Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

TiBike said:

California has not expanded rail service by playing hardball. The Capitol Corridor used to have a terrible on time performance record. Maybe there were unpleasant conversations with UP – I don't know – but the problem wasn't solved until Caltrans started paying to upgrade track. Same in southern California – cash bought track and cooperation.

I didn't say Nevada and Utah were uninterested in the Zephyr route or the communities along it. I assume it's high enough, but I don't know where it ranks on the cosmic list of concerns. If they are concerned – no reason to think they're not – then the Zephyr as currently configured is only of interest as long as it's the only option.

You're basically making my argument: yes, serving small towns is part of Amtrak's mission and a source of political support. Corridor-type service will serve more of them, and with transportation service that actually meets more of their needs. Keep in mind, Amtrak trains only reach a tiny fraction of the small towns in the U.S., and when it's via long distance trains it's not optimised to meet their needs, except by happenstance. The whole point is for Amtrak to stop worrying about providing subsidised train trips across the country for people with time on their hands, and start providing a transportation service to people who need to get somewhere now. 

Click to expand...

You don't seem to get that cutting the Zephyr and trying to play a shell game with train schedules isn't what will get UP back to the table. They want track upgrades and the 2 states want more passenger trains. They will have to come up with a deal that they all can live with. It could be a mixed of tax credits, direct payments, tax deferments and loan guarantees. But killing the Zephyr isn't going to be on the table since it's a federal route and Amtrak is the train operator. If traffic is really an issue in the mountains, your shell game won't work and they'll expand capacity eventually and the states won't get anything out of it. More corridor service is needed, but if it's up to the states and Amtrak is the contracted operator, the states will lead it.

Also, why is it a bad thing that the state pay the railway to build out infrastructure it's trains use? It makes sense that if you are adding congestion and wear and tear that you're going to pay for it. The UP is a company not a charity. 

My point overall is that Amtrak needs to funding to deal with having long distance service and local service. Choosing one for the other isn't a smart option. Killing one to play a shell game in some areas is just nonsensical. Yeah expanding rail capacity will cost money, but the feds did tax the railways to pay for the highways, so they're kind of owed one. 

Anderson said:

At least in the (partial) defense of the Wisconsin situation, Walker killed what was at that point a Chicago-Madison train (primarily within Wisconsin, to boot) that had a general hope of eventual extension to Minneapolis at some indefinite point in the future; additionally, it was part of an explicit campaign promise (albeit one most of us rather strongly disagree with), and he did it at a point when there was no visible path to funding the rest of the route.

By the way, on the Sunset?  While it has the lowest ridership in the LD system most years, that ridership isn't terrible considering that it only runs 3x weekly.  The daily ridership is roughly on par with a number of the eastern LD trains, and (again) that's with the "sandbagging" of running 3x weekly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but look at the mileage and the ticket prices.  :-(  Getting that much ridership takes four trainsets (for three a week service!) vs. three trainsets for daily service on the LSL or CL, and the ticket prices aren't anywhere near enough higher to compensate -- sometimes they're even lower.  :-(  I should really dig into the ridership by station on the Sunset.  I know the ridership from stations between El Paso and San Antonio is close to nothing.  If I remember correctly, the ridership from stations between Houston and New Orleans is actually quite good (but then, that's "corridor length"...)

RPC said:

In general, I think there's a demand for sleeper service even in a corridor. I know I'd love to have one back on 66/67. So why not have, say,  an Empire Service train with a Viewliner II "compartment car" ("Get your work done in the privacy of your very own space!") which just happens to continue to Chicago? Similarly, an Empire Service train overnight NYP - BUF which became a day train to the west?

Click to expand...

I've proposed this before, with my "TWO A DAY" proposal for the Water Level Route.  There's a really nice schedule possible which runs in the daytime through Ohio and acts as an overnight train between NYC and Syracuse/Rochester/Buffalo -- it would be super successful, especially by saving on hotel costs in NYC.  I'm told the most likely obstacle is actually Metro North not wanting to allow an Amtrak arrival in NYC in the early morning, which is caused by the tendency of the freight railroads to delay Amtrak (Metro-North don't want a late Amtrak to end up in rush hour), which gets back to "We need to buy the tracks from the freight railroads so they will stop delaying the trains".

Ryan said:

Amtrak was several decades old before the 750 mile rule came into effect, making it somewhat irrelevant when determining the rationale for Amtrak's creation.

If you want to argue what Amtrak's current purpose is, things like the 750 mile rule become relevant.

Click to expand...

It would be a worthy political campaign to abolish the 750 mile rule and replace it with a "federal funds only for interstate routes" rule (or, for those politicians who really want to stick it to Chicago, perhaps "only for routes which spend more than 100 miles in each of three states").

Well here is my manifesto for today! For those that say the long distance trains are completely useless and serve no purpose, they serve a purpose for me, not just because I want to take a luxury land cruise but when I need to go somewhere for vacation or a family matter. While I do enjoy train travel by itself, I also take trains because I get major anxiety flying and detest it. There have been some instances where I have had to fly to get to certain places but it is never a pleasant experience. I take the train to get where I need to go to avoid having to drive and to avoid flying which I have difficulties with. I would rather spend 48 hours on a train than the anxiety and stress that anticipating a 50 minute flight causes me. None of this is invalid - the anxiety/fear may be irrational but the anxiety is nonetheless real. I am not saying that flying isn't safe, obviously statistics don't lie, but for some people, myself included that does not relieve the anxiety. Not to mention I have a difficult time with the extreme discomfort of the seating and lack of space on many airlines. I'm not saying I'll never fly again, if I really want to go somewhere overseas I'll have to make myself. But my preference, when I can, will be to take Amtrak which hopefully won't be removed as an option. As I stated earlier I am open to changes that make sense. Some GOOD faith changes may make sense. Obviously I think corridors should be expanded - there is a local one near me I would like to see (PIT-SPG-BOS.) Maybe some national network tweaks make sense, and I will wait to form an opinion on them until I see the proposals, but I do NOT believe in draconian cuts and complete abandonment of the entire national network. I think there is a way to continue to serve passengers traveling long distances, rural passengers who rely on the current services, and developing higher frequency corridors where it makes sense to grow the ridership. I am perfectly happy to see a bigger investment in Amtrak at the federal level to make this happen.

lordsigma said:

For those that say the long distance trains are completely useless and serve no purpose,

Click to expand...

Where are these mythical people?

neroden said:

It would be a worthy political campaign to abolish the 750 mile rule and replace it with a "federal funds only for interstate routes" rule (or, for those politicians who really want to stick it to Chicago, perhaps "only for routes which spend more than 100 miles in each of three states").

Click to expand...

The only issue with this is it would negatively effect the west coast and any bill that is going to allow Amtrak to expand using federal money (assuming it also gets a stable funding stream) is going to count on support from urban representatives. And a good chunk of them are from California where you could have corridor service even hit the 750 mile rule, but be ineligible for federal funding. I'm not saying the feds should bank roll every possible corridor, but have room to start routes that make sense even if they stay within one state. 

For example, an Ohio Corridor would make sense, but for Amtrak to run it without money from Ohio, it would have to extend to at least Louisville, Indianapolis and Pittsburgh. All potentially worth while connections, but as a starter line, might be ridiculous given equipment shortages. These shortages are more than likely to stay with us even with the Amfleet replacement since they'll get scrapped after replacement and the order will be at best 500 cars, baring an act of God. 

A better rule would be connecting two urban areas of 1 million each that are separated by at least 100 miles. That way an Ohio Corridor could start without convincing the state at the outset, but would prevent shorter lines like the Capitol Corridor from getting started by the feds. I would limit the number of trains that can be run in 1 state with federal funds to 6 trips daily so at least it's useful enough to attract riders and hopefully convince the state to pay for more down the road. 

Ryan said:

Where are these mythical people?

Click to expand...

I have spoken to people who feel that way and seen opinions implying that. I'm not going to name names or boards - I don't think that does good for the sake of civil discussion as of course everyone does have the right to their opinion.

I don't know much of the background on the notion of extending Capital Corridor trains to Reno, but some thoughts on that:

I'm not sure how interested the legislature would be in funding such a thing. They want trains to Vegas; adding more to Reno while Vegas has none would be a tough sell. Southern Nevada already feels like they subsidize everyone else (they aren't really wrong about this, to be fair). 

Any such thing would have to be over Donner to serve Reno. Feather is way out of the way. Even so, the CZ over Donner is much slower than the current buses. I-80 has been a bit of a mess lately but that's not the norm.  

All the relevant parts of the route in Nevada are already double tracked. The single track sections are in California, between Truckee and Colfax. 

The Journalist said:

I don't know much of the background on the notion of extending Capital Corridor trains to Reno, but some thoughts on that:

I'm not sure how interested the legislature would be in funding such a thing. They want trains to Vegas; adding more to Reno while Vegas has none would be a tough sell. Southern Nevada already feels like they subsidize everyone else (they aren't really wrong about this, to be fair). 

Any such thing would have to be over Donner to serve Reno. Feather is way out of the way. Even so, the CZ over Donner is much slower than the current buses. I-80 has been a bit of a mess lately but that's not the norm.  

All the relevant parts of the route in Nevada are already double tracked. The single track sections are in California, between Truckee and Colfax. 

Click to expand...

One of the original goals of the Capitol Corridor was to go east of Sacramento on a regular basis and so far that has only panned out to 1 trip to Auburn and 4 (then 3 ) buses to Reno and 1 to South Lake/Carson City. As for paying for the Reno part over Las Vegas, Reno is far closer to cities in California than Vegas is. Also when the Capitol Corridor was planning eastern trains, Vegas still had a train. 

My thought on Nevada's rail issues would be to give the railways 20 year property tax deferments/credits to get them to upgrade the tracks under the agreement that the state/local governments can run trains when a funding plan is outlined. The state already is looking into commuter service around Vegas so having the capacity expanded before hand would be a good move. Also the state is assuming one of the private ventures is going to succeed in connecting LA and Vegas so funding Amtrak to Vegas is kind of off the table. 

As for paying for the service, the last cost I saw was $5 million for 2 daily round trips or $10 million for 4 daily trips. Or about $12 million in today's dollars. The state could easily tack a what? extra .1% on the room tax in Washoe county to pay for the service and some tax deferments for double tracking through out the state? The issue with deferments for all the lines would be for future service and to get the railway on board. If they can do all of Nevada for certain, they might be more amicable (or be held contractually to it) to allow commuter or expanded Amtrak service in the future. 

I never said paying for track upgrades was a bad thing – it's a good thing. The state wanted something from UP and gave something in exchange. That's how business is done. Not by knocking heads together.

Anderson says he wants to rationalise Amtrak's services and operations, and make them match 21st century needs. He wasn't specific, but he was clear that he intends to change where and how Amtrak offers service. Amtrak's resources are limited, so change means reallocating those resources, including equipment and track slots. I don't know what UP wants, but assuming they're economically rational they will listen to a proposal that reduces the impact of Amtrak's operations on their's and/or increases the profitability of the services they provide to Amtrak. That's just one piece of the puzzle, though.

Amtrak operates long distance trains on at least four routes in California that would be better served by trains scheduled and operated to maximise the utility of the transportation service offered within those routes – LA to Bay Area, Bay Area to Reno, Bay Area to Redding (or beyond) and LA to Coachella Valley. And there's LA to Las Vegas, which might have the most potential of them all, but has nothing now. If Amtrak redesigns the way service is provided on those routes – dense service where there's dense traffic, thin service where there's thin traffic – then Amtrak will increase its profitability, which is what it's supposed to be doing, and better serve the public, which is why it's getting subsidies.

The state versus federal service distinction is artificial, and as others have pointed out, relatively recent. If changing that mix improves Amtrak's results and provides greater public service, then workarounds can be found. Or laws can be changed. Amtrak has said that it will outline upcoming changes in its next reauthorisation request – if congress agrees, the law will change.

sttom said:

You don't seem to get that cutting the Zephyr and trying to play a shell game with train schedules isn't what will get UP back to the table. They want track upgrades and the 2 states want more passenger trains. They will have to come up with a deal that they all can live with. It could be a mixed of tax credits, direct payments, and tax deferments. But killing the Zephyr isn't going to be on the table since it's a federal route and Amtrak is the train operator. If traffic is really an issue in the mountains, your shell game won't work and they'll expand capacity eventually and the states won't get anything out of it. More corridor service is needed, but if it's up to the states and Amtrak is the contracted operator, the states will lead it.

Also, why is it a bad thing that the state pay the railway to build out infrastructure it's trains use? It makes sense that if you are adding congestion and wear and tear that you're going to pay for it. The UP is a company not a charity. 

My point overall is that Amtrak needs to funding to deal with having long distance service and local service. Choosing one for the other isn't a smart option. Killing one to play a shell game in some areas is just nonsensical. Yeah expanding rail capacity will cost money, but the feds did tax the railways to pay for the highways, so they're kind of owed one. 

Click to expand...

The single north of SAC Capitol Corridor trip originally went all the way to Colfax when it started, from 1998 to 2000. I’ve written up a full history on its station page: http://subwaynut.com/california/amtrak/colfax/index.php

sttom said:

One of the original goals of the Capitol Corridor was to go east of Sacramento on a regular basis and so far that has only panned out to 1 trip to Auburn and 4 (then 3 ) buses to Reno and 1 to South Lake/Carson City. As for paying for the Reno part over Las Vegas, Reno is far closer to cities in California than Vegas is. Also when the Capitol Corridor was planning eastern trains, Vegas still had a train. 

 My thought on Nevada's rail issues would be to give the railways 20 year property tax deferments/credits to get them to upgrade the tracks under the agreement that the state/local governments can run trains when a funding plan is outlined. The state already is looking into commuter service around Vegas so having the capacity expanded before hand would be a good move. Also the state is assuming one of the private ventures is going to succeed in connecting LA and Vegas so funding Amtrak to Vegas is kind of off the table. 

 As for paying for the service, the last cost I saw was $5 million for 2 daily round trips or $10 million for 4 daily trips. Or about $12 million in today's dollars. The state could easily tack a what? extra .1% on the room tax in Washoe county to pay for the service and some tax deferments for double tracking through out the state? The issue with deferments for all the lines would be for future service and to get the railway on board. If they can do all of Nevada for certain, they might be more amicable (or be held contractually to it) to allow commuter or expanded Amtrak service in the future. 

Click to expand...

The distances aren't THAT much different; LA-LV is 50 miles longer than SF-Reno, but over much less complex terrain for rail. 

I don't think either of those subsidy proposals really work. They don't need to double track anything in Nevada, so property tax deferments wouldn't work too well. Not to mention that between Tesla and the Raiders, there's not much political appetite for more of that sort of thing. 

As far as the room tax proposal, maybe that's plausible in theory but it'd have to be a great deal more than .1%; not to mention that we already have several room fees. As a comparison, here is an article about the room tax to support the visitor's authority, which added either $1 or $2 (so roughly 2-3%) to room charges depending on where the hotel was located in order to raise $4 million annually: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/14/lawmakers-approve-washoe-room-tax-hike-marketing/27340323/

To be clear, I'm from Reno and would love more trains here; given the cost, UP's lack of willingness to even talk about it, and the political realities of what part of the state is going to get subsidized train service first, I don't see it happening any time soon. Now if California saw this a priority, maybe things would be different. But why would they prioritize vacationers to another state over their own?

The Journalist said:

The distances aren't THAT much different; LA-LV is 50 miles longer than SF-Reno, but over much less complex terrain for rail. 

I don't think either of those subsidy proposals really work. They don't need to double track anything in Nevada, so property tax deferments wouldn't work too well. Not to mention that between Tesla and the Raiders, there's not much political appetite for more of that sort of thing. 

As far as the room tax proposal, maybe that's plausible in theory but it'd have to be a great deal more than .1%; not to mention that we already have several room fees. As a comparison, here is an article about the room tax to support the visitor's authority, which added either $1 or $2 (so roughly 2-3%) to room charges depending on where the hotel was located in order to raise $4 million annually: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/05/14/lawmakers-approve-washoe-room-tax-hike-marketing/27340323/

To be clear, I'm from Reno and would love more trains here; given the cost, UP's lack of willingness to even talk about it, and the political realities of what part of the state is going to get subsidized train service first, I don't see it happening any time soon. Now if California saw this a priority, maybe things would be different. But why would they prioritize vacationers to another state over their own?

Click to expand...

Sacramento is far closer and generally speaking in a much better place as far as ridership goes compared to the Mojave Desert. As for ridership, California would want to expand connections into the towns in the mountains and the suburbs east of Sacramento, Reno getting extra trains would be more something tacked onto the end/extra leverage against the railroad. 

As for the cost, I don't remember if it was an extra $10 million for 4 extra trains ($12 million in today's money) all the way through to Reno, or just to Truckee. If it was all the way to Reno, I can't imagine Washoe County being asked to pay more than $3 million of that cost. 

As for giving the UP some sort of expansion package, the point would be that they probably wouldn't be willing to allow a train to run over the boarder without getting something out of Nevada. Best case scenario is California gives the UP something (tax deferments, credits, loan guarantees and direct payments) for double tracking and other what nots up until the border. Even if the railway doesn't need anything directly for service to Reno, it could still say it needs something east of Reno for the sake of accommodating extra trains. 

Also if Nevada were to give the railway something for a statewide project, the state would be smart to demand a contractual obligation to allow more service when needed. $2.2 billion would be the entire cost of double tracking the entire state. Deferring property taxes would probably be the easiest thing for the state to get through, I agree probably not all of it, since its putting off when the tax base gets reassessed vs not collecting or losing revenue. If UP were to put up $2 billion in property improvements, their property would become worth that much more. Not adding that value to their property value for 25 years could lead to local governments not collecting $500 million in taxes, but it would still be collecting based on the pre-construction values. 

I used to live in Reno and still visit from time to time. I would more often if I didn't have to drive, mostly because I hate driving through Sacramento. But as for which city would get it first, if a state wide plan is being put forth, Reno could get its extra trains and Vegas could get whatever projects it wants to do green lit now. I know they have been talking about a commuter rail line and light rail, getting a commitment to one of them could make legislators from Clark County more willing to go along with it. 

TiBike said:

If Amtrak redesigns the way service is provided on those routes – dense service where there's dense traffic, thin service where there's thin traffic – then Amtrak will increase its profitability, which is what it's supposed to be doing, and better serve the public, which is why it's getting subsidies.

Click to expand...

But they are already doing that. Look at the Amtrak system map and I think it’s pretty clear that there are trains galore in the busiest and densest areas. I personally feel that the Northeast and Midwest need intercity rail service the least, since we have so many other transit options. Meanwhile all the small towns in flyover country  throughout the U.S. that lack almost any long haul transportation really do need train travel. So I just don’t see how Amtrak will at all better serve America if we dismantle the national network and chop things up into only the busiest corridors, either leaving towns without any service, or requiring so many transfers that it’s not practical.

If we are talking public subsidies, Amtrak's billion is nothing compared to what the airlines got $3.2 billion in airport capital funds in 2018. Some estimates put state spending at $1 billion more. This is on top of getting bailouts, guaranteed contracts for federal business, the billions in contracts Boeing gets from the military ($13 billion just last year), labor protections and never facing state level consumer protections. I think giving Amtrak an extra billion and some flexibility isn't asking too much. 

TiBike said:

laws can be changed. Amtrak has said that it will outline upcoming changes in its next reauthorisation request – if congress agrees, the law will change.

Click to expand...

It’s not going to happen. We just had 90+ senators vote to instruct Amtrak to knock it off regarding the SWC situation. I don’t think you’re going to get them to now agree to that sort of setup system wide.

Ultimately small corridors should be the responsibility of the states as has been recently decided. The federal government should be dealing with longer corridors that serve multiple states. And the federal government has subsidized this equipment for Amtrak - it should not be able to be diverted to service that should be up to states to figure out. I’d be happy to see the federal government invest in corridor development in interested states but in addition to national network funding. I’m all for increasing Amtrak’s resources and not rearranging the current pieces.

Could changes to some of those LD corridors make sense in an Amtrak 2.0? Sure. But changes that make those long corridors better not a redistribution to state corridors. This sort of proposal doesn’t work with the available equipment without either outright dropping out the segments between the dense corridors on the current LD routes or doing bus bridges - the SWC was Anderson’s testing the waters on this and it was pretty resoundly rejected.

I think he is going to have to tweak his ideas a bit to get any consideration from congress. Him and his team have also hurt their chances with the lack of transparency and their atrocious PR. Had he come to the table when he was hired clear about his vision for Amtrak he’d probably get people to be more open but this sneaky cloak and dagger stuff of making cuts and alluding to it vaguely while sending mixed messages publicly I think hurts their credibility. Also, if they do indeed come forward with a proposal request to essentially disassemble the national network, then they have been outright lying when they have responded to inquiries stating that they remain committed to a national network which Coscia has done several times. However I will wait to see what Anderson’s ideas are before I form final opinions. I am hoping he learned from the SWC incident and paid attention to the recent instruction from congress and will tweak his requests accordingly.

sttom said:

If we are talking public subsidies, Amtrak's billion is nothing compared to what the airlines got $3.2 billion in airport capital funds in 2018. Some estimates put state spending at $1 billion more. This is on top of getting bailouts, guaranteed contracts for federal business, the billions in contracts Boeing gets from the military ($13 billion just last year), labor protections and never facing state level consumer protections. I think giving Amtrak an extra billion and some flexibility isn't asking too much. 

Click to expand...

Your point still stands, but for future reference, Amtrak got $1.9 billion this year (FY2019) and last.

TiBike said:

I never said paying for track upgrades was a bad thing – it's a good thing. The state wanted something from UP and gave something in exchange. That's how business is done. Not by knocking heads together.

Anderson says he wants to rationalise Amtrak's services and operations, and make them match 21st century needs. He wasn't specific, but he was clear that he intends to change where and how Amtrak offers service. Amtrak's resources are limited, so change means reallocating those resources, including equipment and track slots. I don't know what UP wants, but assuming they're economically rational they will listen to a proposal that reduces the impact of Amtrak's operations on their's and/or increases the profitability of the services they provide to Amtrak. That's just one piece of the puzzle, though.

Amtrak operates long distance trains on at least four routes in California that would be better served by trains scheduled and operated to maximise the utility of the transportation service offered within those routes – LA to Bay Area, Bay Area to Reno, Bay Area to Redding (or beyond) and LA to Coachella Valley. And there's LA to Las Vegas, which might have the most potential of them all, but has nothing now. If Amtrak redesigns the way service is provided on those routes – dense service where there's dense traffic, thin service where there's thin traffic – then Amtrak will increase its profitability, which is what it's supposed to be doing, and better serve the public, which is why it's getting subsidies.

The state versus federal service distinction is artificial, and as others have pointed out, relatively recent. If changing that mix improves Amtrak's results and provides greater public service, then workarounds can be found. Or laws can be changed. Amtrak has said that it will outline upcoming changes in its next reauthorisation request – if congress agrees, the law will change.

Click to expand...

The problem is that there's a base level of service that's needed to sustain transportation utility.  There was a rumored plan floated a year or two ago to, IIRC, cut the Builder to 3x/week and add trains CHI-MSP.  The problem being that losing daily service generally doesn't do much for your per-train losses since a lot of pax adjust their travel...to other modes.  Per-train ridership didn't spike when Amtrak tried this in the 1990s, and it didn't spike when VIA did this to the Ocean a few years back, either.

Of course, with a substantial equipment order coming, there does seem to be room to expand service on some of these corridors...it just needs to not come at the expense of breaking longer trips.  I won't disagree that a good chunk of growth in the future is going to come from corridors...

...but, given that sleeper ridership reached its recent peak in FY15 (and FY16 and FY17 were the second-highest and third-highest years as of late) and ridership has remained well above where it was a decade ago (or fifteen years ago, if you want to kick the recession out of the mix), raising a stink about dropping LD ridership is, generally, at most an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In FY18, somewhere around 1/3 of the ridership hits can be clearly traced to the NYP situation and/or the Cap/LSL meal fiasco, another chunk to "right-sizing" the SWC on many occasions, and some portion of the remainder to knock-on effects from the above.  LD ridership is off from record levels, yes, but how much of that is chronic OTP issues and similar problems?

Look, if the future expansions to the system are 80-90% corridor-based, I'm fine with that.  But there isn't a compelling case to axe the LD network.  If anything, there seems to be a case to refresh the trains and relaunch them with new equipment, improved amenities...and some added capacity.

If congress is willing to increase subsidies to a loss making, long distance leisure travel business and put more more money into high traffic, high economic utility corridor service, then cool. Everybody is happy, except maybe people who prefer other government subsidised services that didn't get funded instead. But if you're running a business you have resource constraints and bottom line goals – more profit usually, but in Amtrak's case less losses.

OTP is a huge problem for Amtrak. There's little evidence outside of the outrage on this board and at union meetings that meal service changes had a measurable effect, but its inability to offer reliable transportation on long distance trains limits its market to people who aren't in a hurry and don't need to arrive at any particular time. That makes it entertainment, not core transportation. On the other hand, the frequency of trains and the level of service, cleanliness and good repair  – and the price of tickets – follows from a strategy of attracting marginal transportation customers. The evidence is that OTP problems are getting worse, not better. You can't just hand wave it away. Or legislate it away.

The logical path is to focus business lines on specific market segments, and not try to be everything to everyone. Amtrak might well be able to turn long distance service into a viable business by scheduling and pricing trains to serve customers who are willing to pay their own way – (ocean) cruise lines figured out how to do that. Amtrak can't copy that model but it can try to find a similar one of its own. And put more of its subsidies into mass market passenger transportation that better serves the people who pay those subsidies.

This map was posted on Facebook:

TiBike said:

The logical path is to focus business lines on specific market segments, and not try to be everything to everyone. Amtrak might well be able to turn long distance service into a viable business by scheduling and pricing trains to serve customers who are willing to pay their own way – (ocean) cruise lines figured out how to do that. Amtrak can't copy that model but it can try to find a similar one of its own. And put more of its subsidies into mass market passenger transportation that better serves the people who pay those subsidies.

Click to expand...

Entirely true, but then we are getting into land cruise territory. There probably aren't enough passengers willing to pay such prices so you may soon get into once a week and nothing at all in the winter sort of territory, which is morer or less the same as irrelevence.

Considering that no state corridor pays anywhere near its own way unless they can take advantage of being attached to the NEC, and there is no real possibility of that changing, why is it necessary for LD to pay their own way to cover bizarre Amtrak accounting's idea of what they cost, which is almost universality acknowledged now to be way off base?

Maglev said:

This map was posted on Facebook:
/monthly_2019_02/53423770_10156191949377916_2183567369060745216_n.jpg.4028dfb1fb5c3d01f0f52843a7b086b3.jpg

Click to expand...

I've seen this float around. I wonder about it's validity. No OKC to Wichita (one that's probably the closest to being able to start)? SLC to Boise? It seems to be a good overview of what Amtrak is aiming for, but doesn't seem to be entirely accurate.

If we want to be fair about adding capacity to a route lets look at this.  If a route from A - B has a new siding installed and used by AMTRAK or a freight Amtrak is passing all things are equal.  But when the Freight RR uses that siding to pass 2 freights that would not interfere with Amtrak them should that cause a maintenance credit for that siding to Amtrak for that use?  

TiBike said:

The logical path is to focus business lines on specific market segments, and not try to be everything to everyone

Click to expand...

Yet, we charge everyone to benefit specific market segments . That is what causes the trouble.  Killing a train in one location while adding additional service to other areas is what triggered the random 750 mile rule.