Could Only Some of the LD Trains Be Cut Instead of All of Them?

[keelhauled]

Congress controls the budget and allocates funds accordingly. The president tries to set policy, guide the process and put forth recommendations. The Trump budget does not agree with his campaign promise to push for the rebuilding of our transportation infrastructure. If Amtrak is to be saved from the chopping block Wick Mooreman needs to immediately get on the phone, make an appointment at the White House, present the case for long distance rail and invite the president and transportation secretary on a train trip. Wick must be quick!

Since as you say Congress has final say in spending I'm not entirely sure why Moorman should be appealing to the President, especially as Trump has already played his role in the process...he would be better served lobbying Congress. Which in fact he did last month when he testified before the Senate transportation subcommittee.

 

[jis]

Moorman has been on record saying that there is considerable support for Amtrak in the Congress. So we'll see, won't we.

Some of us will get a better sense of where things stand after we participate in NARP's Day on the Hill in April.

 

[Seaboard92]

Here is the thing why should my taxes in South Carolina or a better example West Virginians support a train that runs from New York to Chicago via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? From what I understand you saying that if the train doesn't benefit the state it's in then it shouldn't be charged to the taxes of that state.

And we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are as eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those. The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.

And the New York Texas train doesn't really effect me because I don't do business in Texas but I'm a major supporter of it when it eventually starts running.

 

[neroden]

Amtrak is in a very different situation from the situation during the 1970s or 1980s cuts. In particular, the trains are mostly profitable, and those which aren't are running very small losses. This wasn't true in the 1970s or 1980s.

I think it's important to point out the following:

-- It's bonkers, insane, lunatic to cut any train service which is profitable (or breakeven) before overhead. Doing so would cost Congress more money and would just be shuffling overhead around. If I'm correct the Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Lake Shore Limited, and Crescent are all profitable before overhead. And I know I'm correct. Therefore these trains should be guaranteed-operation no-questions-asked

(Though Moorman could get those numbers for sure, I'm pretty sure I'm *underestimating* overhead because I assumed that it didn't increase from 2014 to 2016, and the result is that my calculations assume that more costs are variable costs than reality, and therefore my calculations make the trains look *less* profitable than they really are. Overhead went up by 19% from 2012 to 2014; it probably went up from 2014 to 2016 as well.)

-- It's unacceptable to cut any state services. The states pay for these, including a large percentage of allocated overhead, and the feds can damn well chip in 2% for overhead. The states would be furious if these were cut -- truly furious.

-- Given that the overhead costs will remain regardless of how many train services are cut -- short of cutting the NEC and shutting down Amtrak entirely -- it should be made very clear that only the variable costs would be saved by cutting any given train.

Literally the most which could be possibly saved by cutting long-distance train services (by cutting the ones which are loss-making before overhead only) is $59.2 million per year. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

In actual fact, the supposed "zeroing out of the national network" would simply result in a charge to the NEC to the same amount; there's no other alternative, because it's mostly overhead which would just get reallocated.

I'll go further and go into detail on the *avoidable* losses of the short list of long-distance trains which aren't profitable before overhead. And remember that because of the way my overhead estimation works, it's quite likely that these trains are more profitable than I think.

-- Coast Starlight -- $1.8 million per year loss (possibly profitable). And connects Los Angeles to the Bay Area and to Washington and Oregon. Obviously worth it, probably profitable next year.

-- Cardinal -- $3.2 million per year. Would be profitable if it were daily. If you cut this, you tick off southern Ohio. They've been trying to get a new station.

-- Empire Builder -- $3.5 million per year. With huge political support from every state along the route except Idaho.

-- CONO -- $4.1 million per year. Illinois likes having the third frequency on the Illini/Saluki route, and it has serious support in Mississippi now, as well as New Orleans.

-- Capitol Limited -- $4.7 million per year, which is probably covered by the value of connecting traffic to the Southern trains.

-- Texas Eagle -- $8.7 million per year. Illinois and Missouri like the extra frequency on the Lincoln Service; Texas has actually stepped up and funded this when it was threatened in the past.

-- Southwest Chief -- $10.2 million per year. Even a proposed reroute which would have improved service was rejected by massive political support. I don't think this can be cancelled.

-- California Zephyr -- $10.4 million per year. You want to tick off Colorado? I don't think so. Amtrak wouldn't be able to run the Ski Train without the Zephyr service base, too. Nevada likes having service to Reno.

-- Sunset Limited -- $13.2 million per year (because it's three-a-week, doesn't stop in Phoenix, etc.) Honestly, this is the only train in the *entire* Amtrak system which is both unprofitable and lacks a powerful political lobby.

The correct "compromise" is to offer to zero the Federal Highway System budget along with the Amtrak budget. Amtrak would survive; the unprofitable highways would not.

If the demand from the Congressional negotiators is "you must cut something!!!!", then the Sunset Limited is the only possible choice.

 

[neroden]

Moorman has been on record saying that there is considerable support for Amtrak in the Congress. So we'll see, won't we.

Some of us will get a better sense of where things stand after we participate in NARP's Day on the Hill in April.

I wish I could go but my medical problems with my digestion are still making travel extremely impractical -- currently hoping they'll be better by September. (And, to boot, I have medical appointments and business appointments during late April, and my car is in the shop during April too.)

Those of you who go -- I really hope you hammer on the fact that running each train makes money, and cutting any train would just cost Congress *more* money. Congress is really only paying for the fixed overhead of having a system at all; overhead which is needed to run even one NY-DC train. (The cost of having Beech Grove is a large part of it, as is the cost of operating the reservations system.) Also, running a train daily instead of three-a-week means more profit, and running 2 trains per day instead of one means *more profit*, and having a connecting train means *more profit* (so, for example, the Zephyr feeds passengers into all those state-sponsored trains leading out of Chicago, and vice versa).

This concept -- the economies of scale -- is *not* properly understood by most members of Congress; many still think that cutting a train would save money. Which is simply not true. This has be hammered home.

 

[CraigDK]

...

(Though Moorman could get those numbers for sure, I'm pretty sure I'm *underestimating* overhead because I assumed that it didn't increase from 2014 to 2016, and the result is that my calculations assume that more costs are variable costs than reality, and therefore my calculations make the trains look *less* profitable than they really are. Overhead went up by 19% from 2012 to 2014; it probably went up from 2014 to 2016 as well.)

...

-- Given that the overhead costs will remain regardless of how many train services are cut -- short of cutting the NEC and shutting down Amtrak entirely -- it should be made very clear that only the variable costs would be saved by cutting any given train.

Literally the most which could be possibly saved by cutting long-distance train services (by cutting the ones which are loss-making before overhead only) is $59.2 million per year. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

....

How are the overhead cost split? Does each train get "charged" the same? Does the NEC and state corridors (that run multiple trains) get charged proportionately more because there are more trains?

Is there a good breakdown of what is included in the total overhead charge? The 19% increase in a two year period seems high, have they changed (added) what is included in overhead? Are there cost savings that can be found there, versus cutting service?

If the above the rail or direct cost is only $59.2 million that really isn't that bad. And if you want to spread it over (I know that probably won't happen) the total number of passengers per year it really is fairly insignificant.

 

[neroden]

How are the overhead cost split?

Advocates, and indeed *state transportation departments*, have been trying to get that information out of Amtrak for literally DECADES. Without success. It's not clear Amtrak even knows what its computer system is doing.
It's got some loose relationship with train-miles, but it's not strictly proportional.

Is there a good breakdown of what is included in the total overhead charge?

Last time I was able to figure it out was from the 2014 Annual Report; since then, Amtrak has not given sufficiently detailed accounting breakdowns.

Are there cost savings that can be found there, versus cutting service?

Quite possibly. One cost savings comes from switching to E-ticketing, which should eventually eliminate an entire office (in, where was it, El Paso?)of a large number of people handling the back-end accounting for paper-value tickets.

Unfortunately you have to spend money to save money: the process of switching to E-ticketing involves very high IT costs for several years, and much of it is considered operating costs rather than capital costs....

IT programs, such the one to replace Amtrak's 1970s mainframe-assembly-language systems with modern programs are a significant piece of operating cost, which if it ever gets *finished* should be able to go down. Another IT program involves computerizing the inventory tracking for parts. And so on.

In another area, it turned out Amtrak had been accidentally paying utility bills for a building it didn't own. Whoops. There's an overhead cost. Some care with the utility contracts could help...

You'll notice that Amtrak has been removing staff from smaller stations by attrition as they retire; that's an example of eliminating overhead.

In another "spend money to save money" example, a number of Amtrak's bigger stations (notably Chicago) had antiquated, inefficient heating and cooling systems. Replacing them cuts the heating/cooling costs substantially, but they had to put in a lot of money to do that.

Moving Amtrak offices out of leased space into the otherwise-vacant rooms at Chicago Union Station also saves Amtrak money... but they had to renovate those rooms first.

And it goes on and on like that.

Amtrak has been absolutely pinching pennies on lease agreements for stations owned by cities, which are also fixed costs (not proportional to number of trains). Amtrak is attempting to displace as much as possible of those fixed costs for just *having* a station on the cities, which makes sense given that the city does benefit greatly from the station.

There's also weird stuff like old pension liabilities for railroad workers who used to work for the passenger departments of private railroads. The formulas used by the Railroad Retirement Board seriously soaked Amtrak for decades. This is finally being corrected as those retirees *die of old age*.

Amtrak also killed its non-union-employee defined-benefit pension plan (no new credits will be earned for future work and those with existing credits are being offered cash buyouts) and is attempting to dismantle its non-union-employee post-retirement-medical-benefits plan. So there's some more fixed costs they're working on.

If the above the rail or direct cost is only $59.2 million that really isn't that bad. And if you want to spread it over (I know that probably won't happen) the total number of passengers per year it really is fairly insignificant.

I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" buisness.

 

[CraigDK]

Thanks for the reply!

Advocates, and indeed *state transportation departments*, have been trying to get that information out of Amtrak for literally DECADES. Without success. It's not clear Amtrak even knows what its computer system is doing.

It's got some loose relationship with train-miles, but it's not strictly proportional.

Certainly something that I think advocates, the states, and congress-critters all should continue push to find out.

Quite possibly. One cost savings comes from switching to E-ticketing, which should eventually eliminate an entire office (in, where was it, El Paso?)
of a large number of people handling the back-end accounting for paper-value tickets.

Sounds reasonable. I would assume e-ticketing still allows for someone (or even an agent) to print a paper copy of the ticket and that paper value tickets are different animal.

Unfortunately you have to spend money to save money: the process of switching to E-ticketing involves very high IT costs for several years, and much of it is considered operating costs rather than capital costs....

IT programs, such the one to replace Amtrak's 1970s mainframe-assembly-language systems with modern programs are a significant piece of operating cost, which if it ever gets *finished* should be able to go down. Another IT program involves computerizing the inventory tracking for parts. And so on.

Again, I hope it is happening and hopefully they do separate out those cost that are capital.

In another area, it turned out Amtrak had been accidentally paying utility bills for a building it didn't own. Whoops. There's an overhead cost. Some care with the utility contracts could help...

I recall seeing that story. Certainly not unreasonable for care to be taken on such issues, nor for those with an interest to call for.

In another "spend money to save money" example, a number of Amtrak's bigger stations (notably Chicago) had antiquated, inefficient heating and cooling systems. Replacing them cuts the heating/cooling costs substantially, but they had to put in a lot of money to do that.

Moving Amtrak offices out of leased space into the otherwise-vacant rooms at Chicago Union Station also saves Amtrak money... but they had to renovate those rooms first.

I am not an accountant, but I would assume that most of those cost for renovation would be capital cost.

There's also weird stuff like old pension liabilities for railroad workers who used to work for the passenger departments of private railroads. The formulas used by the Railroad Retirement Board seriously soaked Amtrak for decades. This is finally being corrected as those retirees *die of old age*.

While they maybe nearing the end of that issue, that certainly is something that should be clearly denoted. It certainly needs to be viewed as something unrelated to the cost of the current system.

I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" business.

While I cannot directly verify that concept, I think you are correct with that statement. It certainly is something that should be stressed to those who might not realize that. It certainly helps to make a case for expanding the system (and thus spreading out the cost over more services). It also suggest the need to say if we invest $X in improving things like those you mentioned, that $Y can be saved (assuming that over a certain time it does pay off).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are ... eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those.

The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.

Thank you, and thanks to others on the board who made the effort to show support for the proposed train, in person when and where it counted.

 

[Seaboard92]

... we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are ... eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those.

The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.

Thank you, and thanks to others on the board who made the effort to show support for the proposed train, in person when and where it counted.

Your quite welcome. And I can assure you when the next inspection train runs I'll be involved somehow. Be it filming it for the press or showing support somehow. But I think I have an in on the planning for the next one so I'll probably be on board.

 

[neroden]

I am not an accountant, but I would assume that most of those cost for renovation would be capital cost.

The point there is that Amtrak has to spend money on capital in order to reduce operations costs. They were spending operations costs to lease an entire office building because the one they owned wasn't in good enough shape to use. Once they spend the capital on fixing up the one they already own, they can stop spending the operations costs leasing the other building.
Amtrak is doing the equivalent of driving a 40-year-old car and spending a fortune on maintenance every year, instead of buying a new car, because nobody has given Amtrak enough cash to buy the new car. (Though they're *finally* becoming able to afford some of it in the last decade.) There's a disturbing amount of stuff like this in the Amtrak budget; high operational costs caused by not having enough money to replace stuff which should have been replaced, often, decades before Amtrak was formed.

Actually, every case where an Amtrak train is running very slowly on deteriorated track (or other ROW damage) is like this. If the track were fixed up, the train would run faster, reducing operating costs and increasing revenue simultaneously. But it's been very hard to get the money to fix things up; it took years even to get funding to fix up the part of the Empire Connection in Manhattan with the rockslides.

 

[cirdan]

Actually, every case where an Amtrak train is running very slowly on deteriorated track (or other ROW damage) is like this. If the track were fixed up, the train would run faster, reducing operating costs and increasing revenue simultaneously. But it's been very hard to get the money to fix things up; it took years even to get funding to fix up the part of the Empire Connection in Manhattan with the rockslides.

That's not just Amtrak. That's railroads as a whole. If the freight railroads would spend more on ROW, they could run faster trains. But obviously that's not their thinking (aside from some major corridors). And the reason is the accounting. Shareholders expect a balance sheet that looks good and hence repairs get deferred as long as humanely possible.

Bad ROW also causes equipment to deteriorate more quickly. Maybe the freight lines don't mind about their own equipment so much, but there's little that Amtrak can do to make them take better care of theirs.

 

[RSG]

I think a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around the incredibly large importance of large fixed costs in railroading. It's really a "you gotta go big" buisness.

This highlights the learning curve with regard to rail issues. It's an industry that's been around forever, few people in the general populace think about (aside from a derailment or a crossing which makes them late for wherever), and one that obviously much of Congress doesn't understand either. Most don't realize railroads are one of the few industries exempt from Social Security and the only one that has its own comparable shadow system. Without any reading of history, that alone should give any thinking person an idea of not only the power of the rail industry but the complexity as well. It's not something that can be easily dismantled and as noted, often costs more to dismantle than to keep operating.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

But as has been said here (many, many times) before, the strategy of "trains for me but none for thee" doesn't work for a national railroad passenger system. The idea of taking your toys and going home if you don't get your way is absurd. Should I work to oppose the City of New Orleans extension if Amtrak doesn't first restore some train to east Tennessee? That's exactly what you're suggesting.

Here is the thing why should my taxes in South Carolina or a better example West Virginians support a train that runs from New York to Chicago via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh? From what I understand you saying that if the train doesn't benefit the state it's in then it shouldn't be charged to the taxes of that state.

And we should all be supporting system increases regardless of where they are as eventually the increases we want to see will happen after those. The Sunset East doesn't effect me at all but yet I'm still a staunch supporter of it. I even put twenty four hours in one day in the car to support the inspection train.

And the New York Texas train doesn't really effect me because I don't do business in Texas but I'm a major supporter of it when it eventually starts running.

There goes the old "Philly Amtrak Fan is selfish" again.

May I remind you of the expansions I support:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/67778-wish-list-for-amtraktrain-service-expansions/

There's plenty of train expansions and current LD trains I support. I just feel Philly should have better faster service to Chicago than Rugby.

 

[Ryan]

It already does.

 

[jebr]

It already does.

Eh? Including transfer time, it does take a bit longer to get from Philadelphia to Chicago on Amtrak as it does to get from Rugby to Chicago on Amtrak.

Now if you're going to pretty much any other non-Empire Builder (or Coast Starlight) destination on Amtrak, Philadelphia is faster. Especially since you can do a same-day transfer to all the western long distance trains that start in Chicago (along with the eastern ones) from Philadelphia. But the fact that a Philadelphia resident can get to Denver faster on Amtrak than a person from Rugby can, despite the Rugby person being in much closer physical proximity to Denver than Philadelphia is, doesn't make the "woe is Philadelphia, with its plethora of trains but the city of Chicago being slightly inconvenient to get to" argument as well. It also ignores the fact that someone without a car in Philadelphia can still take a bus or fly to Chicago with great ease, where someone from Rugby who doesn't have a car has to rely on the once-a-day train (or a once-a-week bus, on Thursdays, to Minot) to get anywhere outside of Rugby.

But yes, let's rip out a major lifeline for many Americans (including quite a few Senate votes) to save a bit of money and maybe make a connection to Chicago slightly more convenient for Pennsylvanians.

 

[Ryan]

3.5 trains/day as opposed to one? I'd say so.

I get that transfers are the work of the devil, but claiming that Rugby has better transportation than Philly is utterly ridiculous.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

3.5 trains/day as opposed to one? I'd say so.

I get that transfers are the work of the devil, but claiming that Rugby has better transportation than Philly is utterly ridiculous.

Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak. Although Philadelphia has more options as you say, they all run on roughly the same schedule and some are much faster than others. Most people other than railfans don't care if their train goes through West Virginia or New York. Having said that, some oddities like this can not be avoided. For example, Las Vegas, NM has better access to LA than Denver. I fully support restoration of the BL, but there will always be a potential improvement that could happen.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak.

Yes. Remember Chicago is the main east-west gateway and unless they add a second one (NOL?) it will be more important than most other destinations.

PHL-CHI: 834 miles via Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited, 12:42pm ET-8:45am CT (roughly 19 hours including transfer time)

Rugby-CHI: 879 miles via Empire Builder, 10:43pm-3:55pm CT (roughly 17 hours)

So two hours longer (and a transfer) to go 45 fewer miles.

I hope Rugby enjoys all the attention I'm giving them the same way I did for White Sulphur Springs and Thurmond I saw the name and thought what a cool name for a town.

Most people other than railfans don't care if their train goes through West Virginia or New York.

I think they would care if one train took 7 hours less than another. Why not route passengers from CHI to NYP via NOL (CONO/Crescent) and see if it makes a difference to them (even if the overnight stay in NOL was removed)?

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Philadelphia clearly has far better overall transit and Amtrak service than Rugby; however, one exception is access to Chicago via Amtrak.

Yes. Remember Chicago is the main east-west gateway and unless they add a second one (NOL?) it will be more important than most other destinations.

PHL-CHI: 834 miles via Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited, 12:42pm ET-8:45am CT (roughly 19 hours including transfer time)

Rugby-CHI: 879 miles via Empire Builder, 10:43pm-3:55pm CT (roughly 17 hours)

So two hours longer (and a transfer) to go 45 fewer miles.

I hope Rugby enjoys all the attention I'm giving them the same way I did for White Sulphur Springs and Thurmond I saw the name and thought what a cool name for a town.

Most people other than railfans don't care if their train goes through West Virginia or New York.

I think they would care if one train took 7 hours less than another. Why not route passengers from CHI to NYP via NOL (CONO/Crescent) and see if it makes a difference to them (even if the overnight stay in NOL was removed)?

People would certainly care if a train takes 7 hours longer, which is exactly my point; without some aversion to transfers hardly anybody would use the Cardinal between these cities. (I do not believe the Cardinal should be discontinued, but it is almost useless for this specific city pair) If the schedules were different then that may not be true, but it leaves PHL earlier and arrives CHI later than the other choices. All three options from PHL arrive CHI within a short period of the morning, so most people are going to take one of the CL options because they are faster. However, very few non-railfans would take the Cardinal or LSL. I understand that connections in Chicago are important, but I think that if a BL were to be restored it should arrive Chicago at night and depart in the morning to add a new frequency to the NEC to CHI market as well as provide service to Ohio during the day.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.

Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.

A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.

A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.

Let me put this in money terms. Amtrak's subsidy the last few years is around $1.4 million. So here's the conversation:

Amtrak: We want $1.4 billion.

Congress: We don't want to give you any money.

Amtrak: OK, let's compromise. How about $2 billion?

If you can get $2 billion out of Amtrak, more power to you. If you can get around the same Amtrak's been getting recently, I think most of us would be happy. If you can't get $1.4 billion, try to get $1 billion or $1.2 billion rather than say "$1.4 billion or nothing" or "$2 billion or nothing".

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616).

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

Extend the CONO to SAS via HOS (would we change the name?) or the TE to NOL via HOS. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the "longer" route between CHI-NOL or CHI-SAS but NOL-SAS would be covered and you would add the possibility of a one seat ride between CHI-HOS.

Cancel the Cardinal, Sunset Limited, and Empire Builder with portions covered by the CONO extension and the new CIN-MSP train. If the portions between CIN-IND and NOL-SAS can get daily service then Amtrak would have no non daily service.

If the entire LD system were shut down, 23 states would lose all of its Amtrak service including Texas, Florida, and Ohio. With my plan, only 4 states would lose all Amtrak service with the 37 most populous states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) maintaining at least some Amtrak service. Of the 13 least populous states in the country, four (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota) don't have any service right now, three (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) have only state supported service, and two (Rhode Island and Delaware) have federally funded NEC service but no LD trains.

Among the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas), only one MSA out of the 53 MSA's with 1 million or more people (Tucson) would lose Amtrak service and only three MSA's out of the 107 with 500,000 or more people would lose Amtrak service (Tucson, El Paso, and Spokane).

Only one of the 12 most populous states (Texas) would lose any service at all. Cross country service between the NEC and California (both LAX and the Bay Area) via CHI would remain intact and North-South service would remain between NEC-Florida, LAX-SEA/PDX, CHI-NOL/Texas. The most significant connection lost to me would be between Texas and California but the SL has really low ridership (NOL-SAS would remain intact).

Train miles saved:

828 miles of the Cardinal between NYP-CIN (340 miles, NYP-CVS, would still have other service, including the Crescent)

1422 miles of the Sunset Limited SAS-LAX

1787 miles of the Empire Builder MSP-SEA

376 miles of the Empire Builder SPK-PDX

Total savings of 4413 train miles.

12 stations on the Cardinal route can be closed.

13 stations on the Sunset Limited route can be closed.

33 stations on the Empire Builder route can be closed.

Total of 58 stations that Amtrak can close. Amtrak boasts more than 500 destinations. This would cut about 10% of the destinations but those 10% most likely amount to significantly less than 10% of the US population (the entire states of West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota combined contain less than 2% of the total US population and Amtrak barely touches Idaho now). I would say only 5-7% of the country that currently has Amtrak would lose service.

My hope is that this will cut around 10% of the Amtrak subsidy (over $100 million savings) while losing a lot less than 10% of Amtrak's ridership/revenue. Amtrak currently brags it covers 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue. Hopefully these changes will bring that percentage to 96-97%. And there is nothing stopping states from picking up the tab for the missing service. SEA-SPK can be added to the Cascades service that Washington already pays for. It is not unprecedented for states to do so, after the National Limited was canceled Pennsylvania started the Pennsylvanian service and Missouri added KCY-STL service.

In terms of schedule...

I'd like to move CIN outside the graveyard shift. The westbound train would leave CIN at 5:41am, arrive in CHI 2:05pm, leave CHI at 3:15pm, and arrive in MSP at 11:03pm. The eastbound train would leave MSP 6:00am, arrive in CHI at 1:55pm, leave CHI at 2:45pm, and arrive in CIN at 12:17am.

I'd move the NOL-SAS portions closer to the CONO. Westbound leave NOL at 9:00pm, arriving in SAS at 12:05pm. Eastbound leave SAS at 6:25pm, arriving in NOL at 9:40am. This would allow a one seat ride between CHI and HOS with around a 5.5 hr gap in NOL going south and a 4.5 hr gap in NOL going north (the times in HOS would be 6:18/6:55am west and 11:10pm/12:10am east so you can't really cut the dwell times in NOL without screwing HOS). You would have a longer gap in SAS between the CONO extension and the TE but it currently requires an overnight stay now anyway. Ideally you'd move the NOL-SAS closer to the TE so you can close the service facilities in SAS but with HOS-SAS only being around 5 hours the times would be bad on one or both ends.

Even if the CIN-CHI, CHI-MSP, and NOL-SAS schedules couldn't be changed, at least service remains along those routes.

I'd be reluctant to cut any more trains than I have proposed. Will the cuts get a few more Congress critters to support Amtrak at a cheaper price than the current price?

 

[CCC1007]

One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.

Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.

A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.

A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.

Let me put this in money terms. Amtrak's subsidy the last few years is around $1.4 million. So here's the conversation:

Amtrak: We want $1.4 billion.

Congress: We don't want to give you any money.

Amtrak: OK, let's compromise. How about $2 billion?

If you can get $2 billion out of Amtrak, more power to you. If you can get around the same Amtrak's been getting recently, I think most of us would be happy. If you can't get $1.4 billion, try to get $1 billion or $1.2 billion rather than say "$1.4 billion or nothing" or "$2 billion or nothing".

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616).

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

Extend the CONO to SAS via HOS (would we change the name?) or the TE to NOL via HOS. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the "longer" route between CHI-NOL or CHI-SAS but NOL-SAS would be covered and you would add the possibility of a one seat ride between CHI-HOS.

Cancel the Cardinal, Sunset Limited, and Empire Builder with portions covered by the CONO extension and the new CIN-MSP train. If the portions between CIN-IND and NOL-SAS can get daily service then Amtrak would have no non daily service.

If the entire LD system were shut down, 23 states would lose all of its Amtrak service including Texas, Florida, and Ohio. With my plan, only 4 states would lose all Amtrak service with the 37 most populous states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) maintaining at least some Amtrak service. Of the 13 least populous states in the country, four (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota) don't have any service right now, three (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) have only state supported service, and two (Rhode Island and Delaware) have federally funded NEC service but no LD trains.

Among the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas), only one MSA out of the 53 MSA's with 1 million or more people (Tucson) would lose Amtrak service and only three MSA's out of the 107 with 500,000 or more people would lose Amtrak service (Tucson, El Paso, and Spokane).

Only one of the 12 most populous states (Texas) would lose any service at all. Cross country service between the NEC and California (both LAX and the Bay Area) via CHI would remain intact and North-South service would remain between NEC-Florida, LAX-SEA/PDX, CHI-NOL/Texas. The most significant connection lost to me would be between Texas and California but the SL has really low ridership (NOL-SAS would remain intact).

Train miles saved:

828 miles of the Cardinal between NYP-CIN (340 miles, NYP-CVS, would still have other service, including the Crescent)

1422 miles of the Sunset Limited SAS-LAX

1787 miles of the Empire Builder MSP-SEA

376 miles of the Empire Builder SPK-PDX

Total savings of 4413 train miles.

12 stations on the Cardinal route can be closed.

13 stations on the Sunset Limited route can be closed.

33 stations on the Empire Builder route can be closed.

Total of 58 stations that Amtrak can close. Amtrak boasts more than 500 destinations. This would cut about 10% of the destinations but those 10% most likely amount to significantly less than 10% of the US population (the entire states of West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota combined contain less than 2% of the total US population and Amtrak barely touches Idaho now). I would say only 5-7% of the country that currently has Amtrak would lose service.

My hope is that this will cut around 10% of the Amtrak subsidy (over $100 million savings) while losing a lot less than 10% of Amtrak's ridership/revenue. Amtrak currently brags it covers 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue. Hopefully these changes will bring that percentage to 96-97%. And there is nothing stopping states from picking up the tab for the missing service. SEA-SPK can be added to the Cascades service that Washington already pays for. It is not unprecedented for states to do so, after the National Limited was canceled Pennsylvania started the Pennsylvanian service and Missouri added KCY-STL service.

In terms of schedule...

I'd like to move CIN outside the graveyard shift. The westbound train would leave CIN at 5:41am, arrive in CHI 2:05pm, leave CHI at 3:15pm, and arrive in MSP at 11:03pm. The eastbound train would leave MSP 6:00am, arrive in CHI at 1:55pm, leave CHI at 2:45pm, and arrive in CIN at 12:17am.

I'd move the NOL-SAS portions closer to the CONO. Westbound leave NOL at 9:00pm, arriving in SAS at 12:05pm. Eastbound leave SAS at 6:25pm, arriving in NOL at 9:40am. This would allow a one seat ride between CHI and HOS with around a 5.5 hr gap in NOL going south and a 4.5 hr gap in NOL going north (the times in HOS would be 6:18/6:55am west and 11:10pm/12:10am east so you can't really cut the dwell times in NOL without screwing HOS). You would have a longer gap in SAS between the CONO extension and the TE but it currently requires an overnight stay now anyway. Ideally you'd move the NOL-SAS closer to the TE so you can close the service facilities in SAS but with HOS-SAS only being around 5 hours the times would be bad on one or both ends.

Even if the CIN-CHI, CHI-MSP, and NOL-SAS schedules couldn't be changed, at least service remains along those routes.

I'd be reluctant to cut any more trains than I have proposed. Will the cuts get a few more Congress critters to support Amtrak at a cheaper price than the current price?

Maybe you should consult with the people that depend on the services you propose cutting before you actually do, as Montana, North Dakota, and Washington will all fight to retain the empire builder.

 

[A Voice]

One suggestion: Cut 100% of all Long Distance trains.

Compromise: Cut 50% of the Long Distance trains.

A better suggestion: Add 14 new LD trains, for a 100% increase.

A better compromise: Add 7 new LD trains, for a 50% increase.

Let me put this in money terms. Amtrak's subsidy the last few years is around $1.4 million. So here's the conversation:

Amtrak: We want $1.4 billion.

Congress: We don't want to give you any money.

Amtrak: OK, let's compromise. How about $2 billion?

If you can get $2 billion out of Amtrak, more power to you. If you can get around the same Amtrak's been getting recently, I think most of us would be happy. If you can't get $1.4 billion, try to get $1 billion or $1.2 billion rather than say "$1.4 billion or nothing" or "$2 billion or nothing".

So assume Amtrak won't be able to afford to run its entire LD system. My proposal of a more affordable LD system:

Reduce the LD mileage requirement to 700 miles.

Reclassify the Carolinian (704 miles) as an LD train. This frees up money for NC DOT to spend to increase frequency of the Piedmont service without significantly increasing Amtrak's costs (95% of the Carolinian's fully allocated operating costs are covered by ticket revenue: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616).

Introduce a new "day" train between Cincinnati and Minneapolis (737 miles, 319 CIN-CHI, 418 CHI-MSP). Or if Congress is firm on the 750 miles, extend to St. Cloud to put it over the top.

Extend the CONO to SAS via HOS (would we change the name?) or the TE to NOL via HOS. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the "longer" route between CHI-NOL or CHI-SAS but NOL-SAS would be covered and you would add the possibility of a one seat ride between CHI-HOS.

Cancel the Cardinal, Sunset Limited, and Empire Builder with portions covered by the CONO extension and the new CIN-MSP train. If the portions between CIN-IND and NOL-SAS can get daily service then Amtrak would have no non daily service.

If the entire LD system were shut down, 23 states would lose all of its Amtrak service including Texas, Florida, and Ohio. With my plan, only 4 states would lose all Amtrak service with the 37 most populous states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population) maintaining at least some Amtrak service. Of the 13 least populous states in the country, four (Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota) don't have any service right now, three (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire) have only state supported service, and two (Rhode Island and Delaware) have federally funded NEC service but no LD trains.

Among the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas), only one MSA out of the 53 MSA's with 1 million or more people (Tucson) would lose Amtrak service and only three MSA's out of the 107 with 500,000 or more people would lose Amtrak service (Tucson, El Paso, and Spokane).

Only one of the 12 most populous states (Texas) would lose any service at all. Cross country service between the NEC and California (both LAX and the Bay Area) via CHI would remain intact and North-South service would remain between NEC-Florida, LAX-SEA/PDX, CHI-NOL/Texas. The most significant connection lost to me would be between Texas and California but the SL has really low ridership (NOL-SAS would remain intact).

Train miles saved:

828 miles of the Cardinal between NYP-CIN (340 miles, NYP-CVS, would still have other service, including the Crescent)

1422 miles of the Sunset Limited SAS-LAX

1787 miles of the Empire Builder MSP-SEA

376 miles of the Empire Builder SPK-PDX

Total savings of 4413 train miles.

12 stations on the Cardinal route can be closed.

13 stations on the Sunset Limited route can be closed.

33 stations on the Empire Builder route can be closed.

Total of 58 stations that Amtrak can close. Amtrak boasts more than 500 destinations. This would cut about 10% of the destinations but those 10% most likely amount to significantly less than 10% of the US population (the entire states of West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota combined contain less than 2% of the total US population and Amtrak barely touches Idaho now). I would say only 5-7% of the country that currently has Amtrak would lose service.

My hope is that this will cut around 10% of the Amtrak subsidy (over $100 million savings) while losing a lot less than 10% of Amtrak's ridership/revenue. Amtrak currently brags it covers 94% of operating costs with ticket revenue. Hopefully these changes will bring that percentage to 96-97%. And there is nothing stopping states from picking up the tab for the missing service. SEA-SPK can be added to the Cascades service that Washington already pays for. It is not unprecedented for states to do so, after the National Limited was canceled Pennsylvania started the Pennsylvanian service and Missouri added KCY-STL service.

In terms of schedule...

I'd like to move CIN outside the graveyard shift. The westbound train would leave CIN at 5:41am, arrive in CHI 2:05pm, leave CHI at 3:15pm, and arrive in MSP at 11:03pm. The eastbound train would leave MSP 6:00am, arrive in CHI at 1:55pm, leave CHI at 2:45pm, and arrive in CIN at 12:17am.

I'd move the NOL-SAS portions closer to the CONO. Westbound leave NOL at 9:00pm, arriving in SAS at 12:05pm. Eastbound leave SAS at 6:25pm, arriving in NOL at 9:40am. This would allow a one seat ride between CHI and HOS with around a 5.5 hr gap in NOL going south and a 4.5 hr gap in NOL going north (the times in HOS would be 6:18/6:55am west and 11:10pm/12:10am east so you can't really cut the dwell times in NOL without screwing HOS). You would have a longer gap in SAS between the CONO extension and the TE but it currently requires an overnight stay now anyway. Ideally you'd move the NOL-SAS closer to the TE so you can close the service facilities in SAS but with HOS-SAS only being around 5 hours the times would be bad on one or both ends.

Even if the CIN-CHI, CHI-MSP, and NOL-SAS schedules couldn't be changed, at least service remains along those routes.

I'd be reluctant to cut any more trains than I have proposed. Will the cuts get a few more Congress critters to support Amtrak at a cheaper price than the current price?

That's a fair amount of research, thought and effort put into a plan to reduce and eliminate Amtrak train service. Now, imagine if that same effort were expended instead advocating for expanded and improved Amtrak intercity (long-distance) train service.....

 

[Seaboard92]

And West Virginia has just set up an account to potentially fund track improvements for a daily Cardinal. So I second that you need to talk to these people. And most of them when you say I'm from philly and want a fast one seat train to Chicago. Would look at you after you say cut their train for yours like why does Philly need a faster train when it has 21 flights a day between the two. And it's cheeper to fly. And for those who want the train they can go to Washington or New York easily to get there. Or connect in Pittsburgh. While these people don't have these options. The cardinal communities have the choice of drive hundreds of miles to an airport, their destination, or to a daily Amtrak. Which is what they would do without the Cardinal, or the Empire Builder. With those services they don't have to leave their home towns, or drive as far they would other wise.

You can't cut service to places with no other service alternative. Amtrak is more then a city to city carrier. It is town to town. Town to city. It isn't just the big cities that matter.

 

[Bob Dylan]

To quote the late President Reagan: "There you go again!"

And FYI, Delaware has Four LD Trains,The two Silvers to Florida,the Crescent and your whipping boy, the Cardinal in addition to the NEC Trains.

Good thing nobody rides these trains so they won't be missed!

Opps, forgot the Crescent and the Palmetto,thanks jis.