Justification for LD trains

[cirdan]

I still don't think Amtrak is very effective at producing alternate revenue streams - ie: rent to vendors at Amtrak owned stations, advertising (which has recently improved in the time tables), etc.

I think there is also a limit to how much rent you can squeeze out of a given location. Remember that some businesses in stations also serve Amtrak's passengers and are thus part of the overall passenger offering. If you squeeze out a shop that sells light refreshments or a diner because a lawyer's office is willing to pay higher rents, you are damaging the overall amenities and service of the station.

I don't think adverisements on timetables bring in big cash either. Maybe they cover the costs of printing, but I doubt this is a big cash spinner.

 

[PRR 60]

One of the areas for ancillary revenue where Amtrak has been active is leasing of property or otherwise granting of rights on property for third party uses. Such uses as power transmission overbuilds and fiber optic cable occupancies represent pure profit for Amtrak. It costs Amtrak nothing (or next to nothing) and provides a nice, annual revenue stream. Sometimes there is a conflict between the real estate people (who push such transactions) and old-school operating people (who just do not want to be bothered), but over the last 20 years or so, even the ops people are getting with the plan.

Real estate development overbuilds, like the Cira Center next to 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, are another opportunity. Amtrak is a huge land owner in the NEC, and much of that land is ripe for developments like the Cira Center. Real estate is a valuable asset. As long as it can be developed without an impact on the core operations of Amtrak, it is an asset worth engaging for revenue.

 

[user 1215]

I agree about the timetables, but it's a start. But I don't know that the stations are all being utilized to their fullest potential. WAS and NYP are pretty packed, for sure. But are all the other stations that are open 24/7? Heck - I'd like to see a hot dog cart at Savannah between 6 PM and 1 AM followed by a breakfast cart between 4 AM and 9 AM. But SAV isn't owned by Amtrak. If I want to try that sort of business, the revenue would all go to the city. Perhaps if Amtrak had subletting rights...

I've brought this up several times - JR East owns their own power plants. Gives them wholesale rates on electricity and they can sell to the grid in their off-peak times (which would be between morning and evening rush and peak business power usage).

 

[Paulus]

Real estate is valuable, but it really doesn't bring in all that much money. The Apple Store in Grand Central, for instance, only pays $1.1 million per year (which is still more than four times the previous tenant). What real estate is good for, however, is drawing in people using the trains and raking in money that way. The best thing to do is to use the real estate to make the station itself a destination, solving the last mile problem in that fashion.

 

[user 1215]

That's exactly what several 2nd tier railroad companies in Japan do. They are actually owned by department stores (Tokkyu, Seibu, Keio, etc) and facilitate transit to/from their big stores.

 

[cirdan]

I've brought this up several times - JR East owns their own power plants. Gives them wholesale rates on electricity and they can sell to the grid in their off-peak times (which would be between morning and evening rush and peak business power usage).

Swiss railways, SBB, also own a number of power plants and also own their own power grid and so can move power from one region of the system to another without having to rely on the national grid. Because there are several converter stations in which national power can be exchanged with railroad power (it's not that simple as the frequency is different, hence requiring special converters) they can actually let out spare capacity on their power lines at times that they're not using them to capacity. Furthermore, some of their power plants are actually pumped hydro meaning they can buy surplus power and store it when its cheap and sell it back when its expensive.

They're also doing quite well in terms of engineering and workshop capacity and capability and do a fair bit of maintenance and repair works for other railroads, including some high-profile stuff for DB's ICE 1 fleet.

And of course they have integrated shopping malls into some of their bigger stations such as at Zurich and Berne.

 

[jis]

What does owning power grids have to do with justification for LD trains?

It would have something to do if there was a reasonable chance of reducing the deficit of the LD network using a power grid and generating capacity owned by Amtrak. But unfortunately that capability exists only on the NEC, which we already know is being clearly separated financially from the LD network. It is also not obvious how many stations on the LD network are owned by Amtrak allowing it to actually make significant money selling space lease etc. Even the crown jewel and the center of the LD world, Chicago Union Station is not owned by Amtrak. I wonder if anyone has created a consolidated list of Amtrak ownerships. The info is available at http://www.greatamericanstations.com/, but is tedious to extract from there into a usable list/spreadsheet.

 

[PRR 60]

What does owning power grids have to do with justification for LD trains?

It would have something to do if there was a reasonable chance of reducing the deficit of the LD network using a power grid and generating capacity owned by Amtrak. But unfortunately that capability exists only on the NEC, which we already know is being clearly separated financially from the LD network. It is also not obvious how many stations on the LD network are owned by Amtrak allowing it to actually make significant money selling space lease etc. Even the crown jewel and the center of the LD world, Chicago Union Station is not owned by Amtrak. I wonder if anyone has created a consolidated list of Amtrak ownerships. The info is available at http://www.greatamericanstations.com/, but is tedious to extract from there into a usable list/spreadsheet.

Actually, Chicago Union Station is owned by Amtrak. The station is technically owned by the Chicago Union Station Company (CUSCo). CUSCo was once a joint venture of the various railroads that served Union Station. Amtrak took 100% ownership of CUSCo in 1984 when the last remaining private railroad ownership shares were purchased by Amtrak.

 

[neroden]

Can someone show me, outside the NEC, where Amtrak is actually faster than driving? There may be, but where?

Faster? Maybe not at the moment. But close enough to be competitive. And within striking distance of faster, given fairly small improvements.

Lake Shore Limited, Syracuse to Chicago:

Google claims 10 hrs. 5 min. driving. If you're a maniac, you can do this; otherwise, you can't. First, you have to stop for food; second, you get caught in Chicago-area traffic. In *practice*, my family generally had to get a hotel near Cleveland, even with two drivers; once you stop to eat lunch and dinner, and deal with traffic, you're up to 13 hrs+.

13 hrs 4 min on the train -- sleep while you travel. Time which you would spend sleeping anyway.

Silver Service, NY to Savannah:

11 hrs. 57 min. driving under ideal conditions; 12 hrs. 45 min. "in current traffic". Alternate routes are hours longer, and of course traffic can be worse.

14 hrs. 58 min. by Palmetto.

15 hrs. 29 min. by Silver Meteor, sleep while you travel.

California Zephyr, Chicago to Denver:

14 hrs. 9 min. driving under ideal conditions. Same points apply as above.

17 hrs. 15 min by train, sleep while you travel.

Yes, these trains are attractive alternatives to driving, and fairly small improvements can make them significantly more attractive alternatives.

Only certain trains have these characteristics. Some really don't.

Coast Starlight, Portland to Sacramento:

8 hrs. 44 min. driving under ideal conditions;

10 hrs. 15 min on back roads with traffic

15 hrs. 50 min. on the Coast Starlight.

When I first looked this up, I laughed and wondered why the Starlight had any ridership at all. You might look at the Starlight ridership through the Oregon mountains as the core level of "won't fly, won't drive" ridership for a train which is fundamentally not competitive.

And it would cost a real fortune to improve the Coast Starlight route through the mountains of Oregon. Improving the Silver Service or LSL routes is comparatively cheap, and benefits a bunch of corridor trains too.

-----

First of all backscatter scanners have been decommissioned and the few remaining are on their way out.

Yeah, they didn't really do anything useful anyway. This is what one would expect from a corrupt sweetheart deal.

I was one of the people who very vocally said that the TSA checks to quite an extent are more for the show value than for anything substantive.

Yes, you did, and I tip my hat to you.

This is why I believe that security checks are useful but the over the top nonsense that started after 9/11 has got to be dialed back, and that is happening slowly.

I really hope it does get dialed back. It's taking a very long time. It's been 13 years already. Maybe they'll have it dialed back to a reasonable level in another 30? :-( I'd kind of like to go up in airplanes again, but it's just not worth it right now (since I am an *infrequent* traveller).
The general assessment by security analysts is that the only useful procedural change made since 9/11/2001 was locking the cockpit door. The other very useful change is that passengers will no longer cooperate with hijackers -- but that happened *on the day of* 9/11/2001, the moment the passengers on flight 93 learned about the first attack on the WTC...

Of course, if that is cause for some to not fly, that is fine. That is their right and more power to them.

Why thank you

...unless there is a huge exodus from flying. And trust me if that were happening the TSA thing would get adjusted faster than you can say boo, to make sure that enough people continue to fly to make the air transport business worthwhile.

I'm really suspicious that what has been done is to eliminate the security theater for frequent travellers, while retaining all the nonsense for infrequent travellers. Frequent travellers are where most of the money was in the airline industry, last time I checked 20 years ago. This makes me pessimistic about whether they will ever remove the security theater for everyone *else*. But I hope you're right.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

For speed... I don't think there are any long distance trains that are faster than driving. ...

Over some segments, there are indeed LD trains that are faster than driving … The Southwest Chief takes 7 hours and 11 minutes over the 437 miles from Chicago to Kansas City. Google Maps gives the fastest driving time as 7 hours and 49 minutes over 511 miles from Chicago Union Station to Kansas City Union Station. ... The CHI-KCY is one of the fastest long segments on the LD train routes outside of the NEC with a 60 mph average speed. Helps to be on a high quality transcon.

Interesting that the Southwest Chief moves so fast Chicago-Kansas City, because I see this segment as a way to improve the long distance train's performance. The current timetable shows a 3 p.m. Chicago departure and an arrival in Kansas City at 10:15 or so (but closer to midnight most of the year). It's 7:30 a.m. out of KCY with a 3:15 scheduled arrival in CHI. Adding one more frequency -- a morning train out of CHI and an afternoon train out of KCY -- could double and more the passenger total here.

With a trip time of about 7 hours, an overnight train leaving CHI at 10 p.m. (no supper, no breakfast: no diner) would be a bit too fast, LOL. But every freight operator knows how to put an Amtrak train on a siding to pass some time, in this case allowing riders to get 8 hours of sleep.

Because the route is well under 750 miles, any added trains would need state support. Illinois already has a couple that go part way (CHI-Galesburg), and the Quad Cities train will overlay the route for nearly 100 miles out of CHI. That state has a good record of supporting trains, but adding two more to CHI-KCY might be low on the wish list. Missouri supports the River Runners to KCY from St Louis, but asking for more trains to KCY could make the other parts of the state jealous and unwilling to put in even a few million a year. Iowa won't support service beyond the Quad Cities to Iowa City, then Des Moines, and Omaha, eventually to Denver, so I'd expect no help from them.

Meanwhile the CHI-KCY route would need investment, no doubt, with the more bypass tracks, a wider bridge here or there, another double-tracked section, and what have you, to make room for more passenger trains on the transcon route. At least it wouldn't be constrained by a narrow right of way like the Empire Corridor in Upstate New York.

Another added frequency could come from a Heartland Flyer from Fort Worth, or better from San Antonio (overlapping and adding a frequency to the Texas Eagle for this populous segment) to extend north of Oklahoma City, thru Wichita, then KCY-CHI. That would be over 750 miles and Amtrak would be kinda sorta allowed to handle that. But to get it going would probably require state support and that's hard to see. Kansas cut taxes on the rich (Koch Brothers) so drastically that it had to cut state aid to schools, and that leaves zilch for trains.

None of these trains would be easy to add. The usual suspects: the prolonged equipment shortage, the need for state (and/or federal) support and investment.

Still, the main points: 1) The cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. 2) As Amtrak grows, revenue growth should outstrip overhead growth. As costs are spread over more trains and more passengers, the financial results will improve. 3) More frequencies seem to increase ridership even more than the added seat capacity, by creating new markets (chiefly, one-day or two-day go-and-return trips). 4) The Eastern trains often overlap and benefit from being part of corridor service, while few Western trains enjoy those shared costs and additional markets.

My father dabbled in politics, and used to say, "You can't beat somebody with nobody, and you can't beat something with nothing." So the haters propose to cut the LD train with the biggest losses. That would be the Sunset Ltd this year And next year? And the year after that? To beat the haters, we need to advocate for a bigger and better Amtrak. And we just might get it.

 

[neroden]

At least it wouldn't be constrained by a narrow right of way like the Empire Corridor in Upstate New York.

I assume you mean the Hudson River segment. West of Schenectady, the Empire Corridor ROW is a minimum of four tracks wide all the way to Buffalo, with multiple redundant and parallel ROWs available as well. When CSX makes claims about narrow ROW, they are just being gratuitously obstructive.

Another added frequency could come from a Heartland Flyer from Fort Worth, or better from San Antonio (overlapping and adding a frequency to the Texas Eagle for this populous segment) to extend north of Oklahoma City, thru Wichita, then KCY-CHI. That would be over 750 miles and Amtrak would be kinda sorta allowed to handle that.

This is a sensible route.
Unfortunately, it would probably require the removal of the insane Brownback faction from Kansas politics -- Brownback's currently driving Kansas bankrupt, and he may actually succeed at doing so -- there's no precedent for a state bankruptcy, but he could pull it off at this rate. About half of Kansas voters have figured this out, but the other half are still voting to destroy their state.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article3734645.html

We're gonna see nothing, nothing, nothing from Kansas until 2019, and even after that, Kansas will have a giant hole to dig out of. If we're very lucky the City of Wichita might do something; the most they would conceivably be able to finance would be improvements to the Wichita station for a reroute of the SW Chief, though.

So any Chicago - Kansas City improvements are going to dead end at Kansas City for the foreseeable future.

I'd expect to see a change in mood in Iowa sooner than a change in Kansas. The Quad Cities and Iowa City already clearly want service, there's agitation for service in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids as well... and the service to Moline is going to be operating, creating service envy, soon. The anti-rail caucus is already relatively weak in Iowa. Branstead isn't an ideologue, and he hedges all his statements, so he will flip positions the moment the legislature flips their position, or the moment he sees public opinion moving.

 

[JoeBas]

I'm really suspicious that what has been done is to eliminate the security theater for frequent travellers, while retaining all the nonsense for infrequent travellers. Frequent travellers are where most of the money was in the airline industry, last time I checked 20 years ago. This makes me pessimistic about whether they will ever remove the security theater for everyone *else*. But I hope you're right.

Of course for a properly sized tribute/bribe to the governing agency (er, I'm sorry, "Administrative fee"), you TOO can purchase pre-check for a mere $85 for 5 years, and received more-equal-than-others status at the checkpoint.

Which just goes to show that any would-be ne'er-do-well's don't even need to invest the time to build up a frequent flyer cover. They just need to have someone who's clean and has $85 bucks to spare.

 

[Ispolkom]

Which just goes to show that any would-be ne'er-do-well's don't even need to invest the time to build up a frequent flyer cover. They just need to have someone who's clean and has $85 bucks to spare.

That would be true only if the present security theater added any security value to that obtained by the TSA precheck.

I doubt that is the case.