Proposed LA-NY Train in 2000

[AlanB]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

I'll leave Tim to explain himself-- but he seemed to be gearing himself more towards Business traveller...

 

[AlanB]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

I'll leave Tim to explain himself-- but he seemed to be gearing himself more towards Business traveller...

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

I'll leave Tim to explain himself-- but he seemed to be gearing himself more towards Business traveller...

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

And NEC trains are... not?

 

[AlanB]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

I'll leave Tim to explain himself-- but he seemed to be gearing himself more towards Business traveller...

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

And NEC trains are... not?

They are, but no further expansion of those trains is needed at present.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Just for the record Tim, last year Amtrak collected more ticket revenue from those so called "vacation trains", than they collected from short haul trains, $414.6 Million from long haul and $368.8 from the short haul trains.

Assuming the NEC is included as "short haul", the FY 2008 ticket revenue for short haul trains was $1.319 billion.

Amtrak does not include the NEC in short haul/state sponsored trains category, which is what Tim seemed to be advocating for.

I'll leave Tim to explain himself-- but he seemed to be gearing himself more towards Business traveller...

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

And NEC trains are... not?

They are, but no further expansion of those trains is needed at present.

While I admit that the NEC is unique, having that ultra-high population density-- I am sure the contention could be made that if the other corridors were as developed as the NEC the "state sponsored" revenue would be through the roof.

At a loss, yes, but you could easily eke more money out of those areas.

 

[AlanB]

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

And NEC trains are... not?

They are, but no further expansion of those trains is needed at present.

While I admit that the NEC is unique, having that ultra-high population density-- I am sure the contention could be made that if the other corridors were as developed as the NEC the "state sponsored" revenue would be through the roof.

At a loss, yes, but you could easily eke more money out of those areas.

No doubt.

But then the same can be said for the LD's too. Increasing train length would generate more revenue, as would have two trains per major route. And while I don't subscribe to all the theories espoused by URPA, it is clear from Amtrak's numbers that increasing revenue on at least a few of the existing LD's like the EB probably would result in those trains actually making an above the rails profit like the Auto Train does.

Business/commuter runs have little hope of that. Acela only earns an above the rails profit because Amtrak considers maintaining the NEC to high speed standards to be a capital expense and not an operational expense. Not saying that's wrong, as I do believe that it really should be a capital expense. But listing it thusly does hide the fact that the NEC isn't profitable like many believe.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Which by and large are exactly what the state sponsored/short haul trains are geared for. Yes, there are a few exceptions like the Adirondack and the Vermonter (even though those trains do still manage to carry some business travelers), but most State sponsored trains are all about the business traveler.

And NEC trains are... not?

They are, but no further expansion of those trains is needed at present.

While I admit that the NEC is unique, having that ultra-high population density-- I am sure the contention could be made that if the other corridors were as developed as the NEC the "state sponsored" revenue would be through the roof.

At a loss, yes, but you could easily eke more money out of those areas.

No doubt.

But then the same can be said for the LD's too. Increasing train length would generate more revenue, as would have two trains per major route. And while I don't subscribe to all the theories espoused by URPA, it is clear from Amtrak's numbers that increasing revenue on at least a few of the existing LD's like the EB probably would result in those trains actually making an above the rails profit like the Auto Train does.

Business/commuter runs have little hope of that. Acela only earns an above the rails profit because Amtrak considers maintaining the NEC to high speed standards to be a capital expense and not an operational expense. Not saying that's wrong, as I do believe that it really should be a capital expense. But listing it thusly does hide the fact that the NEC isn't profitable like many believe.

Honestly that is a case-by-case basis, Alan. While I agree that adding/fiddling with the EB or Cardinal would help those routes out-- adding other service in places may reduce revenue for current routes--

For instance, if you made the Cardinal daily, you have four trains going between the NEC and CHI (five if you consider the LSL as two separate trains). There's some talk (chiefly amongst railfans) about re-instating a PHL/NYP-CHI Broadway Limited in addition to or in substitution of the Penny. There's only so many routes a passage can handle-- If you lengthened the route to bring back the Silver Palm you could get more out of the Silver Service-- but at that point the market is saturated with the Silvers and the AT.

Amtrak should be very careful about where/how it expands LD routes--