heard rumors that the organization that was doing the PIPs has essentially been disbanded. At least the two guys that I knew that were working on PIPs are doing something else now. That is not to say that eventually a PIP or two may not come out, but clearly it is not the highest priority in the broader scheme of things.

*winces*

This...could be a problem, considering that the PIPs were required by PRIIA. That's going to be a nasty whipping boy for Mica et al to raise (if they think to).

As to the August MPR...give it until the end of the week and then I'll say they're late.

I am sure they will produce the requisite one more document that they are required to produce by some point this year. I am not so sure that they will do anything further with it. Afterall it is about trains that are already performing the best of the lot and not really at the risk of anything terrible happening to them.

I do think they will act on the several items from the two previous PIPs that are feasible. Irrespective of who becomes President of the US, I think Amtrak will have a tough time and they are preparing for it carefully. It really is going to be more about corridors and farebox recovery unfortunately. Some LDs that are stitching together of viable corridors will also do well, even in the absence of some of the corridors involved with actual corridor service. The others will carry on without much change.

Until there is much more significant grassroots efforts along the LD routes causing politicians to take notice, i don;t see much happening even with trains overflowing.

 

[Anderson]

I tend to agree, though I can't help but wonder if there aren't some things that could be done on even the "best of the best" trains to improve overall farebox recovery. I know there have been proposals on both the SWC and EB to add cars, etc., and the CONO is going to get at least some attention due to the sleeper situation. To put it another way, even a reduction in losses of $5 million through ramped-up revenue net of added expenses is still $5 million that Amtrak could put towards new cars, and another couple of percent of CR can take some more heat off of Amtrak. Properly executed, these PIPs in particular can probably lay out the best case for a Superliner III order, since it is quite probable that at least three of the five trains in question could take extra cars (and I can actually see a report coming out suggesting demand for extra cars on all three services).

Likewise, I am prepared to speculate that there might be some room to negotiate with CA, OR, and WA regarding doing something about the Starlight (and/or the "Sparks Cars" initiative), especially with the Daylight coming into the mix. I don't know what, but there seems to be some room for state support for improvements there. Similarly, there's definitely room for partial corridor operations (in the vein of the MSP cars on the Builder and/or the STL cars on the Eagle) getting bulked up on the SWC and EB (in particular...CHI-MSP might well merit a substantial "drop consist" of multiple coaches, while I could see adding the same thing to the SWC being a viable option), and potentially on the CS as well.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

As far as sections of LDs with lots of SD pax, I'd point out the following:

CHI-MSP

CHI-OMA-DEN

RNO-EMY

OAK-LAX

LAX-TUC

DAL-SAS

SAS-HOU

CHI-MEM

CHI-IND-CIN

JAX-ORL-MIA

CHI-TOL-CLE

So yeah, AFAIK, plenty of room for "drop consists."

 

[Anderson]

JAX-ORL-MIA is going to be interesting going forward due to FEC's projects, but the Star being extended down the FEC line should be a boon there, while the Coast Daylight is likely to take some pressure off of the Starlight. I'd be curious as to how much demand there is in coach CHI-DEN (versus the sleeper) considering the overnight nature of the run. Ditto CHI-CIN, considering the hours, though a daily Cardinal probably isn't the best option for dropping cars because of the business a daily train could generate CVS-NYP as well. CIN-CVS just isn't a long enough "gap" to justify such a move.

I suspect that the rub of several of those routes is that you could reasonably expect to fill a second train (at least seasonally, and often for most of the year), if not more (Reno could probably fill a second train year-round and a third at peak season; there might well be a market for a dedicated DEN-CHI train, particularly if it could be routed CHI-Quad Cities-DSM-OMA). While it was a one-off, thinking about it now the massive CONO running CHI-MEM last Thanksgiving seems like it might have been Amtrak "dropping a hint" at a workable market (particularly as Memphis makes up about 28% of the CONO's traffic (and indeed close to 100 passengers/train and over 180/day) despite lousy times.

 

[afigg]

I am sure they will produce the requisite one more document that they are required to produce by some point this year. I am not so sure that they will do anything further with it. Afterall it is about trains that are already performing the best of the lot and not really at the risk of anything terrible happening to them.

I do think they will act on the several items from the two previous PIPs that are feasible. Irrespective of who becomes President of the US, I think Amtrak will have a tough time and they are preparing for it carefully. It really is going to be more about corridors and farebox recovery unfortunately. Some LDs that are stitching together of viable corridors will also do well, even in the absence of some of the corridors involved with actual corridor service. The others will carry on without much change.

Until there is much more significant grassroots efforts along the LD routes causing politicians to take notice, i don;t see much happening even with trains overflowing.

With regards to the PIP reports, Amtrak should have a standing strategic planning or management group that periodically evaluates the individual LD and corridor services for improvements without Congress requiring Amtrak to write reports with recommendations and send them to Congress. Just good business practice, whether Amtrak does that or not. Even the best performing LD trains will have proposed schedule changes, equipment allocation adjustments, station upgrades, low hanging fruit changes that can be written up in a report and then implemented.

On the federal funding front, what is under pressure is the annual operating subsidy which was $466 million in FY12. That is what gets attacked, while the current levels of capital grant funding looks to be more secure. The July monthly report summarizes the appropriations that were passed by the House and Senate Appropriation Committees, so these funding amounts have cleared a major hurdle, even with a hostile fraction in the House. The appropriations process is getting jammed up in the end of year fiscal cliff and expiring Bush tax cuts food fight, but the numbers are not bad for Amtrak in either bill.

Senate Appropriations for Amtrak:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on April 19 approved S.2322, Fiscal 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations. It includes 1.450 billion for Amtrak, of which $400 million is for operations and $1.050 billion for capital. Of the capital amount, $20 million is for the Northeast Corridor Gateway program and up to $271 million is available for debt service.

House Appropriations:

The House Appropriations Committee on June 20 approved H.R.5972, Fiscal 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations. It includes $1.802 billion for Amtrak, of which $350 million is for operations, $952 million for capital, and $500 million for state-of-good repair infrastructure projects on segments owned by Amtrak or states. Of the capital amount, $50 million is for the ADA program and up to $271 million is available for debt service. Of the state-of-good repair funds, $80 million can go to Amtrak operations with DOT approval.

Yes, the House committee has $1.8 billion total for Amtrak. The cut is in the operating subsidy. The $500 million the House inserted for state-of-good repair (SOGR) funds is in place of the $500 million the Senate has for FY13 TIGER grants. If Obama wins and there is a more favorable atmosphere for transit spending in the next House, they could compromise with $500 million for SOGR for Amtrak and $500 million for TIGER grants, while using the higher Senate amount for capital grant.

if Amtrak were to get $500 million for SOGR, they could use that for the NEC, including the Portal Bridge replacement. That would allow Amtrak to then use some of the capital grant as down payments on an order for new rolling stock for the LD trains, such as Amfleet II replacements from CAF.

The odd thing about the $271 million in debt service is that Amtrak requested $212 million in debt service for FY13 because of the Treasury payments that are reducing the debt by exercising Early Buyout Options on Warrington era leases. Ok, so if there is $59 million leftover for debt payments, use that for new loan debt.

 

[Anderson]

$59 million in debt service, using a mortgage payment model rather than a bond payment model, would allow for about 8-8.5x leverage on a ten-year loan. Or, about $450-500 million. Interesting options there...

 

[CHamilton]

Sigh. Atlantic Cities has a good overview of Amtrak's increasing ridership at

Why Amtrak Keeps Breaking Ridership Records and Will Continue To Do So

but throws in this:

The real drain on taxpayers is Amtrak's long-distance routes. Ridership may be up 4.7 percent on those services for the year, but the projected loss comes out to more than $111 per rider. If there's a substantive discussion to be had about the future of Amtrak, it's about the viability of these long-distance services, which unlike many local transit routes that lose money don't seem particularly necessary as a public service.

Amtrak is, of course, a very different animal in the NEC and the other corridors than it is in its long-distance services. But it's a shame that in an article filled with numbers, the author doesn't back up that last statement at all, even though he admits that "the missing context here is that intercity railroads universally require government contributions for capital expenses if they're going to run at all."

 

[user 1215]

Sigh. Atlantic Cities has a good overview of Amtrak's increasing ridership at

Why Amtrak Keeps Breaking Ridership Records and Will Continue To Do So

but throws in this:

The real drain on taxpayers is Amtrak's long-distance routes. Ridership may be up 4.7 percent on those services for the year, but the projected loss comes out to more than $111 per rider. If there's a substantive discussion to be had about the future of Amtrak, it's about the viability of these long-distance services, which unlike many local transit routes that lose money don't seem particularly necessary as a public service.

Amtrak is, of course, a very different animal in the NEC and the other corridors than it is in its long-distance services. But it's a shame that in an article filled with numbers, the author doesn't back up that last statement at all, even though he admits that "the missing context here is that intercity railroads universally require government contributions for capital expenses if they're going to run at all."

It's an easy solution. Raise the ticket prices on all first class & sleepers by $100 and that'll make up the difference.

 

[Ryan]

If you assume that demand is perfectly inelastic (which it isn't) and that everyone riding a LD train does so in a sleeper (they don't).

 

[user 1215]

No. If I wanted to tax distribute the cost to everyone, then it would be about $44 per ticket. But those who travel in sleeper and first can certainly afford to pay $100 more to subsidize those travelling in coach, right?

 

[Ryan]

Maybe then can, maybe they can't. Even if they can, maybe they'll choose not to.

Where are you getting the $44 figure from, and why do you think that $100 per sleeper and first class would generate enough to cover the gap?

 

[user 1215]

1.4 billion in federal subsidy divided by 31.2 million riders = $44.87 per ticket subsidized.

I don't know that $100 would FILL the gap. Let's make it $150. First class riders MUST pay their fair fare.

 

[Anderson]

So, I checked some numbers to check out a hunch. As I think we figured might be the case, it would seem that the massive growth on the Eagle was mostly down to CHI-STL (versus other LDs), as I suspected. From what I can tell based just on the 2012 ridership report, about half of the ridership growth year over year was CHI-STL; ridership on that section grew by somewhere around 32% versus 12.8% growth for the train as a whole of 12.8% (and non-IL growth of roughly 8.6%). This would explain the PPR dip this year...intrastate traffic in IL added substantial share on the train (23% vs. about 19.7% last year), adding about 25 more passengers per train (it was 106.5/train, which is more than a Superliner can hold). Mind you, the 2011 numbers are approximate and based off of the percentage increases indicated in the end-of-year announcement, but that is still a lot of riders.

It will be interesting to see what time savings do on this front over the next few years...Amtrak might need to add another car or two to the CHI-STL section in coming years to cope with demand there. This might actually do wonders for the TE's CR figures: If the demand continues to rise, another two cars on that section could easily pump a few million into the operating side here, not to mention buffing the performance of the cafe and diner. Assuming a 10% premium on the Lincoln Service's fares over the same stretch, 100/day (73,000/year) with PPR of $25 would come to $1.82m/year. At PPR of $30 (granted, a steep premium over average Lincoln fares), it would be $2.19m/year for very little added operating cost (since I don't think these cars need a coach attendant).

		2011	2012
CHI-STL Lincoln	549465	597519
CHI-STL Total	608373	675295	(2011 Approx)
CHI-STL Eagle	 58908	 77776	(2011 Approx
Eagle Growth		 38465	(+32%)
Of which in IL		 18868	Approx
Of which non-IL		 19597	Approx

Eagle Total	299508	337973	+12.8%
Eagle non-IL	239600	260197	+8.6%	
Eagle IL Share	19.69%	23.01%	+3.32%
Eagle non-IL	80.00%	76.99%	-3.01%

 

[Ryan]

1.4 billion in federal subsidy divided by 31.2 million riders = $44.87 per ticket subsidized.

I don't know that $100 would FILL the gap. Let's make it $150. First class riders MUST pay their fair fare.

And what exactly do you think that would do to demand?

 

[NAVYBLUE]

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2743486

IF these figure are accurate or even believable I get :

455,000 sleeping passengers (2011) times $50 per sleeping car passenger equals $22,750,000 million in added revenue

http://www.examiner.com/article/amtrak-to-receive-new-cars-2012

$298,000, 000 million new car contract divided by 130 new cars equals approximately $2,292,000 million per car

Yea, they are not all the same exact types of cars, but a "CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEE" added to the sleeping car ticket would help pay for about (10) cars per year of the approximately (26) per year being built.

Now you have TWO options:

Raise sleeper car prices to help pay for SOME of the new car costs OR

Do nothing, **** and moan, ask for more money from Uncle Sam and then watch as LD segments are curtailed or disappear due to budget cuts.

I asked people at meal time on my last LD trip LAX-WAS-LAX about their experiences and whether they (SLEEPING CAR PASSENGERS) would accept a capitol improvement fee of $50-$100 per passenger if it was to be used ONLY for the purchase of new sleeper, dining and coach cars and about 7 out of 10 said yes. Yes, this was a small scientific sample, bit I feel the support is there. Some would not return but as ridership history continues to increase, we would pick up new sleeper customers as others depart.

Sleeper passengers for the most part go that way because they can afford it. They are not stupid people. Most of them know what it would cost them to fly or drive. My only caveat (for me personally) is the CIF can ONLY be used for new car purchases.

Hey, people have watched their ice cream go from a gallon to 1.5 gals, their cereal go to smaller size boxes, their candy bar sizes decrease, all the while the price stayed the same or actually increased. I haven't seen them going into the streets with torches threatening to burn the comapnies down.

Here the price may increase for the sleeper, but you are ACTUALLY getting something of value in return instead of a smaller ice cream container.

NAVYBLUE