Fuel Economy

[harl222000]

Could I have your ideas about how much fuel is saved by eliminating the sight seer lounge on , say,

the City of New Orleans? How would you go about figuring that out?

Thanks

Allan Thomas

 

[meatpuff]

Could I have your ideas about how much fuel is saved by eliminating the sight seer lounge on , say,the City of New Orleans? How would you go about figuring that out?

Thanks

Allan Thomas

I hope someone else can answer your questions about fuel, but I'd bet it's a shadow of what's saved in the salaries of the lounge car attendants. Remember, whenever the train is in operation, there used to be a lounge attendant being paid to be either at his post or asleep on the train (overnight).

For argument's sake, maybe I'll try to estimate this. The City runs 365*2 one-way trips per year, at 19.5 hours per trip. That's 14235 hours of having a lounge attendant aboard. Let's say he gets paid $15 per hour he's on the train. Cost to Amtrak is probably double that with benefits and payroll taxes. So Amtrak was paying about 14235*$30 = $0.43 million per year to man the sightseer lounges on the City of New Orleans.

If what you're getting at is that they should run the sightseer lounge without the attendant because the cost of extra fuel is small compared to the benefit to passengers, I agree completely!

 

[Larry H.]

While this all sounds good, I have to think that too many times we just think that getting rid of salaries is the answer. Actually its one of the reasons the country is going down the tubes at the moment. All the emphasis is placed on cutting rather than solving issues. If your operating a long distance lounge which in my mind is a given, then we need to provide for those that need to buy refreshments, lunches, snacks, cards ect. The one person in the diner is ill equipped to do that. Besides the lounge attendant is now riding in the diner, duh! So put them back in the lounge and put it back on where it belongs.

I am sick and tired of trying to fix things by cutting. All you end up with is lousy service that makes no one happy. If amtrak is to grow they need to provide decent accommodations and services as part of the fare you pay. We need to quit accepting poor low quality service as natural. Its not.

 

[harl222000]

Half a mil is an interesting figure, thank you for your calculation. And yes, the lounge car attendant is now riding in the diner.

And I am trying to justify the value of the observation car compared to economic advantage of deleteing it.

So my question is still, how would I figure out the savings of removing this car.

Would it be the same as 2 coaches as opposed to 3 coaches?

 

[AlanB]

I seem to recall that cutting one car from the consist saves about 4% to 5% on fuel. Just how much money that represents of course depends on the price of the fuel and the trains run. Cutting the Sightseer from the CONL for example saves far less money than cutting it from say the Zepher.

 

[Guest_pismobum_*]

put on a coach-baggage and cut out the baggage car - more "dead weight". As a matter of fact, follow UNITED's new policy of $25 additional if more than one bag. Get those lousy passengers to cut down on all the weight that has to be hauled around

 

[Larry H.]

Another factor that used to play on the number of cars in a consist is the charge for taking a car into the station. They used to charge per car and eliminating some saves money.. But again its a part of doing business. You can keep cutting till there is no more business, which is nearly what has happened to the sleepers. I would guess the Chicago Station as well as the New Orleans have a charge per car still?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Thats a ridiculous concept. And the CONO, AFAIK, already uses a Coach-Bag.

Cutting the lounge is a false economy, as is cutting the second cook and wait person. We live in the US. Somebody in congress says: "DO SOMETHING!" so they "do something". Thats all.

CUS? Why would it? Is Amtrak going to bill itself for that?

 

[AlanB]

Another factor that used to play on the number of cars in a consist is the charge for taking a car into the station. They used to charge per car and eliminating some saves money.. But again its a part of doing business. You can keep cutting till there is no more business, which is nearly what has happened to the sleepers. I would guess the Chicago Station as well as the New Orleans have a charge per car still?

Amtrak would only be billing itself, if there were a charge to bring cars into CUS, NOL, and other stations. Amtrak owns those stations, so there are no charges for bringing in one car or twenty.

I'm not sure if the freight RR's don't charge Amtrak per car that runs on their rails, but even then what Amtrak pays to them is really a pittance of what should be charged for passage.

 

[daveyb99]

Somewhere I recall reading that a private rail car can be pulled around by AMTRAK for about $1.50/mile.

So for the Texas Eagle #21 1305 mile trip CHI-SAS that would be $1957.50

That sound right to anyone?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Somebody gave me a much higher number than that, and said he owned a PV.

 

[AlanB]

Somewhere I recall reading that a private rail car can be pulled around by AMTRAK for about $1.50/mile.
So for the Texas Eagle #21 1305 mile trip CHI-SAS that would be $1957.50

That sound right to anyone?

I don't know if that is a good number or a bad number to pull a PV, however it would be useless to the OP Allan. Amtrak charges a premium to haul a PV far in excess of what it actually costs to haul the car.

 

[gmcguire]

FYI: Private car info from Amtrak. See the embedded .pdf for prices. Long story short: $2.10 for a private car, $1.90 for "frequent traveler", $1.60 for additional cars. As mentioned, presumably it actually costs Amtrak far less than $1.60 per mile. (Though I'm sure the lounge uses a lot of air conditioning...)

 

[Larry H.]

Allen,

I guess those things have changed over the years. One of the reasons given for leaving Union Station in St. Louis to the shack its been in since was the cost of backing "per" car into the station. They claimed they saved a significant amount by operating less cars into it and finally just plain deserting it. I wasn't aware that Amtrak owned those stations. At one time they would not have most likely. I can't say exactly what the price per car was, but it seems like 20 or more years ago it was in the several hundred dollar range per car that entered the station that they had to pay the owners.

 

[frj1983]

I'm not a mechanical engineer,

so please feel free to correct me, but I assume that the Genesis Engine is designed to pull ___ amount of cars with a certain amount of fuel efficiency. If you take one or two cars away, can I also assume there is not going to be that much of a savings in fuel??

I honestly wonder whether the real reason for subtracting the sightseer lounge (besides the misguided conversion into diners or cafes or whatever you want to call them) is actually trying to save on wear and tear? I'm truly curious at the parts supply that Amtrak has for it's Superliner fleet. Is it possible that the bins might be getting low? The parts supply can't possibly be an endless thing.

I remember when David Gunn was President, in a interview he gave he said he was worried about obtaining parts for the older cars in the fleet.....and that they actually need to be replaced. How soon do the Superliners arrive in that category? Methinks sooner than we suspect! :huh:

 

[daveyb99]

Fuel, maintenance, cleaning, etc etc. So what could the cost be for all that?

How about a cool $25 MILLION per year

WOW, that is a whole $1.00 per passenger.

Up those fares by a few pennies but KEEP THE SIGHTSEER !!!!!!

 

[jphjaxfl]

Allen, [i guess those things have changed over the years. One of the reasons given for leaving Union Station in St. Louis to the shack its been in since was the cost of backing "per" car into the station. They claimed they saved a significant amount by operating less cars into it and finally just plain deserting it. I wasn't aware that Amtrak owned those stations. At one time they would not have most likely. I can't say exactly what the price per car was, but it seems like 20 or more years ago it was in the several hundred dollar range per car that entered the station that they had to pay the owners.]

At one time St. Louis Union Station was owned by the Terminal Railroad Company of St. Louis which switched all the passenger trains entering the station from all railroads. This and other major stations that were owned by a railroad not operating the passenger train would charge a per car charge and more cars would increase the cost. This practice continued after Amtrak started which caused Amtrak to abandoned the larger stations such as Jacksonville, Minneapolis, St. Louis and other places and build their own smaller stations where there is no additional cost no matter how many cars were operated. Amtrak became the ownership of major stations on the Northeast Corridor, Chicago and other places so they no longer have to pay terminal charges. Some cities have purchased train stations from the private railroads and lease the stations back to Amtrak for a small amount with no terminal charges.

The terminal charges were often times a "rip off" because the stations were not being maintained by the owner railroads who charged exhorbitant charges. A good example was the Kansas City Union Station which was owned by the Kansas City Terminal Railroad. Their charges got so high that in that last 2 years prior to Amtrak, Union Pacific and Burlington moved their remaining trains to smaller stations they owned in Kansas City, Kans and North Kansas City respectively. Only Santa Fe and Mo Pac remained at the Kansas City Union Station which was in terrible shape. To make a connection with UP or CB&Q trains, a taxi ride was necessary. Not being able to make connections in KC killed the UP and CB&Q trains out of KC. Amtrak did not include any UP or CB&Q trains out of KC even though both railroads still operated 4 trains each(arriving and departing).

 

[PRR 60]

Fuel, maintenance, cleaning, etc etc. So what could the cost be for all that?
How about a cool $25 MILLION per year

WOW, that is a whole $1.00 per passenger.

Up those fares by a few pennies but KEEP THE SIGHTSEER !!!!!!

The fuel cost for Amtrak is $239 million per year.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Thats not the cost for keeping the sightseer on a single train verse not.

 

[rtabern]

I don't know if anyone else agrees with me, but I'd be willing to pay more to keep the Sightseer Lounges on (even if they are unstaffed).

OR, just increase the sleeping car prices and make the SSL for sleeping car-passengers only.

I mean I'd rather pay $600 for a trip with a SSL, than $550 for the same trip without one.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

I don't know if anyone else agrees with me, but I'd be willing to pay more to keep the Sightseer Lounges on (even if they are unstaffed).
OR, just increase the sleeping car prices and make the SSL for sleeping car-passengers only.

I mean I'd rather pay $600 for a trip with a SSL, than $550 for the same trip without one.

So would I!!!

 

[Larry H.]

Isn't it odd that amtrak doesn't get that fact.. I just read the large ad in todays USA Today about the National Trains Day that Amtrak is supporting. To bad they are quickly forgetting some of the reasons people might want to take a rail trip..

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I honestly wonder whether the real reason for subtracting the sightseer lounge (besides the misguided conversion into diners or cafes or whatever you want to call them) is actually trying to save on wear and tear? I'm truly curious at the parts supply that Amtrak has for it's Superliner fleet. Is it possible that the bins might be getting low? The parts supply can't possibly be an endless thing.
I remember when David Gunn was President, in a interview he gave he said he was worried about obtaining parts for the older cars in the fleet.....and that they actually need to be replaced. How soon do the Superliners arrive in that category? Methinks sooner than we suspect! :huh:

Are the contracts for these cars written in such a way that Amtrak gets the plans with all of the detail they'd need to hire another company to build replacement parts if the original manufacturer goes out of business?