LD on downward path

[FormerOBS]

Soap in the shower should be replenished by the SCA whenever necessary. If there's none there, ask the SCA & it should be provided from the supply locker. Physical condition of the car (frayed curtains; uncomfortable mattress) is harder for the SCA to control. These should be reported for repair, but there's no guarantee Mechanical Dept. will do anything about it. The steaks should have been sent back!

Tom

 

[guest_nj_2]

Amtrak LD travelers appear to be extremely non-elastic consumers, similar to Apple fanatics

(who will by a new model of iPhone regardless of price, even at $1,000).

Unconditional love for train travel blinds them and forces to pay outrageous prices for LD

travel.

Yet there are no signs that this phenomenon ever stops (and Apple is also alive and well,

and the number of nicotine smokers increases every year). Very hard to stop certain people

from "pleasing themselves" even if it does not make any economic sense.

 

[guest]

And I fail to see how it's anyone else's business what people choose to spend their own money on. Nor do I see how it's anyone else's business if people choose to enjoy long distance train travel.

 

[George K]

And I fail to see how it's anyone else's business what people choose to spend their own money on. Nor do I see how it's anyone else's business if people choose to enjoy long distance train travel.

Having done my first LD Amtrak trip in September, I have to agree with you, Guest_Guest.

More than one person at work was amazed that I chose to spend 5 days on the train (EB, CS, EB) rather than just flying to my destinations. The journey was part of the vacation. Spending time watching the country, talking to my daughter, relaxing and meeting some wonderful (and some not so wonderful!) people is what the point is.

How I spend my dollars is nobody's business but mine.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak LD travelers appear to be extremely non-elastic consumers, similar to Apple fanatics

(who will by a new model of iPhone regardless of price, even at $1,000).

Unconditional love for train travel blinds them and forces to pay outrageous prices for LD

travel.

Yet there are no signs that this phenomenon ever stops (and Apple is also alive and well,

and the number of nicotine smokers increases every year). Very hard to stop certain people

from "pleasing themselves" even if it does not make any economic sense.

I agree that demand is fairly inelastic, but I'm going to disagree strongly on the grounds. Yes, AU is often a room full of foamers, but I don't run into many foamers on the train. Most of those who take the train do so for reasons that are practical:

-Some airline markets are either awful or have a reputation as such. This is how I wound up on Amtrak in the first place.

-In the winter, at least Amtrak keeps running. I can't count how many "refugees" from the airline meltdown I ran into during the deep freeze last winter.

-Some people cannot fly, either for health reasons or due to personal phobias, etc. meaning that their choices are basically Amtrak, Greyhound, or driving.

-In other cases, the LD trains actually make a lot of sense (the NEC-Florida services fall into this category...taking the train to Jacksonville or Orlando actually works out pretty decently schedule-wise. Likewise, CHI-BUF, WAS-ATL, and a batch of other markets have this edge as well).

1-3 really are major factors outside of "tourist" segments like the Rio Grande line in Colorado. For a lot of older people who have some issue that makes flying a no-go, driving a thousand miles isn't a good option either. And there are times and places where the airlines really don't provide decent service at a reasonable price, particularly closer to the last minute.

I guess what I'd point out, in the end, is that while Amtrak demand may be inelastic in the face of declines in service quality, it's not like the competition is covering themselves in laurels with their conduct. There are plenty of folks who might not be thrilled with Amtrak's OTP but who simply can't stomach the idea of packing into a 28-30 inch seat on an airline for several hours (28 inches is Spirit's baseline offering, while a lot of domestic carriers are moving towards 30 inches *ahem* inch by inch).

 

[Ryan]

Amtrak LD travelers appear to be extremely non-elastic consumers, similar to Apple fanatics

(who will by a new model of iPhone regardless of price, even at $1,000).

Anderson and George provided excellent rebuttals, but there's an additional factual correction to be made.

The most expensive iPhone you can get (unsubsidized, 6+, 128GB is under $1,000). Most people pay *significantly* less than that. I'll end up paying about $250 for my 4GB 6-.

 

[George K]

The most expensive iPhone you can get (unsubsidized, 6+, 128GB is under $1,000). Most people pay *significantly* less than that. I'll end up paying about $250 for my 4GB 6-.

Do we *really* need to talk about subsidies again? (insert evil grin here...)

But...

It's an interesting question: Should the government subsidize long-distance train service because some people prefer it to other modes of transportation, notably flying. My bride has no desire to fly - ever. Yet, we're going to New Orleans next spring on the CONO (bedroom, I might add). Sure, we could fly, but if there's an alternative, that's what we'll do.

On my trip in September, we had breakfast with a couple of delightful ladies who boarded the EB in Minneapolis headed for Havre. A quick search of Priceline shows only one such flight - it has two stops and costs $665 (on a Saturday - which is when these ladies were traveling. It takes 6 hours:

http://www.priceline.com/airlines/fareResults.do?session_key=354A050A364A050A201411150257176894c0122008&plf=pcln&jarmkey=3D4A050A3F4A050AafWzHa8Bak%230v%232tNruaVA2865&INIT_SESSION=true

Coach on the Empire Builder is $161 and takes 18 hours.

If you wanted fly, that's fine. But the EB (even though it's a long-distance train) is a pretty attractive alternative - if time is not a consideration.

 

[Ryan]

The most expensive iPhone you can get (unsubsidized, 6+, 128GB is under $1,000). Most people pay *significantly* less than that. I'll end up paying about $250 for my 4GB 6-.

Do we *really* need to talk about subsidies again? (insert evil grin here...)

h34r:

It's an interesting question: Should the government subsidize long-distance train service because some people prefer it to other modes of transportation, notably flying.

If we're going to subsidize those modes as well (which we do), there's no reason to treat passenger rail any differently.

 

[George K]

If we're going to subsidize those modes as well (which we do), there's no reason to treat passenger rail any differently.

Agreed. Reading around these threads (and I'm a new guy here, so be patient with me!), I was amazed to read about the amount of subsidies given to non-rail transportation. Of course, highways are a big factor.

What do air carriers get?

 

[Ryan]

Airports and ATC.

 

[George K]

It would be interesting to compare the total amount of gummint subsidies per passenger mile for things that everyone thinks of (highways, air travel, etc) to rail travel.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Airports and ATC.

Essential Air Service is what Congress calls the boondoggle that subsidizes flights into fairly remote towns. It's a particular favorite of Sen John McCain. It reaches about 160 communities, with 40 of those in Alaska, with subsidies per passenger sometimes exceeding $800, per Wikipedia. For 2014 the budget amounted to $241 million.

I'm hoping that Amtrak's long distance losses can be brought below $241 million.

 

[Ryan]

Oh yeah, forgot about the obvious one.

 

[Paulus]

It would be interesting to compare the total amount of gummint subsidies per passenger mile for things that everyone thinks of (highways, air travel, etc) to rail travel.

It's not a favorable comparison for Amtrak by any means. Of course, if we're playing the "yay subsidies!" game, there's no reason that those subsidies need to be directed at long distance trains. They could, for instance, be used to grow short to medium distance corridors until they're running a sufficient frequency and speed to divert automobile traffic.

 

[Anderson]

It would be interesting to compare the total amount of gummint subsidies per passenger mile for things that everyone thinks of (highways, air travel, etc) to rail travel.

It's not a favorable comparison for Amtrak by any means. Of course, if we're playing the "yay subsidies!" game, there's no reason that those subsidies need to be directed at long distance trains. They could, for instance, be used to grow short to medium distance corridors until they're running a sufficient frequency and speed to divert automobile traffic.

Well, and all this discussion focuses on existing capacity. In terms of adding capacity, there are a lot of places where existing roads are slamming into major constraints and expanding them is simply not a viable option since the infill capacity is also gone. For example, up in Nova I-95 has more or less been expanded to its design capacity and adding another two lanes would involve tearing down and rebuilding numerous bridges and interchanges.

Lest anyone think this is simply a matter of local traffic, the infamous DC traffic jams have cost Williamsburg, VA numerous visitors from locations beyond DC because of the hassle that traffic is to deal with. Major bottlenecks around major cities have had impacts like that throughout the US, though I'll grant that this is particularly an issue in the Northeast. By the way, airport congestion is another issue in a number of places...and while it's one thing to tell transcontinental travelers to fly, quite frankly even the airlines don't really like some of the short-to-medium haul flights they're stuck running in large numbers (LA-SF, LA-Vegas, etc.).

 

[Big Green Chauvanist]

As long as the sleeper-going public is willing to pay the price......

Some of us don't like to fly. I hate to fly. But even I will be flying eastbound across the country next year because I don't feel like spending the night in Chicago, given the poor OTP of the EB. I will take AMTRAK westbound where connections and late arrival in SEA are not issues. That said, I really count on my guest reward points to ease the pain. As far as VIA is concerned, my passport has expired and I'd rather spend my money on an American company. Call me naïve and/or foolish.

 

[amamba]

I have my yearly trip to SEA to visit my sister. This year im flying both ways. I don't have time to deal with the EB delay and taking the CS adds another day. Plus I'm concerned about the timekeeping meltdown on the LSL and the Cap. So jet blue it is. I got roundtrip tickets for under $400 direct/nonstop from Boston.

 

[jis]

Of late I have tended to do the cross country leg by air and then travel by train locally around the destination. At this point in my work life, I simply don;t have the time to spend 2.5 days with associated uncertainties to go cross country, though I do love to travel by LD trains.

OTOH, if my trip from Florida to the northeast is for more than a couple of days I tend to take the LD trains, and if for a week I take the Auro Train and take my car along. An overnight spilling over into the adjacent days I can afford, but three nights spilling over on both sides with possibility of a fourth night is simply not acceptable at present. I think this is the sort of thing that makes the Atlantic Coast Corridor a more vibrant one as far as both LD and Regional trains are concerned. The Northeast - Florida collective travel market is also the largest air travel market in the US, and that reflects in the rail market too.

 

[neroden]

It would be interesting to compare the total amount of gummint subsidies per passenger mile for things that everyone thinks of (highways, air travel, etc) to rail travel.

It's not a favorable comparison for Amtrak by any means.

Actually, it's extremely favorable for Amtrak overall. The devil is in the details.

Some roads have *completely ludicrously high* subsidy levels, which make even the worst Amtrak routes look great. There was a Virginia (IIRC) legislator who was talking a few years ago about multimillion dollar yearly costs to maintain a road with an average usage of under *5 people per day*. (He was asking why this road is is a public road at all, and barring that, why it's paved.)

Other roads (toll roads) are pretty much profitable (such as the NYS Thruway).

Similarly, some Amtrak routes spin off lots of money for capital expenditures, some pretty much break even, and others are money pits. The money pits mostly run through the states which are overrepresented in the US Senate (just like most of the biggest money-pit roads and money-pit expressways and money-pit airports do), which tells you something about how the US Senate influences expenditures.

Of course, if we're playing the "yay subsidies!" game, there's no reason that those subsidies need to be directed at long distance trains. They could, for instance, be used to grow short to medium distance corridors until they're running a sufficient frequency and speed to divert automobile traffic.

I firmly believe that the "long distance" vs. "short distance" distinction is a misleading fraud. The questions are whethera) the train is close to competitive on time with driving in particular city pairs

(b) there is significant enough online population in those city pairs

and to a lesser extent whether

© the people in those cities are riding trains locally

Yeah, shorter routes are mostly going to do better on these measurements, but distance is simply not the key factor. Anything connecting to New York should do better than pure distance would predict, and to a lesser extent, anything connecting to Chicago should. Routes where the roads are slower (additional examples: Vermont, the "High Line" in North Dakota) should do better than pure distance would predict. Routes with lots of empty space (Heartland Flyer?) should do worse than pure distance would predict. Et cetera.

 

[Tokkyu40]

It would be interesting to compare the total amount of gummint subsidies per passenger mile for things that everyone thinks of (highways, air travel, etc) to rail travel.

It's not a favorable comparison for Amtrak by any means. Of course, if we're playing the "yay subsidies!" game, there's no reason that those subsidies need to be directed at long distance trains. They could, for instance, be used to grow short to medium distance corridors until they're running a sufficient frequency and speed to divert automobile traffic.

Interestingly, most of the long distance routes are made of strings of shorter corridors, and should be operated as such to optimize revenue. Not just the long distance train itself between LA and New Orleans, but also 3 or 4 trains a day on the high traffic corridor between LA and Tucson, with similar service from San Antonio to New Orleans. Spreading the infrastructure costs over more trains would reduce the overhead on the Sunset.

Most of the LDs would not only benefit greatly from extra frequencies on the high traffic sections, but the increased convenience would attract many new customers

.

 

[cuest_nj_2]

Of course Amtrak would benefit from the higher frequencies on the high

traffic sections, but there seems to be no spare equipment left, so it won't

happen any time soon.

However, Amtrak could have released some equipment redeploying a

few of its LD routes. For example,

- Get rid of Sunset Limited completely (or shorten it to just the LAX - Phoenix segment)

- Split California Zephyr into CHI-DEN segments and Reno-EMY segments.

DEN-Reno or DEN-SLC segments can be run seasonally in the Summer, with better

scheduling (for example, morning Eastbound departure from SLC to DEN, instead of

current middle-of-the-night departure that defeats the purpose of seeing the surrounding

mountains).

The "connectivity" of the system is also a faulty concept, especially with the recent problems

with OTP. Are enough people really travelling between El Paso and Eugene to maintain

the connection at LAX between SL and CS ? In the example above, cutting the middle portion

of CZ will actually maintain the "connectivity" (EMY people will still be able to reach CHI by

transferring at SEA to EB or at LAX to SWC).

LD trains work pretty well in the East (and, with advance planning, Amsnag and some

flexibility in travel dates, one can score a very decent deal, even on a sleeper, especially

on the Auto Train that has 6 sleepers), but the East-West LD trains do not make much

sense, especially at the current prices. To be really usable, the train system needs to be

- frequent

- reliable

- AFFORDABLE (!)

Amtrak current LD system, in most cases, violates all three precepts.

 

[jis]

However, Amtrak could have released some equipment redeploying a

few of its LD routes. For example,

- Get rid of Sunset Limited completely (or shorten it to just the LAX - Phoenix segment)

Have you noticed that the Sunset does not go to Phoenix and indeed it has no reasonable way to get there from the west anymore?

 

[guest_nj_2]

Then get rid of it altogether, and redeploy the equipment to the other routes.

It makes no sense to constantly complain about the lack of spare equipment

yet keep the "dog" like SL running (even three times weekly)

 

[Bob Dylan]

The answer is not to eliminate the oldest continuously run LD Train in the US but to make the Texas Eagle Daily from CHI-LAX with stub train from SAS to NOL! ( although rail fans in Houston wont agree with that but a daily train bests a three times a week train anytime!)

This came this close to happening till Amtrak's negotiator blew it with UP and brought on a ridiculous demand for huge amounts of money to do this on UP's part!

 

[George K]

The answer is not to eliminate the oldest continuously run LD Train in the US but to make the Texas Eagle Daily from CHI-LAX with stub train from SAS to NOL!

And eliminate the CONO?