Joe Boardman talks LD trains to LA Times

[AlanB]

1. Ridership is up with no reason given for why but the very next point is that on-time performance is up. However, this is acknowledged as being tied to the recession, which is presumably a temporary condition. What will keep trains on-time in the future? What will keep ridership levels up once on-time performance resumes its usually dismal levels?

Ridership is up in part because of higher gas prices, in part because more people are simply returning to train in general (read, they're riding LRT, commuter, subways, etc) and decide to try Amtrak too, and probably in part due to better time keeping. Although the latter is debatable, since time keeping has only improved in the last year and a half or so, while ridership has pretty much been in a steady climb for the last 10 years.

As for what will keep trains on-time in the future, it's not just lower freight volume that is responsible for better time keeping. First, Amtrak took UP to court over its timekeeping, and UP capitulated and agreed to improve things. Then there is the bill passed by the Bush Administration that along with the PTC mandate, also for the first time gave the FRA some actual teeth to levy fines against freight RR's that excessively delay Amtrak. The threats of those fines caused a few of the lingerers to wake up and take notice of things.

Finally, the RR's seem to have finally come to the conclusion (in part probably due to Matt Rose of BNSF) that they will not be able to make the needed improvements for the future without some government help. The Fed won't be helping those who don't play nice with Amtrak.

 

[Guest]

Regarding small town stations. I don't know about every where, but along the City route only a few of the stations are staffed by amtrak. I have to drive two hours to buy a ticket if It needs to be done with an agent. Our small station is unmanned and amtrak has nothing to do with it. The next town north has volunteers that help with some services at certain times. The next town up has a dismal falling down wreck of a station that they have said for years they were going to improve an haven't, at least the last time I was though it. So amtrak is not saddled with anything like the stations railroads once manned. When I first moved here all the stations were manned by railroad staff, no longer.

No put down but have you considered moving somewhere not so remote,even lots of small towns have staffed stations!

 

[sunchaser]

Here's an excerpt from Part 1:

Amtrak’s president talked about the role of long-distance routes (he’s bullish) and why rail fares aren’t likely to go down any time soon.

and links to Part 2 and Part 3.

Mr. Boardman has some good notes. Enjoy.

If the stated reason for keeping the long-distance trains is to provide service to out-of-the-way rural towns--and not to keep rail enthusiasts and assorted train boosters enthralled--then why the need for so much fancy equipment? You could make do with coaches, a minimum-style diner ala CCC, and maybe berths. In fact, that is what Via Rail does to serve the rural denizens along its Canadian route.

But Via Rail also caters to the Amtrakapologist-types as well, offering superb first-class service for those willing to pay for it.

Why can't Amtrak do both? By adopting the Via Rail example, it certainly wouldn't lose more money on its long-distance routes than it does now (if you believe the 80% figure). It might also attract more riders from both spectrums: the rural folk that Amtrak says is the primary reason for the trains and the foamers who can't wait to get on another train.

One more thing: the rationale for not restarting LA-Vegas service is pretty thin. The decision logically would be based on ridership studies, not some argument about having to double-track the entire UP line from Yermo to Vegas. If the ridership would support the train--and equipment was available, I have little doubt that UP and Amtrak would reach agreement for at least a single train each way. The line is in as good shape today for a passenger train as it was more than a decade ago.

What "fancy equipment" are you referring to? Almost all the Amtrak equipment is quite old-and falling apart. The experts here can give you the ages of the equipment. The baggage cars & Pacific Parlor Cars are the oldest, IIRC around 50 to 60 years old.

Most of us don't drive a 50 year old car-in fact most of us don't drive a 30 year old car. Think about your car, if you have one, & see if it has any 'fancy equipment' on it. It's probably far more 'fancy' than most Amtrak cars.

IIRC Via Rail uses old stock purchased from Amtrak.

I'm not a railfan or foamer. Riding the train is fun, but we can't ride it a lot. We only have the CZ coming through here, so there are limited opportunities to ride.

There used to be an Amtrak train called the Desert Wind that went from SLC, to Las Vegas, to SNB (San Bernardino, Ca). It's too bad they aren't willing to reinstate it, but even if they said yes, apparently there is no equipment available to run that route again.

 

[Larry H.]

Regarding small town stations. I don't know about every where, but along the City route only a few of the stations are staffed by amtrak. I have to drive two hours to buy a ticket if It needs to be done with an agent. Our small station is unmanned and amtrak has nothing to do with it. The next town north has volunteers that help with some services at certain times. The next town up has a dismal falling down wreck of a station that they have said for years they were going to improve an haven't, at least the last time I was though it. So amtrak is not saddled with anything like the stations railroads once manned. When I first moved here all the stations were manned by railroad staff, no longer.

No put down but have you considered moving somewhere not so remote,even lots of small towns have staffed stations!

When I moved here we indeed did have an Amtrak manned station. About 15 years ago they decided the were going to eliminate a lot of agents and did away with the agent here and at most other small towns along this route. Our town foolishly tore down the abandoned station, but as interest grew again in rail travel they ended up building a small but satisfactory replica of a brick station. At least a place to wait out of the weather with a rest room and schedules available, but no input from amtrak for operations.

 

[frj1983]

Here's an excerpt from Part 1:

Amtrak’s president talked about the role of long-distance routes (he’s bullish) and why rail fares aren’t likely to go down any time soon.

and links to Part 2 and Part 3.

Mr. Boardman has some good notes. Enjoy.

If the stated reason for keeping the long-distance trains is to provide service to out-of-the-way rural towns--and not to keep rail enthusiasts and assorted train boosters enthralled--then why the need for so much fancy equipment? You could make do with coaches, a minimum-style diner ala CCC, and maybe berths. In fact, that is what Via Rail does to serve the rural denizens along its Canadian route.

But Via Rail also caters to the Amtrakapologist-types as well, offering superb first-class service for those willing to pay for it.

Why can't Amtrak do both? By adopting the Via Rail example, it certainly wouldn't lose more money on its long-distance routes than it does now (if you believe the 80% figure). It might also attract more riders from both spectrums: the rural folk that Amtrak says is the primary reason for the trains and the foamers who can't wait to get on another train.

One more thing: the rationale for not restarting LA-Vegas service is pretty thin. The decision logically would be based on ridership studies, not some argument about having to double-track the entire UP line from Yermo to Vegas. If the ridership would support the train--and equipment was available, I have little doubt that UP and Amtrak would reach agreement for at least a single train each way. The line is in as good shape today for a passenger train as it was more than a decade ago.

Oh crap here is that VIA Rail comparison again and I could just scream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VIA only runs their major LDS trains three-times-a-bloody-week, of course they can provide excellent equipment because in the down times they can really service the stuff and have it up to snuff...so perhaps ALL Amtrak trains should go tri-weekly so as to provide the VIA experience?

While some of VIA's equipment is much older it has been refurbished umpty-dumpty times because they kept the good Budd equipment and can easliy rotate it out on a TRI-weekly passenger train scehdule. But some of their equipment is also much newer (purchased from Europe). Add it up, less scheduled frequencies, less wear and tear and easier to service/repair.

Fancy equipment? I've never really considered anything that Amtrak has to be fancy. Workman-like, yes...Fancy, no.

And you obviously do not know much about Amtrak-hating UP.Amtrak: can we have an extra train between LA and Las Vegas? UP: we'll think about it and let you know, in about 50 years!

Now it seems to me, after reading Boardmann's comments about LDS, I'm having that strange feeling that the interviewer/author did not tell us everything he said but "cherry-picked" or chopped down to newspaper size what he did say. Possible?? I think so!

 

[LA Resident]

Here's an excerpt from Part 1:

Amtrak’s president talked about the role of long-distance routes (he’s bullish) and why rail fares aren’t likely to go down any time soon.

and links to Part 2 and Part 3.

Mr. Boardman has some good notes. Enjoy.

If the stated reason for keeping the long-distance trains is to provide service to out-of-the-way rural towns--and not to keep rail enthusiasts and assorted train boosters enthralled--then why the need for so much fancy equipment? You could make do with coaches, a minimum-style diner ala CCC, and maybe berths. In fact, that is what Via Rail does to serve the rural denizens along its Canadian route.

But Via Rail also caters to the Amtrakapologist-types as well, offering superb first-class service for those willing to pay for it.

Why can't Amtrak do both? By adopting the Via Rail example, it certainly wouldn't lose more money on its long-distance routes than it does now (if you believe the 80% figure). It might also attract more riders from both spectrums: the rural folk that Amtrak says is the primary reason for the trains and the foamers who can't wait to get on another train.

One more thing: the rationale for not restarting LA-Vegas service is pretty thin. The decision logically would be based on ridership studies, not some argument about having to double-track the entire UP line from Yermo to Vegas. If the ridership would support the train--and equipment was available, I have little doubt that UP and Amtrak would reach agreement for at least a single train each way. The line is in as good shape today for a passenger train as it was more than a decade ago.

Oh crap here is that VIA Rail comparison again and I could just scream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VIA only runs their major LDS trains three-times-a-bloody-week, of course they can provide excellent equipment because in the down times they can really service the stuff and have it up to snuff...so perhaps ALL Amtrak trains should go tri-weekly so as to provide the VIA experience?

While some of VIA's equipment is much older it has been refurbished umpty-dumpty times because they kept the good Budd equipment and can easliy rotate it out on a TRI-weekly passenger train scehdule. But some of their equipment is also much newer (purchased from Europe). Add it up, less scheduled frequencies, less wear and tear and easier to service/repair.

Fancy equipment? I've never really considered anything that Amtrak has to be fancy. Workman-like, yes...Fancy, no.

And you obviously do not know much about Amtrak-hating UP.Amtrak: can we have an extra train between LA and Las Vegas? UP: we'll think about it and let you know, in about 50 years!

Now it seems to me, after reading Boardmann's comments about LDS, I'm having that strange feeling that the interviewer/author did not tell us everything he said but "cherry-picked" or chopped down to newspaper size what he did say. Possible?? I think so!

I am well aware of Amtrak's problems with the Union Pacific on numerous routes throughout the country. I've been on many Amtrak trains delayed by interminable side shuntings from UP dispatchers. Having ridden VIA Rail, I am also well aware of its service schedule and lengthy dwell times at stations to minimize breakdowns, piles of trash and other aspects that otherwise detract significantly from the rider's rail experience.

What I would point out is that VIA Rail somehow manages to inculcate good, polite and consistent service from its employees, a feat that somehow continually escapes Amtrak. Of course Amtrak has some fine employees; it also has some terrible employees. And there is plenty of evidence on this forum that a rider can never be quite sure what he or she will experience.

I believe that VIA Rail employees are unionized. For that matter, so are employees at Southwest Airlines, another company that exemplifies stellar employee service overall. It's not rocket science. And Amtrak service consistency would not require tens of millions of Congressional appropriations, either.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I feel like we're romanticizing VIA a bit. It is impossible to say that all of their employees are stellar... its actually a minority of members here who have ridden them, and then you have to remember they ride routes like the Canadian, which is mainly a tourist train where the employees are trained to cater to tourists rather than actual travelers-- meaning pampering ect.

Anybody have VIAs ridership numbers? Dare we compare?

 

[Guest]

You are correct about Southwest Airlines and VIA, but incorrect about Amtrak not requiring tens of millions of dollars, ALL transportation requires Government subsidy, if not downright ownership, and I am speaking as one who has pretty much traveled world wide on every form of transportation known to man including via elephant!

If everyone who rides Amtrak reported the bad apples by name they can, and would be disciplined to include re-training or termination if need be! Of course most people dont wan t to get involved nowadays, they just want to rant and complain and join mobs and complain with no solution or involvement whatsoever! I always take time to thank service employees (they are the majority of thge jobs we have now BTW) for good service, call them to task when they dont do their jobs and I sure let their bosses know either way! I dont fly anymore but when I did airline service was pretty good with few exceptions, now it is pretty much terrible except for a few International Airlines but just like VIA, I dont want to pay $5,000 or more for this service! Amtrak can improve alot in most areas, it seems to be on track to do so, having an Administration that cares about it and that isnt trying to starve it to death sure helps!

 

[rrdude]

I'm not sure comparing ridership numbers will get us anywhere, other than to point out that VIA Rail serves significantly fewer PAX annually that NRPC does.

The point one poster made, and I highly agree, is the attitude of VIA Rail employees, or as was rightly pointed out, South West Airlines employees vs Amtrak employees.

I don't how Amtrak can do it, Lord knows, I went thru several "customer awareness" and "hospitality" type classes while serving On Board.

In my opinion, it's just too damn hard to get rid of arrogant, obnoxious, and rude employees. Amtrak has some GREAT employees too, anyone who's been lucky enuff to meet them knows what I'm talking about.

I'd LOVE to see a reality show about Amtrak employees and traveling on the Train and station agents, etc., etc., like the show

did when they spotlighted Southwest Airlines. THAT made for interesting TV....

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Ridership is up in part because of higher gas prices, in part because more people are simply returning to train in general (read, they're riding LRT, commuter, subways, etc) and decide to try Amtrak too, and probably in part due to better time keeping. Although the latter is debatable, since time keeping has only improved in the last year and a half or so, while ridership has pretty much been in a steady climb for the last 10 years.

Interesting hypothesis. However, the president's sole response was about on-time performance, which is in fact the very reason I'm able to ride Amtrak today. On-time performance is what makes train rides possible for the working class. It's also what kept me away from Amtrak for so many years. As soon as their on-time performance falls back to their usual levels they lose me as a paying customer. I only have so much time to get from point A to point B or the trip simply won't be possible. Vouchers won't do anything explain my delay to my boss. End of story.

As for what will keep trains on-time in the future, it's not just lower freight volume that is responsible for better time keeping. First, Amtrak took UP to court over its timekeeping, and UP capitulated and agreed to improve things. Then there is the bill passed by the Bush Administration that along with the PTC mandate, also for the first time gave the FRA some actual teeth to levy fines against freight RR's that excessively delay Amtrak. The threats of those fines caused a few of the lingerers to wake up and take notice of things.

I've read about that as well, but we must remember that so far these largely remain potential remedies that may or may not ever result in actual penalties. I should probably also state that the general view of Amtrak staff I've talked to about this has been lukewarm at best. They don't seem to think the long-term prospects will improve much due to lack of enforcement, and even though it looks good on paper I'm tempted to agree with them.

Finally, the RR's seem to have finally come to the conclusion (in part probably due to Matt Rose of BNSF) that they will not be able to make the needed improvements for the future without some government help. The Fed won't be helping those who don't play nice with Amtrak.

BNSF won't be able to make needed improvements without government help? You'd think they could ask UP how to get some free double-tracking on the taxpayer's dime. No actual concessions necessary. It's not like Berkshire Hathaway needs much help anyway.

 

[Larry H.]

Here's an excerpt from Part 1:

Amtrak’s president talked about the role of long-distance routes (he’s bullish) and why rail fares aren’t likely to go down any time soon.

and links to Part 2 and Part 3.

Mr. Boardman has some good notes. Enjoy.

If the stated reason for keeping the long-distance trains is to provide service to out-of-the-way rural towns--and not to keep rail enthusiasts and assorted train boosters enthralled--then why the need for so much fancy equipment? You could make do with coaches, a minimum-style diner ala CCC, and maybe berths. In fact, that is what Via Rail does to serve the rural denizens along its Canadian route.

But Via Rail also caters to the Amtrakapologist-types as well, offering superb first-class service for those willing to pay for it.

Why can't Amtrak do both? By adopting the Via Rail example, it certainly wouldn't lose more money on its long-distance routes than it does now (if you believe the 80% figure). It might also attract more riders from both spectrums: the rural folk that Amtrak says is the primary reason for the trains and the foamers who can't wait to get on another train.

One more thing: the rationale for not restarting LA-Vegas service is pretty thin. The decision logically would be based on ridership studies, not some argument about having to double-track the entire UP line from Yermo to Vegas. If the ridership would support the train--and equipment was available, I have little doubt that UP and Amtrak would reach agreement for at least a single train each way. The line is in as good shape today for a passenger train as it was more than a decade ago.

Oh crap here is that VIA Rail comparison again and I could just scream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VIA only runs their major LDS trains three-times-a-bloody-week, of course they can provide excellent equipment because in the down times they can really service the stuff and have it up to snuff...so perhaps ALL Amtrak trains should go tri-weekly so as to provide the VIA experience?

While some of VIA's equipment is much older it has been refurbished umpty-dumpty times because they kept the good Budd equipment and can easliy rotate it out on a TRI-weekly passenger train scehdule. But some of their equipment is also much newer (purchased from Europe). Add it up, less scheduled frequencies, less wear and tear and easier to service/repair.

Fancy equipment? I've never really considered anything that Amtrak has to be fancy. Workman-like, yes...Fancy, no.

And you obviously do not know much about Amtrak-hating UP.Amtrak: can we have an extra train between LA and Las Vegas? UP: we'll think about it and let you know, in about 50 years!

Now it seems to me, after reading Boardmann's comments about LDS, I'm having that strange feeling that the interviewer/author did not tell us everything he said but "cherry-picked" or chopped down to newspaper size what he did say. Possible?? I think so!

Please consider that before Amtrak nearly all major long distance trains operated on a daily schedule and when the railroads cared such as Santafe did you can rest assured that a train did not leave the station in poor shape. I have an old New York Central ad showing the passenger trains being cleaned and stocked, its a drawing kind of affair and it describes the large amount of people involved in being sure that every aspect of the equipment and food services were in tip top shape before returning to the next trip.. A three times a week schedule is not the standard from which to judge.

 

[Guest]

After our vigorous discussion of amenities customers may or may not wish for the fares they paid, its interesting that we see Broardman sitting in exactly the kind of passenger car surrounding that many people seem to expect.. Well evidently the management's private car hasn't discovered plastic seats and Spartan amenities? Then another nice shot of the coast starlight first class lounge, another car that almost no one gets to ride but a few selected customers on the west coast. So perhaps the management has the same attitude as seen by much of government now days, the perks go to the few and the rest of us can be happy with bench seating.

I did not either like to see him so off handedly dismiss the las vegas train as if unless someone spent lots of money, and not amtrak, they were not interested. Sounds like more of the same when it comes to the route structure. On the positive side he did say he would like to see the long distance fleet replaced in 10 or so years. I only hope he remembers his private car and coast starlight lounge when he is approving the new designs, what is good enough for the management and one premier train should be good enough for everyone. It was also telling that price structure of ever increasing rates is evidently fine with him. Perhaps I missed the part about encouraging ridership?

I've been on the private "President's Car" - it's really not that special. Private corporate cars are MUCH nicer! As to "plastic seats and spartan amenities"...not west of the Mississippi! The seats are all thickly padded and upholstered in cloth. And as far as being spartan, they are less so than any airplane coach section. And regarding the idea of a Vegas train, everyone wants it except UP - and THEY own the tracks!!

 

[AlanB]

I feel like we're romanticizing VIA a bit. It is impossible to say that all of their employees are stellar... its actually a minority of members here who have ridden them, and then you have to remember they ride routes like the Canadian, which is mainly a tourist train where the employees are trained to cater to tourists rather than actual travelers-- meaning pampering ect.

I've no doubt that we are romanticizing a bit. I've had some experience on VIA, all of it corridor so far. I'll be doing the Canadian very soon, but otherwise I've yet to ride any long distance trains in Canada. My experiences so far involve the Canadian portion of the Maple Leaf and a corridor run from Montreal to Toronto. And it's that corridor run that perfection broken.

Let me start by saying that in general, based upon personal observations and having read many reports and talked with other's who've also done VIA, that I do personally believe that overall VIA's customer service is ahead of Amtrak. But even VIA is not exempt from bad employees. Now to my story.

I was riding in First Class (now called business class) on the corridor. Upon boarding I started to stow my luggage in the floor based luggage module at the front of the FC car. One of the attendants, male, came up to me and requested that since my roll on bag wasn't that large that I put it in the overhead. While not impolite, the request wasn't made politely either. His demeaner implied his annoyance at having to ask me to put my stuff in the overhead.

I did comply with the request, putting my roll on in the overhead, but I was unable to put my computer backpack in the overhead. When I walked back to the front to put that in the rack, he rather nastily told me "I told you to put your stuff in the overhead, we need this for the bigger bags." At this point the rack was far from full, but as I later learned, boarding at the main station in Montreal is rather light. The train really fills up on the way out of the city. I explained that my bag would not fit in the overhead and walked away.

Five minutes later this obnoxious attendant proceded to pick up my personal luggage, march down the aisle with it, and roughly shoved it into the overhead bin and then slammed the door shut. Needless to say, I wasn't a happy camper. The other attendant, a very nice female, did proceed to provide otherwise excellant service to me for the rest of the trip and I didn't see much more of the male attendant. Upon disembarking, when I tipped her, I made mention within his hearing, that she had earned the tip; not him.

I later discovered that his forceful shoving of my backpack into the bin had both dislodged a water bottle stuck in the side that stayed behind and that it had broken a small maglight in the front, top compartment.

So again, while I do think that VIA manages to do considerably better in the customer service department, things aren't perfect. Finally, one other thought on all of this that could have some bearing on things, VIA in 2009 had 3,053 employees. Amtrak had 19,791 employees in 2009. Note: Both counts include management.

Anybody have VIAs ridership numbers? Dare we compare?

VIA carried 4,229,000 passengers in 2009.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

In other words, Amtrak is about a four or five times larger operation in terms of ridership and employees.

 

[TVRM610]

I feel like we're romanticizing VIA a bit. It is impossible to say that all of their employees are stellar... its actually a minority of members here who have ridden them, and then you have to remember they ride routes like the Canadian, which is mainly a tourist train where the employees are trained to cater to tourists rather than actual travelers-- meaning pampering ect.

I've no doubt that we are romanticizing a bit. I've had some experience on VIA, all of it corridor so far. I'll be doing the Canadian very soon, but otherwise I've yet to ride any long distance trains in Canada. My experiences so far involve the Canadian portion of the Maple Leaf and a corridor run from Montreal to Toronto. And it's that corridor run that perfection broken.

Let me start by saying that in general, based upon personal observations and having read many reports and talked with other's who've also done VIA, that I do personally believe that overall VIA's customer service is ahead of Amtrak. But even VIA is not exempt from bad employees. Now to my story.

I was riding in First Class (now called business class) on the corridor. Upon boarding I started to stow my luggage in the floor based luggage module at the front of the FC car. One of the attendants, male, came up to me and requested that since my roll on bag wasn't that large that I put it in the overhead. While not impolite, the request wasn't made politely either. His demeaner implied his annoyance at having to ask me to put my stuff in the overhead.

I did comply with the request, putting my roll on in the overhead, but I was unable to put my computer backpack in the overhead. When I walked back to the front to put that in the rack, he rather nastily told me "I told you to put your stuff in the overhead, we need this for the bigger bags." At this point the rack was far from full, but as I later learned, boarding at the main station in Montreal is rather light. The train really fills up on the way out of the city. I explained that my bag would not fit in the overhead and walked away.

Five minutes later this obnoxious attendant proceded to pick up my personal luggage, march down the aisle with it, and roughly shoved it into the overhead bin and then slammed the door shut. Needless to say, I wasn't a happy camper. The other attendant, a very nice female, did proceed to provide otherwise excellant service to me for the rest of the trip and I didn't see much more of the male attendant. Upon disembarking, when I tipped her, I made mention within his hearing, that she had earned the tip; not him.

I later discovered that his forceful shoving of my backpack into the bin had both dislodged a water bottle stuck in the side that stayed behind and that it had broken a small maglight in the front, top compartment.

So again, while I do think that VIA manages to do considerably better in the customer service department, things aren't perfect. Finally, one other thought on all of this that could have some bearing on things, VIA in 2009 had 3,053 employees. Amtrak had 19,791 employees in 2009. Note: Both counts include management.

Anybody have VIAs ridership numbers? Dare we compare?

VIA carried 4,229,000 passengers in 2009.

Compare that to my experience in COACH on the Amtrak Surfliner last month... the Conductor in a very professional way asked the man in front of me to please stow his lap top bag (which was on the seat next to him) in the overhead, then apologized and explained the train was going to be running at capacity today. The entire trip on the surfliner (both up and back) the staff was professional and polite. Yes I know Amtrak has a few grouchy/lazy employees, but many people on here act as though you can't ride an Amtrak train ever without running into a monster!

 

[Eric S]

TRAINS magazine compared Amtrak and VIA Rail in the May 2003 issue. The most recent figures in the issue are from 2001. I know Amtrak's ridership and revenues increased nearly every year since then, but I am not sure if VIA's figures showed steady growth in the 2000s as well.

Here are some of the figures for Amtrak and VIA Rail in 2001:

Passengers - Amtrak 23.4 million; VIA Rail 3.9 million (Amtrak 6 times larger)

Route-miles - Amtrak 22.3 thousand; VIA Rail 7.8 thousand (Amtrak 2.9 times larger)

Passenger-miles - Amtrak 5559 million; VIA Rail 921 million (Amtrak 6 times larger)

Train-miles - Amtrak 36.1 million; VIA Rail 6.7 million (Amtrak 5.4 times larger)

Passenger-miles per train-mile - Amtrak 154; VIA Rail 138 (Amtrak 11.6% larger)

Revenues - Amtrak 2109 million; VIA Rail 254 million (Amtrak 8.3 times larger)

Expenses - Amtrak 3288 million; VIA Rail 412 million (Amtrak 8 times larger)

Costs covered by revenues - Amtrak 64%; VIA Rail 61.5% (Amtrak 4.1% more efficient)

(I apologize if the format is hard to read.)

 

[LA Resident]

In other words, Amtrak is about a four or five times larger operation in terms of ridership and employees.

Yes, and Southwest Airlines is the largest domestic air carrier in the United States but has the highest-rated service. Size and number of employees does not correlate to quality. Big companies with well-designed and well-run employee training offer excellent service--even when their employees are unionized--and small companies with no union can offer lousy service if their personnel programs are poorly designed and overseen.

The question remains why Amtrak cannot offer consistent service. I would love to see a statistic on how many thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars are issued in vouchers each year. God only knows how many thousands of dollars of vouchers are issued to people on this forum alone!

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Because... they employ humans.

 

[sportbiker]

Because... they employ humans.

And Southwest doesn't?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Southwest's service isn't perfect either.

 

[LA Resident]

Good Grief, man. No one said they were perfect. But they are much better overall than Amtrak and the point is that perhaps, just perhaps, Amtrak might learn something to improve things by replicating whatever Southwest and other successful large operations do regarding customer service.

I almost think that those individuals so fiercely defensive of Amtrak believe that the rail service is so fragile that sustained criticism will doom it. To the contrary, Amtrak improvement would bring about more ridership because the occasional rider would go back and ride again instead of saying 'never again' when the initial experience proves so costly, both in terms of money and psyche.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

At least they are better than AirTran, Delta, and a few others IMO-- I'd say driving in the middle lane is fine for them right now given their position.

 

[Donctor]

To the contrary, Amtrak improvement would bring about more ridership because the occasional rider would go back and ride again instead of saying 'never again' when the initial experience proves so costly, both in terms of money and psyche.

You're right. If you have a plan for reform that would remedy whatever problem you're identifying, I'm sure Amtrak is all ears (as they have yet to solve the problem themselves, and might actually need the help).

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I wouldn't fly Southwest anyway, no matter how good the service is. I'm a big guy-- I'd have to buy two seats anyway. For that money I could easily afford a roomette on Amtrak.

 

[Donctor]

I wouldn't fly Southwest anyway, no matter how good the service is. I'm a big guy-- I'd have to buy two seats anyway. For that money I could easily afford a roomette on Amtrak.

On some routes, you certainly could not.