Article: "What's Wrong With Amtrak"?

[Tarm]

The only thing that matters is what is the total cost to run a train for a mile

Bzzzt. Wrong. You've failed to distinguish between fixed costs and variable costs. This matters. Look it up if you don't know the difference.
Which do you mean by "total cost"? I can tell you that practically every Amtrak train covers its variable costs. They nearly all generate a "gross profit".

The fixed costs, however, are most of the costs. Amtrak needs to run *more trains* in order to cover the fixed costs.

Passenger trains have layers of costs.

1. Above the rail costs. Fuel, supplies, repairs and labor to get the train ready and to travel from point A to point B.

2.Trackage cost. Payments to the host railroads or a prorated share of the maintenance cost for Amtrak owned track.

3.Overhead. Headquarters, ticketing, off train managerial labor, etc.

4. Equipment replacement. As equipment wears out it must be replaced. Train operations need to have an operational margin after the first three cost categories are covered to fund new equipment replacements.

The title of this topic is "What's wrong with Amtrak?" so I'm trying to find out what is wrong with Amtrak.

So my question to this group is what routes cover which cost categories?

Do western LD trains cover 1 & 2 ?

Do eastern LD trains cover 1 & 2 with a little left over for 3?

Does the NE Corridor cover 1 & 2 & 3 and maybe some of 4?

Does anyone know?

 

[Carolina Special]

I believe when Amtrak reports route results there are three major cost buckets: directly assigned costs, allocations, and non-assigned costs (primarily depreciation). The first two buckets feed into the fully allocated contribution/loss that Amtrak reports: the non-assigned costs are in there to tie to GAAP results for public consumption, but doesn't factor into the route results (although depreciation as a proxy for capital expenditures likely should be considered in some manner).

The directly assigned costs are directly coded to each train/route and in theory should be accurate. There are probably coding errors each month, but a competent accounting department should find any material issues.

Allocations are costs from particular cost centers that have to be assigned by some metric to each train route. These are what the majority of the arguments seem to be about. Amtrak historically has allocated more than the freights, which helps lead to accuracy complaints.

As it stands in FY 2016, Amtrak says that with directly assigned & allocated costs the NEC made $469.7MM, State supported routes lost $69.6MM, and LD lost $501.6MM. Combined system lost $101.5MM, which looks related to LD which is why you get calls to shut down LD. Add in depreciation and some other non allocated items gets you to the reported $1,080.5MM loss for the year.

The primary question to me would be how accurate are the allocations by route. And what is the bare minimum to allocate to keep the train running. It should be a number between zero and total allocated costs.

But that is tough to answer without more detailed breakouts of allocation numbers, which in fairness to Amtrak would consume pages and pages of numbers if you tried to include all the details I would want to analyze, even in summary form. Amtrak has a lot of cost centers. I would expect that Amtrak accounting does have this, though, to provide to management. If anyone has seen anything like this published, please let know.

The best description I've seen of the Amtrak allocation system is the 2016 US DOT "Update on the Methodology for Amtrak Cost Accounting", which I just started looking at last night. It appears to cover Amtrak allocations for FY2014 in some detail. It probably would help to have a little background in accounting and allocations work before diving into the 157 pages: it does seem like a great sleeping pill supplement.

That's what I think I know, or don't really know (which is lots!).

 

[Tarm]

Thank you Carolina Special.

Shall we talk about the elephant in the room? Do LD trains cover their directly assigned costs? Does Amtrak attribute more than $500 million allocated cost to the LD trains? Because if LD trains do not cover their directly assigned cost then adding more LD trains will increase Amtrak's total losses. The loss per train will go down as the allocated cost is spread over more trains but the total loss for Amtrak will rise. With the current administration that is a political nonstarter.

 

[Larry H.]

First they need to have enough cars to cover the demand. When there are no sleeper accommodations for many weeks then something is wrong and the amount of passengers is greatly reduced from what it should be. Then runs like the City of New Orleans used to have a morning and evening departure on each end of the run. That would no doubt greatly increase the ridership because getting the train in the middle of the night, or having to detrain at 3am is not conducive to encouraging riders. As I said recently in another thread the worst thing they did was to eliminate lots of runs that used to provide half way convenient connections to riders throughout the nation. When a possible customer living in Kansas City or St. Louis wants to go to Florida why should you have to go to Chicago, then Washington or New York to go south? The system is simply too small to really generate passengers. Yet those trains that do run at certain times are quite full. If there were connections to far more places the ridership would really increase.

Another thing when you were talking about Airplanes compared to cost for Trains I was struck some time back by an article that said the entire Superliner fleet of cars only would pay for one Boeing large jet. Then the fuel used for a train was unbelievably less than the thousands of gallons a plane burns an hour, and that is polluting the air in major ways if your concerned about those things.

 

[Tarm]

Larry H.

Would the fare revenue from those two additional CONO departures cover the directly assigned costs of those trains? Would there be sufficient funds remaining to service the equipment loan for the new equipment? Sadly I think the answer is no because if it was yes Amtrak would have already done it. I think no is the same answer for all the new LD services I see dreamed up on this board. Now adding cars to an existing train to capture additional riders makes sense. Fare revenues "should" go up faster than additional costs. Wasn't the whole point of the Viewliner order to reduce repair costs and increase ridership?

What is wrong with Amtrak is that a lot of LD trains lose money. I would bet that a lot of them do not even cover their directly assigned cost let alone overhead or depreciation. Amtrak needs to be restructured before someone pulls the plug on the whole thing.

 

[A Voice]

What is wrong with Amtrak is that a lot of LD trains lose money. I would bet that a lot of them do not even cover their directly assigned cost let alone overhead or depreciation.

Profit is not the objective in providing intercity passenger rail. All passenger trains - including Acela - lose money and require a subsidy (based on fully allocated costs). The purpose of the passenger train is a transportation service, not to make money for stockholders (else Amtrak wouldn't be a quasi-government entity).

Commuter trains, light-rail, high-speed corridors - really any form of road or rail mass transit are all understood to require taxpayer support. Why should the long-distance or regional passenger train be held to a different standard?

 

[Tarm]

What is wrong with Amtrak is that a lot of LD trains lose money. I would bet that a lot of them do not even cover their directly assigned cost let alone overhead or depreciation.

Profit is not the objective in providing intercity passenger rail. All passenger trains - including Acela - lose money and require a subsidy (based on fully allocated costs). The purpose of the passenger train is a transportation service, not to make money for stockholders (else Amtrak wouldn't be a quasi-government entity).

Commuter trains, light-rail, high-speed corridors - really any form of road or rail mass transit are all understood to require taxpayer support. Why should the long-distance or regional passenger train be held to a different standard?

Thank you, A Voice, you have hit the nail on the head. It is a question of subsidy efficiency. Is it in the best interest of the country for Amtrak to carry one passenger at a 20 cent subsidy per mile or ten passengers at a 2 cent subsidy each per mile. Would you rather have the Empire Builder or four round trips each day from Chicago to St. Paul plus two extra round trips Seattle to Portland. Which would serve the most passengers? Which would have the greatest passenger miles? Which would have the smaller subsidy? Coach trains cost less money to buy, cost less money to run, have massively lower overall labor costs and are more energy efficient than LD trains.

 

[A Voice]

It is a question of subsidy efficiency. Is it in the best interest of the country for Amtrak to carry one passenger at a 20 cent subsidy per mile or ten passengers at a 2 cent subsidy each per mile

Not all passenger train services are going to carry the same cost structure; The Northeast Corridor can show an 'above the rail' profit (again, a half truth), but has huge capital expenses for infrastructure which completely dwarf the relatively modest operating subsidy for a train such as the Empire Builder. In many ways it is, at best, an apples to oranges comparison. Both services are important and both are worthy of federal (taxpayer) support; Neither should be expected to break-even financially.

Would you rather have the Empire Builder or four round trips each day from Chicago to St. Paul plus two extra round trips Seattle to Portland.

It's not an either/or choice; You cannot trade a long-distance (LD) Chicago to Seattle/Portland train for additional (state-supported) regional trains. Further, what you really need are all three services. Not everyone is traveling within strictly defined corridors or regions; The St. Paul and Washington State trains will carry the most passengers, but the LD Empire Builder is the necessary link which ties them all together. You wouldn't run a train (or bus, highway, etc.) from New York City to Philadelphia and another train from Baltimore to Washington D.C. - and no service at all between Philadelphia and Baltimore. LD service in rural areas is appropriately more limited, but not fundamentally different.

Which would serve the most passengers? Which would have the greatest passenger miles? Which would have the smaller subsidy?

The greatest number of passengers (and passenger miles) are to/from the destinations with the greatest demand, obviously. The smaller total subsidy is generally the long-distance service (fewer trains with little or no infrastructure cost are rather less expensive).

Coach trains cost less money to buy, cost less money to run, have massively lower overall labor costs and are more energy efficient than LD trains.

I don't fully understand this comment. How are coach-only trains more energy efficient than LD trains which carry dining and sleeping cars? Coaches aren't that much less expensive than a sleeper to build, but the sleeping car's premium price potentially sees higher revenue. Labor is related to the extent of onboard amenities; There are LD trains without sleepers and without dining cars, and conversely corridor and regional trains with First-class and business class sections. You can't make such sweeping generalities with such a variety of differing service levels and transportation needs across the nation.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Not all passenger train services are going to carry the same cost structure; The Northeast Corridor can show an 'above the rail' profit (again, a half truth), but has huge capital expenses for infrastructure which completely dwarf the relatively modest operating subsidy for a train such as the Empire Builder. In many ways it is, at best, an apples to oranges comparison. Both services are important and both are worthy of federal (taxpayer) support; Neither should be expected to break-even financially.

The NEC has the highest cost but the highest payoff in terms of number of trains and speed. It is Amtrak's tracks and responsibility to maintain such tracks as opposed to "renting" from NS and CSX. Essentially Amtrak is paying them to maintain the tracks. The downside is the host railroads lower the capacity and the speeds which add to the operating costs and reduce the potential revenue. Ideally Amtrak would own more tracks and pay more for maintenance but run ten NYP-Florida and ten NYP-CHI (five via PA and five via Upstate) to make up for it. In the long run that might improve Amtrak's finances but that would be a huge startup cost. Think about how much time and money is needed just to connect the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas in California, double if not triple that to connect NYP to Florida or Chicago (although for Florida you'd only need WAS to Florida). Amtrak will always be at the mercy of the host railroads otherwise. If we throw enough money at them, they may allow us to run an extra train or two. I doubt they will ever allow Amtrak to run the number of trains to improve performance along the routes and satisfy demand.

It is a question of subsidy efficiency. Is it in the best interest of the country for Amtrak to carry one passenger at a 20 cent subsidy per mile or ten passengers at a 2 cent subsidy each per mile

Not all passenger train services are going to carry the same cost structure; The Northeast Corridor can show an 'above the rail' profit (again, a half truth), but has huge capital expenses for infrastructure which completely dwarf the relatively modest operating subsidy for a train such as the Empire Builder. In many ways it is, at best, an apples to oranges comparison. Both services are important and both are worthy of federal (taxpayer) support; Neither should be expected to break-even financially.

I go by the R & R standard. If enough people benefit and at least help pay for such cost, it is worth it. If trains are half empty for hundreds of miles, it's not.

It's not an either/or choice; You cannot trade a long-distance (LD) Chicago to Seattle/Portland train for additional (state-supported) regional trains. Further, what you really need are all three services. Not everyone is traveling within strictly defined corridors or regions; The St. Paul and Washington State trains will carry the most passengers, but the LD Empire Builder is the necessary link which ties them all together. You wouldn't run a train (or bus, highway, etc.) from New York City to Philadelphia and another train from Baltimore to Washington D.C. - and no service at all between Philadelphia and Baltimore. LD service in rural areas is appropriately more limited, but not fundamentally different.

Differences between the two examples.

1. PHL-BAL is not even 100 miles. MSP-SPK is over 1400 miles. It's easier IMO to justify a 100 mile gap than a 1400 mile one.

2) A lot more people ride between NYP-PHL and BAL-WAS than CHI-Milwaukee-MSP and SPK-SEA/Portland.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Differences between the two examples.

1. PHL-BAL is not even 100 miles. MSP-SPK is over 1400 miles. It's easier IMO to justify a 100 mile gap than a 1400 mile one.

2) A lot more people ride between NYP-PHL and BAL-WAS than CHI-Milwaukee-MSP and SPK-SEA/Portland.

You could argue that a lot more people ride between those points because there is a lot of service between those points. If you took some of the billions that it takes to run the NEC and invested in the CHI-MSP corridor or SPK-SEA corridor, you might see a great increase in riders.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Differences between the two examples.

1. PHL-BAL is not even 100 miles. MSP-SPK is over 1400 miles. It's easier IMO to justify a 100 mile gap than a 1400 mile one.

2) A lot more people ride between NYP-PHL and BAL-WAS than CHI-Milwaukee-MSP and SPK-SEA/Portland.

You could argue that a lot more people ride between those points because there is a lot of service between those points. If you took some of the billions that it takes to run the NEC and invested in the CHI-MSP corridor or SPK-SEA corridor, you might see a great increase in riders.

Sorry I meant to say from somewhere between CHI-Milwaukee-MSP to somewhere between Spokane-SEA/Portland (ex. from CHI-SEA). Not the corridors themselves but between the corridors through the 1400 miles in the middle of nowhere.

 

[CCC1007]

Differences between the two examples.

1. PHL-BAL is not even 100 miles. MSP-SPK is over 1400 miles. It's easier IMO to justify a 100 mile gap than a 1400 mile one.

2) A lot more people ride between NYP-PHL and BAL-WAS than CHI-Milwaukee-MSP and SPK-SEA/Portland.

You could argue that a lot more people ride between those points because there is a lot of service between those points. If you took some of the billions that it takes to run the NEC and invested in the CHI-MSP corridor or SPK-SEA corridor, you might see a great increase in riders.

Sorry I meant to say from somewhere between CHI-Milwaukee-MSP to somewhere between Spokane-SEA/Portland (ex. from CHI-SEA). Not the corridors themselves but between the corridors through the 1400 miles in the middle of nowhere.

If "middle of nowhere" included you, you might not think it was nowhere. Have you ever spent any time in a truly small town away from the major highways?

 

[Tarm]

It is a question of subsidy efficiency. Is it in the best interest of the country for Amtrak to carry one passenger at a 20 cent subsidy per mile or ten passengers at a 2 cent subsidy each per mile

Not all passenger train services are going to carry the same cost structure; The Northeast Corridor can show an 'above the rail' profit (again, a half truth), but has huge capital expenses for infrastructure which completely dwarf the relatively modest operating subsidy for a train such as the Empire Builder. In many ways it is, at best, an apples to oranges comparison. Both services are important and both are worthy of federal (taxpayer) support; Neither should be expected to break-even financially.

Would you rather have the Empire Builder or four round trips each day from Chicago to St. Paul plus two extra round trips Seattle to Portland.

It's not an either/or choice; You cannot trade a long-distance (LD) Chicago to Seattle/Portland train for additional (state-supported) regional trains. Further, what you really need are all three services. Not everyone is traveling within strictly defined corridors or regions; The St. Paul and Washington State trains will carry the most passengers, but the LD Empire Builder is the necessary link which ties them all together. You wouldn't run a train (or bus, highway, etc.) from New York City to Philadelphia and another train from Baltimore to Washington D.C. - and no service at all between Philadelphia and Baltimore. LD service in rural areas is appropriately more limited, but not fundamentally different.

Which would serve the most passengers? Which would have the greatest passenger miles? Which would have the smaller subsidy?

The greatest number of passengers (and passenger miles) are to/from the destinations with the greatest demand, obviously. The smaller total subsidy is generally the long-distance service (fewer trains with little or no infrastructure cost are rather less expensive).

Coach trains cost less money to buy, cost less money to run, have massively lower overall labor costs and are more energy efficient than LD trains.

I don't fully understand this comment. How are coach-only trains more energy efficient than LD trains which carry dining and sleeping cars? Coaches aren't that much less expensive than a sleeper to build, but the sleeping car's premium price potentially sees higher revenue. Labor is related to the extent of onboard amenities; There are LD trains without sleepers and without dining cars, and conversely corridor and regional trains with First-class and business class sections. You can't make such sweeping generalities with such a variety of differing service levels and transportation needs across the nation.

Coach trains cost less to buy because they do not have sleepers, a diner or an observation car. A five car coach train has the same capacity as a four coach train with two sleepers, a diner and an observation car. Five cars instead of eight.

Coach trains do not have the diner or sleeping car attendants hence the lower labor cost. They also do not fill up half a sleeper with on board train personal.

A five car trains weights less than an eight car train and fuel use is related to total weight.

Amtrak should not be in the business of hauling metal around. I should be in the business of hauling paying passenger around!

 

[CCC1007]

It is a question of subsidy efficiency. Is it in the best interest of the country for Amtrak to carry one passenger at a 20 cent subsidy per mile or ten passengers at a 2 cent subsidy each per mile

Not all passenger train services are going to carry the same cost structure; The Northeast Corridor can show an 'above the rail' profit (again, a half truth), but has huge capital expenses for infrastructure which completely dwarf the relatively modest operating subsidy for a train such as the Empire Builder. In many ways it is, at best, an apples to oranges comparison. Both services are important and both are worthy of federal (taxpayer) support; Neither should be expected to break-even financially.

Would you rather have the Empire Builder or four round trips each day from Chicago to St. Paul plus two extra round trips Seattle to Portland.

It's not an either/or choice; You cannot trade a long-distance (LD) Chicago to Seattle/Portland train for additional (state-supported) regional trains. Further, what you really need are all three services. Not everyone is traveling within strictly defined corridors or regions; The St. Paul and Washington State trains will carry the most passengers, but the LD Empire Builder is the necessary link which ties them all together. You wouldn't run a train (or bus, highway, etc.) from New York City to Philadelphia and another train from Baltimore to Washington D.C. - and no service at all between Philadelphia and Baltimore. LD service in rural areas is appropriately more limited, but not fundamentally different.

Which would serve the most passengers? Which would have the greatest passenger miles? Which would have the smaller subsidy?

The greatest number of passengers (and passenger miles) are to/from the destinations with the greatest demand, obviously. The smaller total subsidy is generally the long-distance service (fewer trains with little or no infrastructure cost are rather less expensive).

Coach trains cost less money to buy, cost less money to run, have massively lower overall labor costs and are more energy efficient than LD trains.

I don't fully understand this comment. How are coach-only trains more energy efficient than LD trains which carry dining and sleeping cars? Coaches aren't that much less expensive than a sleeper to build, but the sleeping car's premium price potentially sees higher revenue. Labor is related to the extent of onboard amenities; There are LD trains without sleepers and without dining cars, and conversely corridor and regional trains with First-class and business class sections. You can't make such sweeping generalities with such a variety of differing service levels and transportation needs across the nation.

Coach trains cost less to buy because they do not have sleepers, a diner or an observation car. A five car coach train has the same capacity as a four coach train with two sleepers, a diner and an observation car. Five cars instead of eight.Coach trains do not have the diner or sleeping car attendants hence the lower labor cost. They also do not fill up half a sleeper with on board train personal.

A five car trains weights less than an eight car train and fuel use is related to total weight.

Amtrak should not be in the business of hauling metal around. I should be in the business of hauling paying passenger around!

Ok, I want to know if you have ever actually ridden one of the trains you think are wastes of money? There are good reasons to keep them operating as is, though it is hard to explain to those people that haven't been on these trains. Several of these reasons have been explained here already and I don't see that any of it has sunk in with you.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Starting next year, Amtrak will begin to engage in a great demonstration to answer if overnight trains can offer sleeper and dining car service much more efficiently. The Eastern LD trains will each gain one additional sleeper from the Viewliner II order of 25 cars.

Trains that now run with 3 sleepers will have 4, and those with 2 sleepers will operate with 3. This equipment will change the ratio of sleepers to diners, or to see it another way, to change the ratio of paying sleeper class customers to the diner staff. Where 1 diner served 2 sleepers, it will be 1 diner serving 3 sleepers, yielding a 50% increase in productivity. Where it has been 3 sleepers per diner, it will be 4, yielding a 33% increase in output per crew member. (Note that I assume no change in the other cars in the consists, so the only added non-trivial cost will be fuel used to haul one more traincar.)

It could take some time for occupancy and pricing for the new capacity to get sorted out. But I remain hopeful that serving more riders with the same number of crew will allow the sleeper-diner combos to show a net positive operation.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Tarm,

I'm thinking you are comparing running a coach car vs. a sleeper car. The coach car certainly has more capacity. But the sleeper car fare is way higher. So an appropriate question is which brings in more revenue, one coach car or one sleeper car (and this does not account for the additional cost of the sleeper car vs. the coach car)? I would say if you can get the same amount of revenue from 50 coach passengers vs. 25 sleeper passengers that I'd rather have the 50. You can (and do) say the train itself is a necessity but the sleeper (and diner) are luxuries. Congress shouldn't IMO be subsidizing these. It basically is saying you are paying taxes so people can enjoy Amtrak steaks.

The Palmetto looks to have better financials than most of the LD trains because of the lower cost of the train without sleepers or a diner car even though it doesn't bring in as much revenue (or ridership south of WAS). So while sleepers for the SS or SM and diner for the SM bring in more business and more money, do the sleepers/diners pay for themselves? Probably not.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Philly.. I do agree that corridors make the most sense. The problem is, it's not an either or. You can't take LD trains away and magically have corridors. I feel the opposite is true. The LD trains help lay the foundations for future corridor trains. Both in ridership, and infrustructure.

Your sleeper argument makes little sense to me... Do you beleive that airlines should not be able to have first class on subsidized flights?

 

[A Voice]

Starting next year, Amtrak will begin to engage in a great demonstration to answer if overnight trains can offer sleeper and dining car service much more efficiently. The Eastern LD trains will each gain one additional sleeper from the Viewliner II order of 25 cars.

Trains that now run with 3 sleepers will have 4, and those with 2 sleepers will operate with 3. This equipment will change the ratio of sleepers to diners, or to see it another way, to change the ratio of paying sleeper class customers to the diner staff. Where 1 diner served 2 sleepers, it will be 1 diner serving 3 sleepers, yielding a 50% increase in productivity. Where it has been 3 sleepers per diner, it will be 4, yielding a 33% increase in output per crew member. (Note that I assume no change in the other cars in the consists, so the only added non-trivial cost will be fuel used to haul one more traincar.)

It could take some time for occupancy and pricing for the new capacity to get sorted out. But I remain hopeful that serving more riders with the same number of crew will allow the sleeper-diner combos to show a net positive operation.

Has the use of the new Viewliner Ii sleepers above actually been announced as such by Amtrak? Not every train has the same level of sleeper demand, and each not does necessarily need exactly one more sleeper than current. Further, if the new sleepers are deployed in this manner, will there be enough cars to restore sleepers to 66/67 (Twilight Shoreliner) and other potential uses (daily Cardinal, etc.)?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Philly.. I do agree that corridors make the most sense. The problem is, it's not an either or. You can't take LD trains away and magically have corridors. I feel the opposite is true. The LD trains help lay the foundations for future corridor trains. Both in ridership, and infrustructure.

Your sleeper argument makes little sense to me... Do you beleive that airlines should not be able to have first class on subsidized flights?

What airplane flights don't pay for their own operating costs? This doesn't count the airports or air traffic control. I would believe if a flight costs American or United more than it brought in then they wouldn't fly it (as opposed to Amtrak who is forced to run money losers). Can Delta or Southwest ask the government to subsidize the operating costs of a flight from Wilkes Barre to Los Angeles which wouldn't pay for itself?

And first class on a plane isn't equivalent to sleepers on Amtrak. I would say Amtrak business class is the better comparison. The equivalent to sleepers on a plane would be seats that fly flat so you can sleep in a horizontal position and you better believe American/United would never pay for those if they didn't pay for themselves. And on planes I highly doubt customers have private toilets (although I have never flown first class and haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years. True, business class is usually a 2+1 layout which does cut capacity but nowhere near as much as a sleeper car.

 

[Deni]

I'm reminded of the old "joke" about the CEO interviewing candidates to be his new accountant. He asks three candidates to looks at his books and tell him if they say his company is making money or losing money. First accountant says he is making money, second says he is losing money. The third one say, "what do you want the books to say." The third accountant of course gets the job.

There are so many ways to interpret the numbers that depending on the person's (politicians's) agenda they'll claim one is doing great and the other sucks. Lots of People in DC claim the NEC makes a profit while arguing to shut down the money-pit LD trains.

Fact is probably that the LD trains don't do as poorly as these guys claim and the NEC certainly doesn't make money. Now does the NEC do worse than LD trains? Who knows. But I'd bet when all is added up it is probably a wash. But as others have mentioned already, we really need a NATIONAL rail system in this country. I should be able able to hop on a train in Chicago and be able to get to any region of the country, just as people who live in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, NYC, etc., should be able to. Now, should I be able to do that with just one train? Well, maybe not. Maybe somebody crunches numbers, ridership, equipment, cost, etc., and it makes sense, for instance, to run a corridor train(s) CHI-MSP and another separate train(s) MSP-SEA/PDX. If that made sense, why not? I mean, I'm nostalgic for my CHI-SEA rides on the EB I took so many times when I was younger so I would miss the full two-day experience but change is OK as long as it makes sense. But I am one of those people who likes long train rides and still think you should be able to go from NYC to LAX on one train because that would be awesome.

But would even shorter corridor trains replacing all LD trains make sense? Even if there were no gaps in the service? If I make the same trip from CHI to SEA but have to change trains in MSP, then in Minot, then in Havre, and again in Spokane...well, that would suck. I would also guess that states like MT and ND would have a hard time supporting corridor trains like CA or IL just due to population. LD trains are crucial to rural areas in this country.

Either way we still have to invest in the train system in this country the same way we invest in the highway system. To expect them to make money or break even is silly. No, we don't want to throw money down the drain on services nobody uses so certainly operational efficiency is a goal, along with ridership, and serving areas with little other transportation options.

One thing I've always thought the LD trains should do is have a "2nd class" sleeper option. Why have they never had dormitory style sleepers like trains once had in this country and still have in other parts of the world, like Europe? (If they still do in Europe, it's been a while since I was on an overnight on mainland Europe, in 1999 we were on a train from the Spanish-French border to Genoa that had six-berth groupings). Why not have cheaper sleeping options such as compartments with 6-berths (bought separately) or lined up down the aisle? Kind of a hostel-style on the train. (Think of the scene in White Christmas when they throw the curtains of their berths open to the hallway when they arrive in VT) Some of my more recent travel in Asia had second class sleepers with six berths like that. I know so many people who are not train buffs like me but would love to take an LD ride across the country but don't want to sit up in coach all night and also can't afford a roomette on Amtrak. I think a mid-range price with a place to lay out and sleep could be a winner for Amtrak. Would really be beneficial with solo travelers.

 

[Deni]

Philly.. I do agree that corridors make the most sense. The problem is, it's not an either or. You can't take LD trains away and magically have corridors. I feel the opposite is true. The LD trains help lay the foundations for future corridor trains. Both in ridership, and infrustructure.

Your sleeper argument makes little sense to me... Do you beleive that airlines should not be able to have first class on subsidized flights?

What airplane flights don't pay for their own operating costs? This doesn't count the airports or air traffic control. I would believe if a flight costs American or United more than it brought in then they wouldn't fly it (as opposed to Amtrak who is forced to run money losers). Can Delta or Southwest ask the government to subsidize the operating costs of a flight from Wilkes Barre to Los Angeles which wouldn't pay for itself?

And first class on a plane isn't equivalent to sleepers on Amtrak. I would say Amtrak business class is the better comparison. The equivalent to sleepers on a plane would be seats that fly flat so you can sleep in a horizontal position and you better believe American/United would never pay for those if they didn't pay for themselves. And on planes I highly doubt customers have private toilets (although I have never flown first class and haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years. True, business class is usually a 2+1 layout which does cut capacity but nowhere near as much as a sleeper car.

There are many regional airports where flights are subsidized by the federal government.

 

[Chessie]

I'm reminded of the old "joke" about the CEO interviewing candidates to be his new accountant. He asks three candidates to looks at his books and tell him if they say his company is making money or losing money. First accountant says he is making money, second says he is losing money. The third one say, "what do you want the books to say." The third accountant of course gets the job.

There are so many ways to interpret the numbers that depending on the person's (politicians's) agenda they'll claim one is doing great and the other sucks. Lots of People in DC claim the NEC makes a profit while arguing to shut down the money-pit LD trains.

Fact is probably that the LD trains don't do as poorly as these guys claim and the NEC certainly doesn't make money. Now does the NEC do worse than LD trains? Who knows. But I'd bet when all is added up it is probably a wash. But as others have mentioned already, we really need a NATIONAL rail system in this country. I should be able able to hop on a train in Chicago and be able to get to any region of the country, just as people who live in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, NYC, etc., should be able to. Now, should I be able to do that with just one train? Well, maybe not. Maybe somebody crunches numbers, ridership, equipment, cost, etc., and it makes sense, for instance, to run a corridor train(s) CHI-MSP and another separate train(s) MSP-SEA/PDX. If that made sense, why not? I mean, I'm nostalgic for my CHI-SEA rides on the EB I took so many times when I was younger so I would miss the full two-day experience but change is OK as long as it makes sense. But I am one of those people who likes long train rides and still think you should be able to go from NYC to LAX on one train because that would be awesome.

But would even shorter corridor trains replacing all LD trains make sense? Even if there were no gaps in the service? If I make the same trip from CHI to SEA but have to change trains in MSP, then in Minot, then in Havre, and again in Spokane...well, that would suck. I would also guess that states like MT and ND would have a hard time supporting corridor trains like CA or IL just due to population. LD trains are crucial to rural areas in this country.

Either way we still have to invest in the train system in this country the same way we invest in the highway system. To expect them to make money or break even is silly. No, we don't want to throw money down the drain on services nobody uses so certainly operational efficiency is a goal, along with ridership, and serving areas with little other transportation options.

One thing I've always thought the LD trains should do is have a "2nd class" sleeper option. Why have they never had dormitory style sleepers like trains once had in this country and still have in other parts of the world, like Europe? (If they still do in Europe, it's been a while since I was on an overnight on mainland Europe, in 1999 we were on a train from the Spanish-French border to Genoa that had six-berth groupings). Why not have cheaper sleeping options such as compartments with 6-berths (bought separately) or lined up down the aisle? Kind of a hostel-style on the train. (Think of the scene in White Christmas when they throw the curtains of their berths open to the hallway when they arrive in VT) Some of my more recent travel in Asia had second class sleepers with six berths like that. I know so many people who are not train buffs like me but would love to take an LD ride across the country but don't want to sit up in coach all night and also can't afford a roomette on Amtrak. I think a mid-range price with a place to lay out and sleep could be a winner for Amtrak. Would really be beneficial with solo travelers.

I agree with this part completely.

I traveled LD in Asia in what is called a hard sleeper (as opposed to a soft sleeper, which is their version of first class and very similar to our bedroom class) and it was a delight. Six berths in an open and airy compartment with two little window tables and seats. I honestly liked that setup better than roomettes, not to mention it makes solo LD train travel much more affordable. I am not saying doing away with roomettes or bedrooms because they serve a different purpose, but open berths like in Asia or Canada or old Pullman style could be a consideration.

 

[Deni]

One thing I've always thought the LD trains should do is have a "2nd class" sleeper option. Why have they never had dormitory style sleepers like trains once had in this country and still have in other parts of the world, like Europe? (If they still do in Europe, it's been a while since I was on an overnight on mainland Europe, in 1999 we were on a train from the Spanish-French border to Genoa that had six-berth groupings). Why not have cheaper sleeping options such as compartments with 6-berths (bought separately) or lined up down the aisle? Kind of a hostel-style on the train. (Think of the scene in White Christmas when they throw the curtains of their berths open to the hallway when they arrive in VT) Some of my more recent travel in Asia had second class sleepers with six berths like that. I know so many people who are not train buffs like me but would love to take an LD ride across the country but don't want to sit up in coach all night and also can't afford a roomette on Amtrak. I think a mid-range price with a place to lay out and sleep could be a winner for Amtrak. Would really be beneficial with solo travelers.

I agree with this part completely.

I traveled LD in Asia in what is called a hard sleeper (as opposed to a soft sleeper, which is their version of first class and very similar to our bedroom class) and it was a delight. Six berths in an open and airy compartment with two little window tables and seats. I honestly liked that setup better than roomettes, not to mention it makes solo LD train travel much more affordable. I am not saying doing away with roomettes or bedrooms because they serve a different purpose, but open berths like in Asia or Canada or old Pullman style could be a consideration.

Yeah, I found them great too. Definitely not arguing for eliminating current sleeper layout, some people like that and pay a premium for it, but that being the only choice does cut a lot of people out of the sleeper option. Not only would it help solo travelers but also those in odd number groups. My wife and I travel with our young daughter and in places like SE Asia we've only had to pay for each berth. In America we would have to pay for two rooms, wasting a berth that we have to pay for. I'm also someone who likes to meet travelers and Amtrak sleepers do not lend themselves to that.

 

[ainamkartma]

Philly.. I do agree that corridors make the most sense. The problem is, it's not an either or. You can't take LD trains away and magically have corridors. I feel the opposite is true. The LD trains help lay the foundations for future corridor trains. Both in ridership, and infrustructure.

Your sleeper argument makes little sense to me... Do you beleive that airlines should not be able to have first class on subsidized flights?

What airplane flights don't pay for their own operating costs? This doesn't count the airports or air traffic control. I would believe if a flight costs American or United more than it brought in then they wouldn't fly it (as opposed to Amtrak who is forced to run money losers). Can Delta or Southwest ask the government to subsidize the operating costs of a flight from Wilkes Barre to Los Angeles which wouldn't pay for itself?

There are of course many many examples of airline flights not recouping their costs, including entire _categories_ of flights.

Just a few:

1) The last days of TWA, when they had a killing contract with Carl Icahn that forced them, in a nutshell, to lose money on every ticket

2) The entire industry after 9/11

3) "Essential Air Service" subsidized flights

4) The flights that led to every single major legacy carrier declaring bankruptcy, often multiple times in the last few decades

5) Internationally, flights on routes that are served by national "vanity" airlines that are happy to run at a loss: NYC-MIL, as just one of many examples

Ainamkartma

 

[CCC1007]

Philly.. I do agree that corridors make the most sense. The problem is, it's not an either or. You can't take LD trains away and magically have corridors. I feel the opposite is true. The LD trains help lay the foundations for future corridor trains. Both in ridership, and infrustructure.

Your sleeper argument makes little sense to me... Do you beleive that airlines should not be able to have first class on subsidized flights?

What airplane flights don't pay for their own operating costs? This doesn't count the airports or air traffic control. I would believe if a flight costs American or United more than it brought in then they wouldn't fly it (as opposed to Amtrak who is forced to run money losers). Can Delta or Southwest ask the government to subsidize the operating costs of a flight from Wilkes Barre to Los Angeles which wouldn't pay for itself?

And first class on a plane isn't equivalent to sleepers on Amtrak. I would say Amtrak business class is the better comparison. The equivalent to sleepers on a plane would be seats that fly flat so you can sleep in a horizontal position and you better believe American/United would never pay for those if they didn't pay for themselves. And on planes I highly doubt customers have private toilets (although I have never flown first class and haven't been on an airplane in over 20 years. True, business class is usually a 2+1 layout which does cut capacity but nowhere near as much as a sleeper car.

Ever hear of the essential air services? How about regional aircraft operated by contractors? Do you think these are hugely profitable?