Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
Currently to my knowledge Amtrak runs just two trains fewer than daily, the Cardinal and the Sunset Limited both to my knowledge three times a week. In the past, several other LD trains ran fewer than daily (CZ, EB, Desert Wind, and Pioneer). All were either extended to daily (CZ, EB) while others were cut (DW, Pioneer). The CZ and EB passengers are obviously happier but the DW and Pioneer ex-passengers probably aren't too happy and would love to still have their trains for 3-4 days/week than not have the train at all.
In Amtrak's PIP's for the Card and SL they clearly push for a desire for daily service on these trains. Unless there is another non daily train I forgot, that would make all LD trains daily. They point out layover time is a problem and that the non daily train is a problem for customer service. They have mentioned moving the trains to daily would improve CSI (Customer Service Index). According to the 2008 data, the Cardinal had the worst CSI (66%) of all LD trains (no other train is below 70%). But the SL (75%) is very competitive compared to several daily trains.
I feel some members feel the trains are not as popular because they are not daily. I feel it's the other way around and they aren't daily because they aren't as popular. Remember Amtrak has switched some non daily trains to daily (CZ, EB) so there has to be a reason why the Cardinal and SL aren't daily. My theory (which may or may not be wrong) is that the market does not allow it. Also keep in mind that when they made CZ and EB daily they cut two other trains. This subscribes to my theory that sometimes you have to cut something to add something else.
One forum member once said for the Cardinal "daily or bust". While I am sure Cardinal fans (referring to the train of course) would rather a daily Cardinal than a 3 day a week Cardinal, I am sure they would prefer a 3 day Cardinal than not at all. Just ask ex DW and Pioneer passengers, especially those in Las Vegas.
I think there is a reason to have some trains that don't meet daily. If the train cannot attract an acceptable ridership to justify daily operation, why not have less than daily operation rather than no service at all? It also might be a good way to test market some new routes or re-establish routes like the BL/TR before committing to daily trains and all of the costs (labor and operating).
You know my ongoing feud with Cardinal fans. How about this for a compromise? Keep the Cardinal as is but introduce the BL/TR 3 or 4 days a week (on the opposite schedule of the Cardinal of course). Ideally the two trains would combine for daily service from CHI to the NEC between NYP and WAS. I'd even give the Cardinal the extra day (of course because I have no bargaining power right now). I would like to see the Cardinal and BL/TR "head to head" to see if consumers do have a preference. I'd argue that if it was Cardinal 4 days and BL/TR 3 days that the BL/TR would be close to if not higher in ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (it's faster and serves larger markets). But in my position of no bargaining power, I just want the chance to prove the value of the BL/TR. So I'd love at least a 3 day BL/TR compared to none at all.
I know some of you hate me pitting one train vs. another. I've heard "why not both"? You need to ask Amtrak that, not me. Can Amtrak afford to give all of us everything we want? Clearly in 1997 Amtrak could not choose "both". And this "compromise" would not cut any current service at all as opposed to my previous proposals.
In Amtrak's PIP's for the Card and SL they clearly push for a desire for daily service on these trains. Unless there is another non daily train I forgot, that would make all LD trains daily. They point out layover time is a problem and that the non daily train is a problem for customer service. They have mentioned moving the trains to daily would improve CSI (Customer Service Index). According to the 2008 data, the Cardinal had the worst CSI (66%) of all LD trains (no other train is below 70%). But the SL (75%) is very competitive compared to several daily trains.
I feel some members feel the trains are not as popular because they are not daily. I feel it's the other way around and they aren't daily because they aren't as popular. Remember Amtrak has switched some non daily trains to daily (CZ, EB) so there has to be a reason why the Cardinal and SL aren't daily. My theory (which may or may not be wrong) is that the market does not allow it. Also keep in mind that when they made CZ and EB daily they cut two other trains. This subscribes to my theory that sometimes you have to cut something to add something else.
One forum member once said for the Cardinal "daily or bust". While I am sure Cardinal fans (referring to the train of course) would rather a daily Cardinal than a 3 day a week Cardinal, I am sure they would prefer a 3 day Cardinal than not at all. Just ask ex DW and Pioneer passengers, especially those in Las Vegas.
I think there is a reason to have some trains that don't meet daily. If the train cannot attract an acceptable ridership to justify daily operation, why not have less than daily operation rather than no service at all? It also might be a good way to test market some new routes or re-establish routes like the BL/TR before committing to daily trains and all of the costs (labor and operating).
You know my ongoing feud with Cardinal fans. How about this for a compromise? Keep the Cardinal as is but introduce the BL/TR 3 or 4 days a week (on the opposite schedule of the Cardinal of course). Ideally the two trains would combine for daily service from CHI to the NEC between NYP and WAS. I'd even give the Cardinal the extra day (of course because I have no bargaining power right now). I would like to see the Cardinal and BL/TR "head to head" to see if consumers do have a preference. I'd argue that if it was Cardinal 4 days and BL/TR 3 days that the BL/TR would be close to if not higher in ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (it's faster and serves larger markets). But in my position of no bargaining power, I just want the chance to prove the value of the BL/TR. So I'd love at least a 3 day BL/TR compared to none at all.
I know some of you hate me pitting one train vs. another. I've heard "why not both"? You need to ask Amtrak that, not me. Can Amtrak afford to give all of us everything we want? Clearly in 1997 Amtrak could not choose "both". And this "compromise" would not cut any current service at all as opposed to my previous proposals.