Sleeping cars under attack

[Trogdor]

Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.

Since this topic is about sleeping cars (and not, say, NEC trains), there would be virtually no additional infrastructure needed to absorb the displaced passengers. The Coast Starlight runs with three sleepers during the summer. If we were to assume an average of 40 passengers per car (which is quite an assumption, as that would mean practically no single travelers), you'd need to find space on the highways, in the airways, and on buses, to accommodate, at most, 120 people per day. That's assuming that everyone still travels if the train isn't available.

Spread those 120 folks out (it's not like they'd all still wind up traveling at the exact same time, as they have to now with the once per day train schedule), and you'd need to find capacity for, on average, 5 people per hour. Our infrastructure wouldn't even notice the difference.

That's why I'm saying we shouldn't even lend any credibility to the per-passenger numbers. You'd lose pretty badly when compared to other modes.

 

[dlagrua]

Absolutely agree and considering that Amtrak recieves only 1 per cent of the total transportation department budget, the most conservative and the most liberal members of congress should be very pleased. Its unfair to pick on little Amtrak as being a significant source of our budget deficit. As the Lion pointed out, if we eliminated Amtrak completely other transportation modes ( bus, plane, car) will need to absorb the passenger numbers. The improved infrastructure costs associated with this are not free and also look at how many American jobs would be lost. I really like the way politicans operate. They site one point in a political issue and build their argument around that. You never hear the rest of the story or should I say the whole story with those dirtbags. Its always a very adverserial process that never considers the whole picture.

Since this topic is about sleeping cars (and not, say, NEC trains), there would be virtually no additional infrastructure needed to absorb the displaced passengers. The Coast Starlight runs with three sleepers during the summer. If we were to assume an average of 40 passengers per car (which is quite an assumption, as that would mean practically no single travelers), you'd need to find space on the highways, in the airways, and on buses, to accommodate, at most, 120 people per day. That's assuming that everyone still travels if the train isn't available.

Spread those 120 folks out (it's not like they'd all still wind up traveling at the exact same time, as they have to now with the once per day train schedule), and you'd need to find capacity for, on average, 5 people per hour. Our infrastructure wouldn't even notice the difference.

That's why I'm saying we shouldn't even lend any credibility to the per-passenger numbers. You'd lose pretty badly when compared to other modes.

About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement

 

[Donctor]

About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement

Long-distance services do not account for 50% of Amtrak's ridership.

Question: Does "30 million travelers" mean "30 million different people," or does it mean "30 million tickets sold"?

 

[Trogdor]

About 30 million travelers use Amtrak trains yearly. If the sleepers go away most of the LD trains will fold and you could lose 50% of the ridership. That's 15 million people that could potentially take other modes of transportation. Thats significant, not a drop in the bucket. I maintain that it will require an infrastructure improvement

Excluding the Auto Train, the highest-capacity long-distance train is the Empire Builder, with three Superliner sleepers (plus four rooms sold in the transition sleeper), and five coaches (if you count the local coach to MSP).

That gives you a maximum capacity of about 500 people at any given time. The Lake Shore Limited has capacity for around 450. Many other trains have much less capacity.

Given the once-per-day frequency, that means that any given segment of a long-distance train is going to have no more than 500 people per day traveling over it. That's 20 people per hour. Spread over the other modes (driving, riding a bus, flying, hitchhiking, walking, biking, etc.), the infrastructure will not notice the difference.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Many costs associated with the running of long distance trains are fixed. That is, if we removed the LD trains, many of the costs of operation of the LD trains would have to be redistributed to the remaining short distance trains. The cost of operation of the LD trains is extremely small. If I were to hazard a guess, first of all the number usually quoted ($375 million) is high. Amtrak is a government agency. It would increase costs via increased inefficiency as a result. I'd say the real number would be closer to $200 million.

It costs us $200 million a year to provide transportation to remote areas of the northwest, and to areas of WV and KY that have limited other service, via the Cardinal and Empire Builder. We provide access to a few isolated areas of Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas. And we run trains, providing service to about 10 million people per year.

While most of those 10 million could realistically be relocated to other transportation methods with limited pain to the overall system. several of those trains don't fall into that category. The Cardinal, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited provide access to areas not served well by roads. To provide a lifeline to those communities, superior roads and infrastructure would have to be built and maintained.

Our long distance trains cost very little to operate, in the overall scheme of things. Especially for what we get in return for their operation.

 

[AlanB]

If we were to assume an average of 40 passengers per car (which is quite an assumption, as that would mean practically no single travelers), you'd need to find space on the highways, in the airways, and on buses, to accommodate, at most, 120 people per day.

While I agree overall with your conclusions, assuming 40 passenger per car isn't really as big an assumption as you think it is. You're counting the capacity of the car and assuming end to end ridership, something that almost never happens. Generally at least 3 or 4 rooms will turn over during the trip, making it quite likely that the loss of any one sleeper could displace as many as 40 people.

Again, that's still 1/1000th of a drop in a bucket.

 

[AlanB]

Via has learned how to market the long distance market with the likes of the Canadian. During the summer the train is over 20 cars long with only a couple of coaches. My brother just sent me a picture from Jasper of a 25 car Canadian. That means it had probably 17 sleeping cars or almost 400 first class passengers vs probably around 100 coach. Just for comparison, the one way fare, Vancouver to Toronto, coach is around $600cad, a roomette is $1600cad during this peak season. All the bedrooms were sold out through August and possibly beyond. Compare that with the Empire Builder where the coach seat is $263 Chicago to Seattle and not sold out. Whereas I had to look for several days to find sleeping car space of any kind. A Roomette was an additional $661. Total fare is probably half that of the Canadian. In other words, Amtrak is a bargain. Empire Builder is 2200 miles vs Canadian 2700.

I just came off the Canadian on Tuesday. We were sold out (at least in the sleepers) during the first leg Vancouver to Jasper, with 320 passengers on board and 29 crew members who do occupy sleepers in the revenue cars, no dorms. We had 2 engines, 1 bag, 3 coaches, 4 dome cars, 1 Colorado Railcar Sightseer lounge style car (VAC-Edmonton), 2 diners, and 13 sleepers. Note the Park car also has sleepers in addition to the dome.

 

[AlanB]

The situation [described] involves the feds handing money to both coach and first class boardings, and then the first class hands a part of their share to coach. Both are getting subsidized, and the "re-gifting" can't really be used to mask that. To put it yet another way, a charity case giving part of his donations to his friend is still a charity case.

So the officials are talking about ending subsidies for first class passengers, and the NARP is pointing out that it would increase the cost of subsidizing coach to the same levels. Right. But at the same time it would save money overall because the first class passengers wouldn't be taking their cut of the charity, and that's what these officials are specifically looking to gain.

If the first class passengers were able to completely pay their costs--and not just pay the cost difference for first class amenities--then the NARP's position would be bulletproof. That is, however, not the case.

That's only valid if the would-be sleeping car passengers turned to another transportation method and didn't require any subsidization.

If all of the sleeper passengers became coach passengers (and therefor required the larger subsidy), the overall costs would go up considerably.

I don't think that we have the data to calculate where the break even point would be, nor do we have the data on what sleeper passengers would do if the sleepers would be eliminated to determine the impact on overall cost to the taxpayers. But it most assuredly isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

You're both falling into the same trap that anti-Amtrak folks like to set, which is this idea of a per-passenger subsidy.

Passengers are not subsidized. It is the train service that is subsidized. This may be a matter of semantics, but it makes a difference when one approaches how to solve the "problem" (if you will) of service that doesn't make money.

Every passenger that buys a ticket reduces the amount of subsidy required to operate the train. The cost of the crew, fuel, maintenance, etc. does not change significantly with every ticket that is or isn't sold.

You can't easily say that passengers don't cover their costs, because the incremental cost of moving one passenger is very small. I also don't see how, in a theoretical situation where all sleeping car passengers became coach passengers, costs would go up considerably. Losses would likely increase, because revenue would go down significantly, but the cost of operating the train wouldn't change, except for, perhaps, a bit of a staffing adjustment on board.

But, if the incremental cost of carrying a passenger is less than the fare they paid, you really can't say that the passenger is being subsidized.

While Trogdor is quite correct in his evaluation, let me just comment a bit on something that Volkris mentioned.

If we follow the logic that you're suggesting the politicians are applying to things, then that means that we also need to eliminate first class air travel too. After all, those sitting in first class on an airplane are still availing themselves of the subsidies to the FAA to help run the Air Traffic Control system.

I wonder what our Congress Reps will think of coach travel on a plane. :unsure:

 

[Ispolkom]

I just came off the Canadian on Tuesday.

May we hope for a report?

 

[Trogdor]

While I agree overall with your conclusions, assuming 40 passenger per car isn't really as big an assumption as you think it is. You're counting the capacity of the car and assuming end to end ridership, something that almost never happens. Generally at least 3 or 4 rooms will turn over during the trip, making it quite likely that the loss of any one sleeper could displace as many as 40 people.

Again, that's still 1/1000th of a drop in a bucket.

I actually did think about turnover, but decided that it wasn't really relevant to the argument being made.

For example, if someone has a sleeper on the Empire Builder CHI-MSP, and someone else gets in that room and rides MSP-SEA, then, if we assume that those people decide to drive instead if the train isn't available, then person A will use the interstate highway system between Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, and person B would use the highways from Minneapolis to Seattle. Therefore, in any given segment of the route, the infrastructure would really only have to accommodate the theoretical maximum capacity of the train for that segment.

So, just like you don't need 800 seats in order for the Empire Builder to serve 800 passengers on its end-to-end trip (which it routinely does during the busy season), you wouldn't need capacity for those 800 people across the entire route on other modes, should the train not be there. This speaks to dlagrua's claim that dumping 15 million people onto other modes would require a capacity improvement (even if we were to assume that the number really was 15 million). The most any given segment would have to accommodate would be the peak capacity that is currently provided by the LD trains in question. As I noted earlier, that would amount to a maximum of about 500 people per day on any corridor outside of the Auto Train/NE-Florida service.

 

[Spokker]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

 

[jphjaxfl]

A high percentage of Americans have no idea that passenger train service or Amtrak exist. When you mention traveling by train to many, they seem confused. Because most are familiar with air travel, they assume that traveling by train is similar to air travel where passengers just sit in seats for the duration of the trip. They have no idea you can sleep in a small hotel room, eat in a restuarant or a snack bar or enjoy the view in a lounge car. So when Representatives and the press bash Amtrak and sleeping cars, most just accept that this is something that a few wealthy Americans use and it won't effect most people if it went away. NARP and others need to get the word out to Americans about rail travel. The subsidy for Amtrak is so miniscule to the overall Federal budget that ending the subsidy would do very little and it would drive more people to the airways and highway who have strong lobbyists again anything to do with rail passengers.

 

[sher]

These kinds of nonsense things like "u-cut" never work or mean much. Why? Because you can't get a lot of people to agree on cutting a particular item. Such a group focused on general cost cutting is too disorganized to do anything. Also, they have amazingly bogus numbers.

There are no additional subsidies for Amtrak sleeper passengers, period. Amtrak sleeper passengers pay the full cost of their first class service, and then some.

In response to your YouCut See what happens with it Jan 1, 2011. Since the Dems had the house no way for anything to pass - You ask the republicans what they would cut they have been working on it for a year asking the people.

 

[me_little_me]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

Trains can bring other benefits ala Auto-Train - the ability to move one's car long distances. Unfortunately, Amtrak has chosen to only implement this on one route.

One can only dream they had the money to buy more sleepers, coaches, diners and car carriers. The incremental cost of adding more cars to a train is comparatively low.

I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.

 

[Trogdor]

I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.

That's basically how service in California, Oregon, and Washington works.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

Trains can bring other benefits ala Auto-Train - the ability to move one's car long distances. Unfortunately, Amtrak has chosen to only implement this on one route.

One can only dream they had the money to buy more sleepers, coaches, diners and car carriers. The incremental cost of adding more cars to a train is comparatively low.

I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.

The problem with looking at other routes for the Auto Train is that the one time that was tried (Louisville to Florida), it was a spectacular bust. Now granted, it would be nice if they could run the train further up the East Coast (I rather suspect they could pack a train from Philly or NJ to Florida), but that runs into engineering difficulties on at least a few line segments (the Baltimore tunnels leap to mind, and acc. to the wiki, the cars can't make the First Street tunnel). Also, a longer run would probably require more than two equipment sets to complete.

 

[me_little_me]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

Trains can bring other benefits ala Auto-Train - the ability to move one's car long distances. Unfortunately, Amtrak has chosen to only implement this on one route.

One can only dream they had the money to buy more sleepers, coaches, diners and car carriers. The incremental cost of adding more cars to a train is comparatively low.

I wonder if it would be economical for Amtrak to provide just the motive power and service i.e. companies/states buy cars and get the revenue from them minus Amtrak's fixed fee for providing the running of the cars.

The problem with looking at other routes for the Auto Train is that the one time that was tried (Louisville to Florida), it was a spectacular bust. Now granted, it would be nice if they could run the train further up the East Coast (I rather suspect they could pack a train from Philly or NJ to Florida), but that runs into engineering difficulties on at least a few line segments (the Baltimore tunnels leap to mind, and acc. to the wiki, the cars can't make the First Street tunnel). Also, a longer run would probably require more than two equipment sets to complete.

I meant the concept of carrying cars. Personally, as used, I think the Auto-train is ill-conceived as a concept. There may be enough business to keep that particular route going but single entry/single exit is too limiting. Putting car-carrying at major cities could be more widespread. For example, having car pickup near Chicago, Denver and LA along the route of the CZ or DC , Atlanta and New Orleans along the Crescent would allow drivers along those routes to load/unload cars. There would be limitations - near major cities, stops in daylight only, etc. In Atlanta, the Gainesville station would probably have to be used as the car loading/dropoff. The Piedmont trains (Charlotte to Raleigh) might be ideal also. A future LA to Vegas train might even be better for this.

The point is that Amtrak is going to have to be a little creative in highlighting its advantages over cars and planes.

 

[Anderson]

Well, I think it's increasingly obvious that there is the demand for an LA-LV service of some kind, preferably HSR but possibly something else as well. 265 miles is a rather long drive for a weekend in Vegas, and given the tendency for CA's gas prices to be a bit on the high side (You're over $3 everywhere up until you get to LV, and even there the best you're getting is about $2.90 for unleaded)...the LA-LV run is going to be about 10 gallons of gas each way, so your base cost is $30-50 (depending on your car) each way. Rail isn't quite competitive with that alone, but if you can make it competitive on the timing as well (4-5 hours), I think you've got a winner if you avoid airport security and can get the station as close to the Strip and McCarran as possible (why McCarran, you ask? Oddly enough, if you get good on-time ratings for the train, there are enough cheap-due-to-casino-demand seats in and out of Las Vegas that I wouldn't be surprised if a canny traveler couldn't use a train-plane link to actually save money between the two, in the vein of driving to DC to save money versus Richmond...the difference is close to $100 in some cases). Granted, a lot of this is going to come down to your per-ticket cost, but seeing as there's only one "real" stop to be had between Las Vegas and the LA metro (Barstow)? I think it's a winner if they can keep the trip time sane.

 

[leemell]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

There is at least one other reason: alternative long distance transportation. We discovered that on 9/11. With airlines grounded there was only one LD public transportation and it was instantly completely booked. This actually has strategic importance.

 

[leemell]

Well, I think it's increasingly obvious that there is the demand for an LA-LV service of some kind, preferably HSR but possibly something else as well. 265 miles is a rather long drive for a weekend in Vegas, and given the tendency for CA's gas prices to be a bit on the high side (You're over $3 everywhere up until you get to LV, and even there the best you're getting is about $2.90 for unleaded)...the LA-LV run is going to be about 10 gallons of gas each way, so your base cost is $30-50 (depending on your car) each way. Rail isn't quite competitive with that alone, but if you can make it competitive on the timing as well (4-5 hours), I think you've got a winner if you avoid airport security and can get the station as close to the Strip and McCarran as possible (why McCarran, you ask? Oddly enough, if you get good on-time ratings for the train, there are enough cheap-due-to-casino-demand seats in and out of Las Vegas that I wouldn't be surprised if a canny traveler couldn't use a train-plane link to actually save money between the two, in the vein of driving to DC to save money versus Richmond...the difference is close to $100 in some cases). Granted, a lot of this is going to come down to your per-ticket cost, but seeing as there's only one "real" stop to be had between Las Vegas and the LA metro (Barstow)? I think it's a winner if they can keep the trip time sane.

There is another reason for HSR on this route: time. On busy weekends, the nominal six hour drive frequently turns into 8 or 12 or 15 hour nightmares. This something a train does not have to deal with. This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.

 

[dlagrua]

Sleeping cars are like the airplanes that the car companies flew to testify in DC. They are only for rich people. The vast majority of the common folk have no use or need for any of it.

Ride the Autotrain and see who uses the sleepers. At times you will see mostly seniors ("snowbirds") comuting to and from their Florida winter residence. For the $200 cost of a roomette, you can hardly call the sleepers only for the rich. The seniors that ride this train DO have need to sleep in a bed during the journey.

Secondly attacking Amtrak is just political posturing. With a service that uses less than two percent of the total transportation budget its rediculaous to believe that any real federal deficit reduction can be achieved by cutting Amtrak. It costs the governemnt far more than the entire Amtrak budget just to fund TSA the criminals, thugs and hoodlums who feel you up in the name of airport security.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Amtrak loses money. Amtrak will tell you that. There's no doubt about it.

I guess what you could do is either advocate ways for Amtrak to reduce the amount of money it loses or justify its subsidy based on the positive benefits a national railroad confers to society.

For the former, I would say that Amtrak should experiment with adding service on its long distance routes in the summer. I think there's latent demand on a route such as the Coast Starlight. I think that could bring per passenger loss down. Problem is lack of equipment, I guess.

For the latter, I'd say it's worth preserving access to rural towns. Amtrak is also a wonderful way to see America, similar to the national parks system.

Other than that, I can't say much to defend the long distance services. It doesn't offer the same kind of benefits to society as say, commuter rail or urban transit.

There is at least one other reason: alternative long distance transportation. We discovered that on 9/11. With airlines grounded there was only one LD public transportation and it was instantly completely booked. This actually has strategic importance.

Until the airlines got a bailout to help them get back in the air.

 

[Rail Freak]

. This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.

How many lanes??? The last time I was there was in 1979!

 

[leemell]

. This Interstate is nearly saturated, the state has been adding lanes for 20 years and has not come close to keeping up with the demand.

How many lanes??? The last time I was there was in 1979!

Depends on where you are at. Between San Bernardino and Barstow it is mostly 6-8 lanes. East of Barstow 4-6 lanes. But it is always changing.

 

[Rail Freak]

My God, I bet a rear ender would cause a little havoc!!!