Which train(s) would you cut?

[Ryan]

No indication that they have any kind of plan to fix them.

I know that you're aware of the PIPs, so you know this to be false.

So like I said, make them all three times a week. You can run the Pioneer and CZ on different days thus giving you almost daily service Chi to Denver. Run a daily day train to MSP when the EB doesn't run.

You can keep saying it, but it's a terrible idea all the way around. Do you think that it's any coincidence that the bottom two trains on the list are the 2 thrice weekly trains?

How about bring back a superliner equipped Floridian.

Where are you going to find the millions of dollars to get the tracks in any sort of condition to support a passenger train with a reasonable schedule?

Forget the so called connections thingy.

That's a good plan, if you want to destroy the trains.

We can discuss this forever but............is anyone at Amtrak listening?

One hopes that they're not listening to you.

Do they have any kind of a plan whatsoever? Apparently not.

Except for that part where they do.

Seriously, your post makes no sense. You complain about the LD network being too thin, but then provide "suggestions" that would kill what we have now. How does that make any sense?

 

[Trogdor]

There will likely be more cuts than just the Sunset Ltd from what I hear. CSX is already aware of some potential changes impacting its routes.

Oh really? And where did you hear this?

Folks, seriously. The coming belt-tightening isn't a sudden shock to those inside Amtrak. Many have known for a while that the company was going to try to trim management in order to keep service running as much as possible.

Further, other than some Trains magazine writer (and, the person who started this thread), who has said anything about service cuts? Now, suddenly rumors are flying that CSX is "aware of some potential changes impacting its routes" (about as vague a statement as there ever was).

Good grief.

 

[Anderson]

So basically it's UP's fault, from what I'm reading anyways. Here's my logic.

Sunset Limited only runs 3 days a week, UP wants an outrageous amount to make it daily. The Sunset, as it stands now, is suffering because it's difficult to schedule when your a passenger. I have a good example of this. My girlfriend is from Tucson. She wants to come visit me in Michigan for New Year's Eve. She has only two choices on departure dates because she doesn't want to miss Christmas with her family either. So she's leaving Christmas night at 2am technically the 26th) because the only other choice gets here on NYE.

So it seems to me, at least for the Sunset, the miracle is getting UP to let it go daily.

Here's the problem: Nobody is willing to slap UP with an eminent domain order to just take the slot at a fair market price. There are reasons for this, not the least of which is that UP would likely screw Amtrak on dispatching anything over their tracks. Mind you, that could trigger another legal fight, but Amtrak just doesn't have the ammo.

But the Sunset's problems have been SP/UP's fault for fifty years.

NY Penn,

The law says that they have to put in a bid, in essence, to let the train run. In some cases, that would simply mean "Here's the daily cost". Most of the time, there are capital demands involved (i.e. a new segment of double track, a new wye, improvements to an interlocking, etc.). Sometimes, these are actually necessary (I think Norfolk Southern's demands regarding reviving the Asheville Special were at least partly necessary), sometimes they're an effort to milk a project for improvements the RR wants, and sometimes they're an attempt to kill the project.

In general, the problem is a combination of fares that aren't rising fast enough in spite of surging demand on the one hand (note how many years on many lines the fare increases haven't even kept pace with inflation) and equipment shortages on the other (which limit how many people you can take).

 

[henryj]

Seriously, your post makes no sense. You complain about the LD network being too thin, but then provide "suggestions" that would kill what we have now. How does that make any sense?

Seriously Ryan, you have no ideas of your own.

 

[Ryan]

Seriously, your post makes no sense. You complain about the LD network being too thin, but then provide "suggestions" that would kill what we have now. How does that make any sense?

Seriously Ryan, you have no ideas of your own.

Is that supposed to make your position more clear? Because it failed miserably to do that. It's easy to say that I have no ideas of my own when you ignore half of what I write.

 

[eagle628]

Seriously, your post makes no sense. You complain about the LD network being too thin, but then provide "suggestions" that would kill what we have now. How does that make any sense?

Seriously Ryan, you have no ideas of your own.

This is interesting, because on the first page, you said "I like Ryans suggestion, lets just screw the Texans first." Or does suggestion =/= idea?

 

[abcnews]

One word of encouragement for the Silver Star and it;'s route through Raleigh. When we took the Star this past March to Spring training, we stopped in Raleigh, and I was quite amazed. Over 100 people were there to catch the Star. It looked like an airport on a holiday weekend, and it was a Tuesday night in March. Raleigh loves rail, and the state of NC really promotes rail. I don't see how you can drop Raleigh, in fact, it may produce more passengers than any other stop on the Florida trains. How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

 

[Trogdor]

How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).

 

[afigg]

There will likely be more cuts than just the Sunset Ltd from what I hear. CSX is already aware of some potential changes impacting its routes.

Oh really? And where did you hear this?

Folks, seriously. The coming belt-tightening isn't a sudden shock to those inside Amtrak. Many have known for a while that the company was going to try to trim management in order to keep service running as much as possible.

Further, other than some Trains magazine writer (and, the person who started this thread), who has said anything about service cuts? Now, suddenly rumors are flying that CSX is "aware of some potential changes impacting its routes" (about as vague a statement as there ever was).

Good grief.

Agreed. The potential changes may be a request to add service such as a daily Cardinal. Which after it goes through the pass the word process from one person to the next becomes a rumor about possible cuts. I don't see why Amtrak would cut service until AFTER the FY12 budget passes and only if the budget forced the cuts on them. If we get an actual FY12 budget passed in FY12. Trimming of management and support staffing to cut costs along with other steps to improve the bottom line, while NOT cutting services, are what Amtrak can do ahead of the House Republicans.

 

[henryj]

Seriously, your post makes no sense. You complain about the LD network being too thin, but then provide "suggestions" that would kill what we have now. How does that make any sense?

Seriously Ryan, you have no ideas of your own.

Is that supposed to make your position more clear? Because it failed miserably to do that. It's easy to say that I have no ideas of my own when you ignore half of what I write.

You people keep making me look this up. LD trains lost $575 million FY2010. Silver Star 50, Card 17, SM 43, EB 62, CZ 56, SWC 62, CONO 24, TE 29, Sunset Ltd 39, CS 51, LSL 38, Crescent 44 and even Auto Train 22. It's an abysmal record. Using the Cardinal and the Sunset as an example, going three times a week should reduce the losses by at least a third. That's something like $150 million. It might be even more. Sure, per passenger losses will be higher, but that's not the problem. The problem is Amtrak has less money to lose overall. Your hottest western LD train, the EB lost a whopping 62 million. That's just unbelievable for a single train and it's unsustainable. Amtrak's fully allocated loss for the entire system was $755 million and most of that was LD trains. I don't want to see them all go in the trash bin and neither do any of you. So something has to give. Reducing frequencies keeps the network and the routes and reduces the overall losses. It's just plain math. Get through this crisis, think about how to run them more efficiently, figure out how to get some new equipment, and figure out how to stem these horrendous losses.

On the short distance front the big losers are Keystone 27, Empire, 26, Pacific Surfliners 31, Wolverines 19, Capitols, 16 and San Jouquins 11. Let the states foot more of these loses.

 

[Ryan]

Well if that's your take, I can cut the losses to $0 by shuttering Amtrak entirely.

Reducing losses in absolute terms isn't really the goal we're after, though. Transit costs money, be it by train, air or road. Moving the most number of people for the least money is the name of the game, and making everything triweekly moves that in the wrong direction. I'd prefer to see the 3x weekly trains run daily, but if the money isn't there, and the budget situation dictates the trains go, those are the ones to axe.

That said, this bears repeating from my first post in this thread:

I disagree with the premise of the thread, and wager a frosty beverage of the recipients choice that every train running today will still be running on 3 January 2013 when the 113th Congress takes the reigns.

 

[CHamilton]

Reducing losses in absolute terms isn't really the goal we're after, though. Transit costs money, be it by train, air or road. Moving the most number of people for the least money is the name of the game.

Yes! And unless we want to stop letting people travel altogether (like in the old USSR, for example), an important function of any modern society is to improve travel opportunities. Given that, we need to make travel efficient. This recent post suggests that "Funding Amtrak is more cost-effective than subsidizing roads." I'm sure that the AU number-crunchers can quibble about the exact figures, but the basic premise is, I think, sound.

 

[pennyk]

How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).

I can attest to that!!!

 

[henryj]

How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).

I can attest to that!!!

These two trains, in the interest of cutting costs, should be combined into just one long one and split at Sanford into the west coast and east coast Meteor as in the old days. Providing rail service between Tampa and Miami is not Amtraks responsibility, it's Florida's problem.

 

[Anderson]

How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).

Denver (about 175 boardings/alightings per departure of the Zephyr), Minneapolis (176 boardings/alightings per departure of the Builder), Albuquerque, probably Pittsburgh (either for the Cap or for the Pennsylvanian), frequently Memphis (62,915 transits on one train)...Reno apparently hits this seasonally as well (or is only constrained from this because of booking locks that Amtrak has to employ). Cleveland and Toledo actually generate a good deal of business in spite of awful times as well. Mind you, this is mainly a "one train per day" list of cities. Tuscon actually generates almost 70 boardings/alightings per stop of the Sunset.

Also, let me remind you that thrice-weekly service actually killed a lot of ridership because of the lack of daily options. Remember the trouble back in the 90s...Amtrak actually lost revenue per train by cutting service below daily levels, and I suspect the same would pan out if it were tried again.

Edit: Also, a point on the Canadian: The Canadian was always a thrice-weekly train, IIRC.

 

[henryj]

Well if that's your take, I can cut the losses to $0 by shuttering Amtrak entirely.

Reducing losses in absolute terms isn't really the goal we're after, though. Transit costs money, be it by train, air or road. Moving the most number of people for the least money is the name of the game, and making everything triweekly moves that in the wrong direction. I'd prefer to see the 3x weekly trains run daily, but if the money isn't there, and the budget situation dictates the trains go, those are the ones to axe.

That said, this bears repeating from my first post in this thread:

I disagree with the premise of the thread, and wager a frosty beverage of the recipients choice that every train running today will still be running on 3 January 2013 when the 113th Congress takes the reigns.

Well Ryan, I am just responding to the thread which is which trains would you cut to save the rest of the LD trains. I think I answered that. None and all.

 

[Anderson]

How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?

Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).

I can attest to that!!!

These two trains, in the interest of cutting costs, should be combined into just one long one and split at Sanford into the west coast and east coast Meteor as in the old days. Providing rail service between Tampa and Miami is not Amtraks responsibility, it's Florida's problem.

It's Florida's problem, but:

1) The coverage fills a lot of seats that would otherwise not be filled (look at the Silver Star PIP); and

2) The equipment maintenance facilities are in Southern Florida.

If you cut that link, you're going to blow out a lot of traffic in the process.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

You people keep making me look this up. 

No one is making you do anything. However, proving your argument often requires stating evidence. The onus is on you to prove your point. If you want to look stuff up to do so, that's more to the good, but we're not the ones making you do anything.

LD trains lost $575 million FY2010.  ... It's an abysmal record.  Using the Cardinal and the Sunset as an example, going three times a week should reduce the losses by at least a third. 

Taking the Capitol Limited from daily to tri-weekly would reduce the *costs* by one-third. It would likely reduce the revenues by 50-60%. That's because you'd go from needing 3 trains to just 2 (if the Cardinal is any indication), but you'd go from being able to sell X tickets on 7 trains (7X) to being able to sell X tickets on 3 trains (3X).

So if you reduce the costs by 30%, but you reduce revenues by 50-60%, you would actually increase the loss, not decrease it.

The Capitol Limited sells pretty well. I looked at several dates this summer, and couldn't even get a seat, because the train was sold out. If it sells out on 7 days a week, it would still likely sell out on three days a week, but it would sell fewer seats. And the network as a whole would be less useful.

If you read the PRIIA report on the Cardinal (I hate to make you do more work), you'll see that Amtrak talks about the disadvantage of 3-day per week service. The Cardinal only needs one more trainset to go from tri-weekly to daily. Going from 2 to 3 sets will increase costs by a third, but will increase capacity by 50%. This will increase the cost of operating the train, but will reduce the relative loss.

The problem is Amtrak has less money to lose overall.  Your hottest western LD train, the EB lost a whopping 62 million.  That's just unbelievable for a single train and it's unsustainable.  

All public transportation loses money. If we subsidized airports and roads less, Amtrak could probably make a profit. Or at least the railroads could. They used to at one point.
Amtrak is going to lose money in the current world and for the foreseeable future. The Builder's operating loss is teensy-tiny compared to the cost of keeping the Northeast Corridor in a state of good repair, even if the trains make an above-the-rail profit. Does that mean we should close it? Of course not.

I don't want to see them all go in the trash bin and neither do any of you.  So something has to give.

Something might have to go, yes. That was the point of this thread. To ask what route you'd cut if you had to. I hoped for a good debate. I'm glad we're getting one. But debating means defending your arguments.  

Reducing frequencies keeps the network and the routes and reduces the overall losses. 

No. It guts the network. And it makes it much more likely for what's left of the network to be cut.

There are 2 other points that need to be addressed:

You seem to intimate that by reducing every train to tri-weekly, we could run more train (routes). That's not necessarily the case. Tri-weekly service is less efficient. The Cardinal spends a whole day just sitting in Chicago on days it doesn't run. It can't go anywhere else, because it has to be back in Chicago the next day to run back to New York. You'd need more than just the one spare set to do that, so it's not an automatic by reducing the trains to tri-weekly.

Secondly, you assert that the Canadian is basically all sleeper (with one coach in winter and two coaches in summer). That's false. When I rode the Canadian in 2008 (summer) it had 6 coaches. It had 7 or 8 sleepers. Even in the winter, it generally has 2-3 coaches (and 4-5 sleepers).

And it's been mentioned before, but turning Amtrak into a land cruise would ensure two things: (1) the end of federal (and state) support for Amtrak, and (2) the discontinuation of most of the network.

You mention the Rocky Mountaineer. Yes, it is possible for private firms to operate trains for a profit. The Zephyr and the Empire Builder are probably candidates [the Rocky portions, at least. I doubt the Great Plains parts would make the cut]. The rest are not scenic enough or interesting enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[Trogdor]

You mention the Rocky Mountaineer. Yes, it is possible for private firms to operate trains for a profit. The Zephyr and the Empire Builder are probably candidates [the Rocky portions, at least. I doubt the Great Plains parts would make the cut]. The rest are not scenic enough or interesting enough to make it worthwhile.

The Rocky Mountaineer also does not provide daily transportation service, which is what Amtrak is.

I just checked the Rocky Mountaineer website for a train from Vancouver to Calgary. Their next train is in May 2012. The service runs once per week.

Now, if someone wanted to run a super-luxurious service on the route of the Zephyr or Builder or Starlight, they absolutely could. They could probably even turn a profit at it. But you couldn't do so while providing a viable transportation service. What's the point of even having a long-distance network if only the extremely wealthy can afford it (the Vancouver-Calgary trip costs over $1500, just for one person)?

 

[Ryan]

I think I answered that. None and all.

That's not an answer that makes any sense.

 

[henryj]

LD trains lost $575 million FY2010.  ... It's an abysmal record.  Using the Cardinal and the Sunset as an example, going three times a week should reduce the losses by at least a third.

Taking the Capitol Limited from daily to tri-weekly would reduce the *costs* by one-third. It would likely reduce the revenues by 50-60%. That's because you'd go from needing 3 trains to just 2 (if the Cardinal is any indication), but you'd go from being able to sell X tickets on 7 trains (7X) to being able to sell X tickets on 3 trains (3X).

The problem is Amtrak has less money to lose overall.  Your hottest western LD train, the EB lost a whopping 62 million.  That's just unbelievable for a single train and it's unsustainable.  

All public transportation loses money. If we subsidized airports and roads less, Amtrak could probably make a profit. Or at least the railroads could. They used to at one point.
But debating means defending your arguments.  

Secondly, you assert that the Canadian is basically all sleeper (with one coach in winter and two coaches in summer). That's false. When I rode the Canadian in 2008 (summer) it had 6 coaches. It had 7 or 8 sleepers. Even in the winter, it generally has 2-3 coaches (and 4-5 sleepers).

You guys keep trying to pick my posts to pieces, yet you have no answers. If the Capitol is so good then leave it daily and the LSL and the Meteor also(but no Star). Make the Crescent tri-weekly south of Atlanta without sleepers.

I believe I have defended my arguments. You guys have not defended yours, actually you haven't even presented any.

I have ridden the Canadian and I have walked the entire train in May of 2008. I repeat, it had two coaches and a dome snack car for them. It had 13 sleepers, two diners, two dome lounges and the park obsv for a total of 21 cars. Capacity was around 400 people. I doubt if you walked the train and are just making up those numbers.

I stand by my cost reduction calculations resulting from going tri-weekly on the western LD trains.

 

[Trogdor]

Did a little digging and found some numbers for VIA Rail and the Canadian:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-company/annual-report/2010

I haven't gone digging too deeply into VIA's statements yet, but that page has a bit of a dashboard for performance indicators.

For the Canadian (which some on here seem to worship as a model to which Amtrak must aspire):

Passenger revenue: $39,279,000

Government funding (multiplying "government funding per passenger-mile" by passenger miles): $50,339,200

If we assume that the total cost is the sum of passenger revenue and government funding (there may be some reasons why the total would not be this, but without doing too much research, I'll assume this is a close-enough calculation), then the total cost of the route is: $89,618,200

Cost recovery: 44%

In other words, the Canadian, which runs three days a week, with a billion sleepers and half a coach seat per train (yes, exaggerating a bit here), loses $50 million/year and covers 44% of its costs.

Compare that to the FY2010 Empire Builder numbers (FY11 data not available yet), which had $62,400,000 in revenue, $123,200,000 in costs, for a loss of $60,900,000. Cost recovery was just over 50%.

Now, if we look at ridership, the Canadian lost $50 million/year while handling 106,000 passengers, 125 million passenger-miles. Government subsidy was 40 cents/passenger-mile.

The Builder had a loss that was $10 million more, but it carried 533,000 passengers. Loss was 15.8 cents/passenger-mile.

Note, I'm assuming parity between the US dollar and Canadian dollar. The two have been close to each other in value for a couple years now, and even if things were off by a percent or two, it wouldn't change the overall picture.

The point being, the Canadian, with its outrageous fares and sleeper-heavy consists, does considerably worse than the Empire Builder in all relative financial measures. I don't see how you'd solve your financial problems by adopting a Canadian-style operation.

 

[rrdude]

BING! Advantage Trog.

HenryJ, I've sat idly by, reading all posts, and must freely admit, you're loosing the argument, based upon the facts presented.

I too love the "Canadian Model", but it is an "apples-to-oranges" comparison.

Not even in the same universe, let alone galaxy.

 

[Trogdor]

I believe I have defended my arguments.

No, you have not defended your arguments. You keep assuming that cutting frequency saves money. It was tried in the 1990s and it didn't work.

Again, all you have to do to see the results of your proposal is to see what Amtrak already did 15-20 years ago. The experiment barely lasted five years (I want to say it was started in 1992-1993, but I could be wrong on that), and the results were that several trains were discontinued, and the rest (save the Sunset and Cardinal) made daily again. It was a financial disaster for Amtrak.

Why would it work this time, especially given that Amtrak's ridership has grown by leaps and bounds since then? Where would you put all these people on these already sold-out trains (assuming they still want to ride given that the frequency has been cut)?

You guys have not defended yours, actually you haven't even presented any.

All you have to do is look at the PRIIA reports, which shows Amtrak is already planning on some adjustments that will improve overall financial performance of the routes.

I have ridden the Canadian and I have walked the entire train in May of 2008. I repeat, it had two coaches and a dome snack car for them. It had 13 sleepers, two diners, two dome lounges and the park obsv for a total of 21 cars. Capacity was around 400 people. I doubt if you walked the train and are just making up those numbers.

And the train loses $50 million/year. Your point?

I stand by my cost reduction calculations resulting from going tri-weekly on the western LD trains.

What calculations? I saw one post where you posted the loss of each route, then waved a magic wand and pulled some fictitious "cost saving" number out of thin air if Amtrak went to 3x/week operations. You haven't demonstrated how the equipment or crew turns would actually allow that savings. You also haven't demonstrated what that would do to revenue.

But the best part is, you don't even have to. Amtrak already did. It doesn't work.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

You guys keep trying to pick my posts to pieces, yet you have no answers.  If the Capitol is so good then leave it daily and the LSL and the Meteor also(but no Star).  Make the Crescent tri-weekly south of Atlanta without sleepers.<br /><br />I believe I have defended my arguments.  You guys have not defended yours, actually you haven't even presented any.
I have ridden the Canadian and I have walked the entire train in May of 2008.  I repeat, it had two coaches and a dome snack car for them.  It had 13 sleepers, two diners, two dome lounges and the park obsv for a total of 21 cars.  Capacity was around 400 people.  I doubt if you walked the train and are just making up those numbers.  

I stand by my cost reduction calculations resulting from going tri-weekly on the western LD trains.

You're welcome to not believe me. But I did walk the entire length of the Canadian. I also took notes and pictures, which I reviewed prior to making my last response. We now have 2 conflicting anecdotal accounts. So let's just discount them both. Trogdor was helpful and decided to provide some real numbers. Those are helpful.

I am not trying to attack you. I'm doing what people do when you disagree in a debate: I'm making points and using examples to support them.

It's true that I did not suggest a route for deletion. But that does not mean that I have not presented any arguments. It is clear that you missed the argument that I presented, and I am probably to blame for that for not being explicit enough.

The basic gist of my opinion is that reducing Amtrak's LD trains to tri-weekly will have the result of making Amtrak lose more money, and will make the system less useful. In the end it will likely mean the final end of long-distance service.

I then supported that thesis using math (reduce costs by 30%, reduce revenues by >50% = more loss per passenger) and real-world examples (the Cardinal, etc).

If you think I'm wrong the way you convince me is by showing me where I'm wrong. Is my math faulty? Do my examples not apply? Did I make a logical error?

Sorry, but just telling me that you disagree doesn't convince me that you're right. I already know that you disagree, and I still disagree with you.