Cardinal service improvements

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I don't understand is why some politicans single out Amtrak when the rail subsidy cost also applies to all other forms of transportation.
Because "Nobody rides trains anymore"!
rolleyes.gif
If Amtrak growth continues on its present course; in two years you won't even be able to get a seat. Some routes like the NE corridor are already so full during the week that you can hardly find a seat and at times its standing room only.
That's a case of good yield management in the present, maybe minus the runs where standing room only exists. There is a difference between hardly finding a seat and not finding one at all. When I rode 145 last weekend from WAS to LYH, I boarded at coach 5, and couldn't find a window seat until the middle of coach 8 because the train was so full. However, my seat did still exist. I do find it curious, though, that Amtrak management doesn't increase the fare very slightly on the most frequently sold-out portions of its routes, especially the LD trains.

The future state that you envision is highly unlikely, since that would mean demand has completely outstripped supply and Amtrak management is watching from the sidelines as every single one of its NEC trains runs sold out. In the case of a fixed resource like train seats, a simple fare increase balances out this equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do find it curious, though, that Amtrak management doesn't increase the fare very slightly on the most frequently sold-out portions of its routes, especially the LD trains.
What makes you think they don't?

Don't we already have about 37 threads from the last few weeks complaining about how low-bucket fares aren't available in peak periods on certain trains?
 
I do find it curious, though, that Amtrak management doesn't increase the fare very slightly on the most frequently sold-out portions of its routes, especially the LD trains.
What makes you think they don't?

Don't we already have about 37 threads from the last few weeks complaining about how low-bucket fares aren't available in peak periods on certain trains?
Because sold out trains are still running on a regular basis. You want to do me a favor and check the Crescent's availability from LYH to NYP for the next 3 days? Tomorrow is completely sold out, and the next couple of days have a sold out coach and only 1 roommette left.

Complaining? On the contrary, you should be glad Amtrak is filling its seats and is charging higher prices as the number of remaining seats decline on a given portion of a given train. What makes you think you're somehow entitled to a lowest-bucket fare? Want to travel during a peak time? Better be willing to pay more, or Amtrak will fill that seat with someone who is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do find it curious, though, that Amtrak management doesn't increase the fare very slightly on the most frequently sold-out portions of its routes, especially the LD trains.
What makes you think they don't?

Don't we already have about 37 threads from the last few weeks complaining about how low-bucket fares aren't available in peak periods on certain trains?
Because sold out trains are still running on a regular basis. You want to do me a favor and check the Crescent's availability from LYH to NYP for the next 3 days? Tomorrow is completely sold out, and the next couple of days have a sold out coach and only 1 roommette left.

Complaining? On the contrary, you should be glad Amtrak is filling its seats and is charging higher prices as the number of remaining seats decline on a given portion of a given train. What makes you think you're somehow entitled to a lowest-bucket fare? Want to travel during a peak time? Better be willing to pay more, or Amtrak will fill that seat with someone who is.
Bob,

Amtrak does increase fares on the frequently sold out portions of all routes. Book any train on the NEC and you'll pay more to travel west/south of NY. Book the Crescent NY to Atlanta and you'll pay more than if you booked NY to say Birmingham. Book NY to Miami and you'll only pay a tiny bit more than if you had booked Amtrak to Orlando, even though you've got many more miles on the train and one extra meal.

Finally, I can assure you that Trogdor doesn't believe that he's entitled to a low bucket price.
 
Though it was raised earlier, the fact about the Congressional mandate means that, if I had to bet money, any cut to the Cardinal would have to get through a hold from Rockefeller or Manchin. It wouldn't have to be a "secret" hold...one of them would probably just hold the bill, period. You'd also have to deal with the IN and OH Senate delegations, too.

Also...a large part of the problem with the Cardinal is that it's carrying a lot of overhead for very few passengers. The engine crew situation is probably almost identical to the Silver Meteor (NYP-MIA) given the timing, but the train is far shorter, it only has a single sleeper, etc. You've also got your service crew, which isn't much smaller. Overhead is killing that train when you get down to it, and that's a large part of why it's not hauling the 55-65% of cost (maybe even a bit more for FY10/11) that the others are managing.
 
I do find it curious, though, that Amtrak management doesn't increase the fare very slightly on the most frequently sold-out portions of its routes, especially the LD trains.
What makes you think they don't?

Don't we already have about 37 threads from the last few weeks complaining about how low-bucket fares aren't available in peak periods on certain trains?
Because sold out trains are still running on a regular basis. You want to do me a favor and check the Crescent's availability from LYH to NYP for the next 3 days? Tomorrow is completely sold out, and the next couple of days have a sold out coach and only 1 roommette left.

Complaining? On the contrary, you should be glad Amtrak is filling its seats and is charging higher prices as the number of remaining seats decline on a given portion of a given train. What makes you think you're somehow entitled to a lowest-bucket fare? Want to travel during a peak time? Better be willing to pay more, or Amtrak will fill that seat with someone who is.
Bob,

Amtrak does increase fares on the frequently sold out portions of all routes. Book any train on the NEC and you'll pay more to travel west/south of NY. Book the Crescent NY to Atlanta and you'll pay more than if you booked NY to say Birmingham. Book NY to Miami and you'll only pay a tiny bit more than if you had booked Amtrak to Orlando, even though you've got many more miles on the train and one extra meal.

Finally, I can assure you that Trogdor doesn't believe that he's entitled to a low bucket price.
My point was not to say that Amtrak doesn't adjust fares. I'm well aware of the bucket system that Amtrak has in place. What you listed is purely supply and demand. There is likely much greater demand between WAS-PHL-NYP than there is NYP-BOS, simply judging by the larger number of trains that run between NYP-WAS than NYP-BOS, and a higher demand will naturally command a higher price. That's simple economics. My point was that even with the current bucket system that increases prices as available seats diminish, many of the LD trains (and Regionals sometimes, too) often times still run sold out. For some of the routes, the demand obviously exists as they sell out frequently even with the bucket system in place, which is what I was referring to when I said that I am surprised that the Amtrak revenue management team doesn't attempt to raise the prices of the sequential buckets of a given route. Amtrak exists in an environment where its product/service is both fixed and perishable, and although a full train is a good train, a sell out still represents a loss of potential revenue.
 
OTOH, the biggest trackage risk to the Card at present I believe is Buckingham Branch RR. Hopefully some funding will materialize from somewhere to fix up that puppy. The worst of it is between Charlottesville and Orange,
I know what you mean. That stretch was lunchtime when I traveled eastward last spring. The cafe car was bucking and heaving as I tried to maneuver a fork to my mouth. Everything was in random motion. I felt like I was trying to eat while playing a drum solo! Returning to the coach, I immediately noticed a much smoother ride. Leaving me to wonder if the dining car had a faulty suspension. It's a two-sided problem, most likely, of track and train.

Disappointments aside, I can't understand how devoted followers of this forum can hope for the demise of this passenger line. All that history and scenery might no longer accessible to the public. I wouldn't trade that budget item for, say, four additional daily departures on the Philly-NYC run.
 
Last edited:
My point was not to say that Amtrak doesn't adjust fares. I'm well aware of the bucket system that Amtrak has in place. What you listed is purely supply and demand. There is likely much greater demand between WAS-PHL-NYP than there is NYP-BOS, simply judging by the larger number of trains that run between NYP-WAS than NYP-BOS, and a higher demand will naturally command a higher price. That's simple economics. My point was that even with the current bucket system that increases prices as available seats diminish, many of the LD trains (and Regionals sometimes, too) often times still run sold out. For some of the routes, the demand obviously exists as they sell out frequently even with the bucket system in place, which is what I was referring to when I said that I am surprised that the Amtrak revenue management team doesn't attempt to raise the prices of the sequential buckets of a given route. Amtrak exists in an environment where its product/service is both fixed and perishable, and although a full train is a good train, a sell out still represents a loss of potential revenue.

Sharply higher fares will result in decresed ridership. It will follow the law of decreasing returns which says higher prices = lower revenue. Amtrak cannot charge anything that it wants and still expect to sell tickets. People will always gravitate to the lowest cost form of transportation.

If we cannot take advantage of low bucket fares we just don't travel by train. We are going to NOL this June on the Crescent. Our trip was booked 11 months out and the bedroom fare was still $919 R/T- still double the airline fare and 12 times the travel time. If it would have been $1200, its above our cost threshold and we would have declined that price. The prices are already high enough. The best way to kill Amtrak is to sharply raise prices that will drive a good portion of the ridership away. People from all walks of life and incomes take Amtrak and not everyone is Joe Biden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dlagrua,

What you are saying is true to a point, but I would note a couple of countervailing points:

-What Amtrak can charge on a Wednesday in September is very different from a certain Wednesday in November.

-Amtrak cannot sell out most trains at the top bucket, but they can get a lot closer at peak times than at "off" times (and they might be able to get away with some Regionals on the day before Thanksgiving or right at Christmas).

-Finally, a sold-out train means that somebody was paying that high bucket. You might opt not to pay it, but somebody else will.

I don't think a massive overnight jump would work, but I think that at least on some routes, there's a bit of room for growth (either in train length, which is arrested by the rolling stock shortages Amtrak is facing more and more often, or in fares). The Cardinal is a "special" case because of the near-stub status it seems to have, not to mention the less-than-daily frequency (it being one of only two trains in the system with this "distinction").

Do I think that Amtrak could get away with slapping some Superliner segments on the Silvers at DC? Sure, and they could probably confront the Cardinal's issues by pairing it with a train they split in DC (piggybacking it on the Palmetto, particularly if they wanted to extend that into the Silver Palm again at some point, leaps to mind as a possibility here). But I don't see that happening.

The one thing I'll say is that I think Amtrak would be wrong not to pursue revenue where they can get it (within reason, of course). I say this not because I expect Amtrak to turn a profit, but because I want Amtrak to have the funds to improve train service, and in the current environment, the only way we'll see further new equipment purchases for LD trains is if Amtrak can pay for them on excess returns on some trains versus the federal subsidy. This might mean hiking the non-low buckets somewhat. It might mean putting more stuff at higher buckets. And I don't like it either in that I want inexpensive travel...but I also accept that travel is going to get more expensive on a lot of fronts in the long run, too.
 
My point was not to say that Amtrak doesn't adjust fares. I'm well aware of the bucket system that Amtrak has in place. What you listed is purely supply and demand. There is likely much greater demand between WAS-PHL-NYP than there is NYP-BOS, simply judging by the larger number of trains that run between NYP-WAS than NYP-BOS, and a higher demand will naturally command a higher price. That's simple economics. My point was that even with the current bucket system that increases prices as available seats diminish, many of the LD trains (and Regionals sometimes, too) often times still run sold out.
The price elasticity would depend on the difference between supply and demand. So even if there is huge demand, if the supply is even greater then there should be no economic reason for higher fares purely based on supply-demand elasticity. OTOH, if one is trying to maximize revenue that would skew the price equation. My point is it is not just supply-demand it is also a few externalities including willingness of customers to pay a certain amount for an offered service irrespective of supply/demand ratio, and pricing offered by primary competition irrespective of supply/demand ratio, that determine pricing in this case. Another skewing factor is the one mentioned below...

For some of the routes, the demand obviously exists as they sell out frequently even with the bucket system in place, which is what I was referring to when I said that I am surprised that the Amtrak revenue management team doesn't attempt to raise the prices of the sequential buckets of a given route. Amtrak exists in an environment where its product/service is both fixed and perishable, and although a full train is a good train, a sell out still represents a loss of potential revenue.
The Amtrak denizens will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of the ill-conceived decrees pouring forth from the Congress limits Amtrak's range of pricing on a particular service. So if they raise fares for the highest bucket beyond a certain level they can no longer offer the lowest bucket that was available on that service. This again skews the pricing. This BTW is in order to protect buses who appear to have difficulty making money at the lowest fares that Amtrak could offer on many routes. Note also that it is not like the buses are not subsidized, but any subsidy to rail is by definition bad and subsidy to road is good. ;)
 
Because sold out trains are still running on a regular basis.
Depends on how you define "regular basis". I just did a little spot check in another thread:

And to the OP, if you think you're gonna net a sleeper compartment only a few days out from your trip, you're even more delusional than Peter.
Why is that delusional? I bet you can walk up to the ticket counter at virtually any large airport and book a first class seat on the next flight out

8 out of 10 times. Extend that to two weeks and the odds are virtually 100%. So why shouldn't the average person expect to be able to book

first class accommodations on Amtrak 2 weeks from the travel date?

Railfans and experienced Amtrak riders know about Amtrak's capacity issues, but there's no particular reason that the occasional rider would know

this. I think it's really inappropriate to call someone "delusional" for thinking they could book a sleeping car 2 weeks in advance. (which is not "a

few days" BTW)

It's this kind of attitude that really turns off casual travelers. Thanks for making the OP feel so welcome.
While agree completely with what you said, Bierboy's comments are also not really based in reality. Looking at LD trains departing next Friday (one week from today):

Cardinal (WAS-CHI) - no rooms (not a surprise there)

Capitol Limited (WAS CHI) - bedrooms and roomettes available

LSL (NYP - CHI) - Bedrooms available, no roomettes

Silvers - both trains sold out

Crescent (WAS-ATL) Bedrooms and Roomettes available

CONO (CHI-NOL) no rooms

SWC (CHI-LAX) - roomettes available

EB (CHI-PDX) - bedrooms available

EB (CHI-SEA) - bedrooms and roomettes available

CZ (CHI-SAC) - bedrooms and roomettes available

TE (CHI-AUS) - bedrooms and roomettes available

SL (NOL-LAX) - roomettes and family bedroom available

CS (LAX - SEA) - bedrooms and roomettes available

In summary, out of 14 trains, 7 of them have both roomettes and bedrooms (or family bedroom on the SL) available for the vast majority of their runs. Only 4 of them have no rooms whatsoever.
I didn't look at coach fares at the time of the post, but I just checked them for right now and not a single route that I highlighted is sold out in coach.
 
Sharply higher fares will result in decresed ridership.
Not once did I suggest a sharp fare hike in my post.

It will follow the law of decreasing returns which says higher prices = lower revenue.
No. The law of diminishing returns does not state that higher prices means lower revenue. Diminishing returns is based on marginal analysis, and states that as one production input increases, the corresponding benefits will at some point begin to yield lower returns on a per-unit basis. Until that point, revenue is increased as prices are increased.

Amtrak cannot charge anything that it wants and still expect to sell tickets.
To a certain extent, they already do, since their service is unique and largely without similar competition.

People will always gravitate to the lowest cost form of transportation.
Be careful. Will they? To most people, especially business travelers, cost is a relative term that involves much more than just the base price of a fare for a given service. Time, reliability, and convenience among other factors all affect the choice of transportation method used for a given trip, and will affect the willingness to pay of most given consumers. If I had not used AGR points for my jaunts over the last few weeks, it would have cost me less to drive to my destination in NJ than to pay the fare that Amtrak had posted for 176 at the time of my purchase. But for me, not having to be behind the wheel for 7+ hours, not having to deal with unfamiliar territory, and my desire to support this train service would have been well worth the premium I'd pay Amtrak (around $20 more). Similarly, I paid a few dollars more for a direct flight from Chicago to DC last week to avoid a connection. Not that I have any problem with a connection, but I would have rather just flown straight to my ultimate destination than connect through ATL. There were some time constraints, too. Gravitating towards the lowest cost of transportation on this portion of my trip would have meant that I would have taken Amtrak, which I did not do.

If we cannot take advantage of low bucket fares we just don't travel by train. We are going to NOL this June on the Crescent. Our trip was booked 11 months out and the bedroom fare was still $919 R/T- still double the airline fare and 12 times the travel time. If it would have been $1200, its above our cost threshold and we would have declined that price. The prices are already high enough. The best way to kill Amtrak is to sharply raise prices that will drive a good portion of the ridership away. People from all walks of life and incomes take Amtrak and not everyone is Joe Biden.
This is what I was referring to when I was talking about a small price increase. Each customer has a certain willingness to pay for Amtrak travel and upgrades, and on the trains that run sold out, the willingness to pay exceeds the given purchase price. Would $930 been above your cost threshold? What about $950? $1,000? The prices may already be high enough for you, but A) you're still buying, and B) on sold out trains, the highest buckets are still selling out. Unless you personally have done an in-depth full scale market analysis of Amtrak's customer base, you have no idea how a small fare increase would affect its revenue stream.

The price elasticity would depend on the difference between supply and demand. So even if there is huge demand, if the supply is even greater then there should be no economic reason for higher fares purely based on supply-demand elasticity. OTOH, if one is trying to maximize revenue that would skew the price equation. My point is it is not just supply-demand it is also a few externalities including willingness of customers to pay a certain amount for an offered service irrespective of supply/demand ratio, and pricing offered by primary competition irrespective of supply/demand ratio, that determine pricing in this case.
In this example, price elasticity of demand is what is being analyzed, not price elasticity of supply. The two are fundamentally different. PEd measures the change of the quantity demanded as compared to a total change in price. Externalities are included in a pricing strategy, and I'd be willing to bet that Amtrak already accounts for this.

The Amtrak denizens will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of the ill-conceived decrees pouring forth from the Congress limits Amtrak's range of pricing on a particular service. So if they raise fares for the highest bucket beyond a certain level they can no longer offer the lowest bucket that was available on that service. This again skews the pricing.
Frustrating, isn't it?
 
The Amtrak denizens will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of the ill-conceived decrees pouring forth from the Congress limits Amtrak's range of pricing on a particular service. So if they raise fares for the highest bucket beyond a certain level they can no longer offer the lowest bucket that was available on that service. This again skews the pricing.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Not in the least. If there's demand to support raising fares at the high bucket level, there's also demand to support raising the fares at the lower buckets as well.

Also, you've failed to address the fact that your entering assumption that trains run sold out on a regular basis is still faulty.
 
Unless things have changed, the Cardinal would be one of the most difficult routes to shut down, because it is the only Amtrak route specifically mandated by law. Terminating the Cardinal requires an act of Congress.
What law/act are you referring to?
 
Unless things have changed, the Cardinal would be one of the most difficult routes to shut down, because it is the only Amtrak route specifically mandated by law. Terminating the Cardinal requires an act of Congress.
What law/act are you referring to?
I was referring to the Department of Transportation's Fiscal Year 1982 Appropriation Act (passed 23 Dec 1981), which included a mandate that "the corporation shall provide through rail passenger service between Washington, DC and Chicago via Cincinnati". This re-instituted the Cardinal, which had been discontinued three months earlier. I believe Senator Robert Byrd more or less single-handedly inserted this language, re-instituting the train.

There was some subsequent debate as to whether this mandate was permanent or only for the life of this particular appropriation act. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation believed this was not a permanent mandate; Amtrak's General Counsel believed this was a permanent mandate. The US Government Accountability Office on 14 September 1982 determined that this was not a permanent mandate. Here is the US AGO 1982 ruling on the Cardinal mandate.

I hadn't, until just now, known that this mandate was basically annulled almost immediately after it was written into law. At least, I'm assuming this 1982 ruling was the official end. I haven't turned up any subsequent appeal or debate on the issue. So, I now believe I was wrong in thinking the Cardinal is currently uniquely protected. But at one time, it was!
 
why did they name it the 'Cardinal'?
Perhaps because it runs in the Red! :lol: Seriously, Cardinal is an old RailRoad Train name, believe a previous Train before Amtrak on this route had this name?, sort of like Sunset Ltd., Lake Shore Ltd. ,Zephyr etc. but not sure exactly which Train? Perhaps Bill Haithcoat or another member knowledgable about Old Trains knows?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "old" train that ran this route was the James Whitcomb Riley, which had a Newport News section and a Washington section. That train dropped its Newport News section, and the routing got renamed to the Cardinal because of the associated state birds.
 
The "old" train that ran this route was the James Whitcomb Riley, which had a Newport News section and a Washington section. That train dropped its Newport News section, and the routing got renamed to the Cardinal because of the associated state birds.
It was James Whitcomb Riley westbound and George Washington eastbound at least in 1973.
 
The "old" train that ran this route was the James Whitcomb Riley, which had a Newport News section and a Washington section. That train dropped its Newport News section, and the routing got renamed to the Cardinal because of the associated state birds.
It was James Whitcomb Riley westbound and George Washington eastbound at least in 1973.
That train switched names about four times in the 1970s. Initially, it was the JWR. Then they merged it with the George Washington and kept the latter's name by having it hold one name one way, and another name the other way. Then they dropped the George Washington name (my guess is that the different names threw people)...and after that, changed it to the Cardinal.

Edit: Oh, and they merged part of the service with the Hilltopper at Cattlesburg, KY.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why did they name it the 'Cardinal'?
It runs through several states, the state bird of which is Cardinal.
For those keeping score, here are the state birds along the Cardinal's route:

Illinois: cardinal

Indiana: cardinal

Ohio: cardinal

Kentucky: cardinal

West Virginia: cardinal

Virginia: cardinal

For the entire route, until it hits Washington, DC, the state bird is the cardinal! (And note that this was the entire mandated route of the Cardinal, for the brief time it was mandated leading to its recreation.)

On the Northeast Corridor:

Washington, DC: wood thrush

Maryland: oriole

Delaware: blue hen chicken

Pennsylvania: ruffed grouse

New Jersey: eastern goldfinch

New York: eastern bluebird

The Northeast Corridor may be considered by some to be "relatively unscenic" compared to the rest of the Cardinal's route, but it certainly has more exciting state birds :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top