Which train(s) would you cut?

[afigg]

Doesnt the State of California already foot bills for Capitol Corridor, Surfliner and San Joaquin?

That is what I thought too, however the Amtrak FY2010 September report shows big losses for some of the state supported trains. Total loss for state supported and other short distance trains was $231 million. The Washington-Lynchburg train is the only one that show positive results of $2.1 million.

Yes, California does provide funding support to the 3 California corridor services. However, looking at the reports, Amtrak will be asking CA to contribute more to reduce the total loss margins. All part of the negotiation process between Amtrak and the states ahead of the FY13 state subsidy requirement.

 

[jis]

Doesnt the State of California already foot bills for Capitol Corridor, Surfliner and San Joaquin?

That is what I thought too, however the Amtrak FY2010 September report shows big losses for some of the state supported trains. Total loss for state supported and other short distance trains was $231 million. The Washington-Lynchburg train is the only one that show positive results of $2.1 million.

Yes, California does provide funding support to the 3 California corridor services. However, looking at the reports, Amtrak will be asking CA to contribute more to reduce the total loss margins. All part of the negotiation process between Amtrak and the states ahead of the FY13 state subsidy requirement.

Effective 2013 CA will have to pick up the entire subsidy for intra-state service. Currently it does not. There are several Surfliners and San Joaquins for example that are grandfathered from the original Amtrak network. Additional service is covered by CA, though the entire thing operates as Amtrak California.

 

[Trogdor]

San Joaquins were not part of the original Amtrak network.

 

[MC CJ'S REVENGE]

When it comes down to this I'd keep all the trains. It's bad enough their are less trains then what we had 15-20 years ago cutting more trains is just going to limit travel options for passengers. Question would a private company operating long distance trains work?

 

[jis]

San Joaquins were not part of the original Amtrak network.

True, but didn't hey exist (at least one run per day) before the existence of California funded Amtrak California? Maybe y recollection is wrong.

 

[haolerider]

San Joaquins were not part of the original Amtrak network.

True, but didn't hey exist (at least one run per day) before the existence of California funded Amtrak California? Maybe y recollection is wrong.

This discussion is interesting; however, I think if Boardman is able to cut the budget through the Voluntary Separation agreements the cutting of LD trains may not be necessary. The voluntary separation agreements are only the first step, there will be involuntary RIFs in the early part of 2012, so more to come in reducing costs. I certainly would not look to the various states to either increase their expenditures or the addition of new state agreements. The states are suffering as much, if not more, than the federal government and new trains are not in their radar (for the most part). Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia may have dollars to spend, but I would think it would be enhancing the existing routes rather than new routes.

 

[afigg]

This discussion is interesting; however, I think if Boardman is able to cut the budget through the Voluntary Separation agreements the cutting of LD trains may not be necessary. The voluntary separation agreements are only the first step, there will be involuntary RIFs in the early part of 2012, so more to come in reducing costs. I certainly would not look to the various states to either increase their expenditures or the addition of new state agreements. The states are suffering as much, if not more, than the federal government and new trains are not in their radar (for the most part). Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia may have dollars to spend, but I would think it would be enhancing the existing routes rather than new routes.

New York state, California, even Michigan all have political support for passenger rail. California has plans for increased service on existing routes using the funding they received to purchase new bi-level coach cars and locomotives. There may be some back and forth between each state and Amtrak on what the subsidy amount will be. That may an additional reason for Boardman to cut overhead costs. The state DOTs are balking at the overhead and Amtrak needs to show they can control overhead and personnel costs to not only Congress, but to their state partners (or customers if you will).

The September 2011 Monthly report is out which shows the preliminary operating loss after adjustments is $457.5 million, $104 million less than the FY11 $561.9 million operating grant. The Senate on Tuesday passed a Transportation bill with $544 million for the Operating Grant. The bill still has to get through the House and the reconciliation process - which will be messy. if Amtrak gets $544 million for Operating grant in FY12, the LD routes should be safe. However, I suspect Boardman realizes that Amtrak will have to live with cuts in the Operating Grant down to $300 to $400 million range once the required state subsidies are in place in FY13. So, if they can make enough cuts in costs to hold costs down, make real improvements to the LD trains to improve cost recovery, the LD trains could keep going just fine, if not see some modest expansion in service. If not, then some LD trains go away.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Looking at CA financial situation I am worried about how they can continue to support passenger rails. Forget HS rail I consider that dead at the moment.

 

[Anderson]

This discussion is interesting; however, I think if Boardman is able to cut the budget through the Voluntary Separation agreements the cutting of LD trains may not be necessary. The voluntary separation agreements are only the first step, there will be involuntary RIFs in the early part of 2012, so more to come in reducing costs. I certainly would not look to the various states to either increase their expenditures or the addition of new state agreements. The states are suffering as much, if not more, than the federal government and new trains are not in their radar (for the most part). Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia may have dollars to spend, but I would think it would be enhancing the existing routes rather than new routes.

New York state, California, even Michigan all have political support for passenger rail. California has plans for increased service on existing routes using the funding they received to purchase new bi-level coach cars and locomotives. There may be some back and forth between each state and Amtrak on what the subsidy amount will be. That may an additional reason for Boardman to cut overhead costs. The state DOTs are balking at the overhead and Amtrak needs to show they can control overhead and personnel costs to not only Congress, but to their state partners (or customers if you will).

The September 2011 Monthly report is out which shows the preliminary operating loss after adjustments is $457.5 million, $104 million less than the FY11 $561.9 million operating grant. The Senate on Tuesday passed a Transportation bill with $544 million for the Operating Grant. The bill still has to get through the House and the reconciliation process - which will be messy. if Amtrak gets $544 million for Operating grant in FY12, the LD routes should be safe. However, I suspect Boardman realizes that Amtrak will have to live with cuts in the Operating Grant down to $300 to $400 million range once the required state subsidies are in place in FY13. So, if they can make enough cuts in costs to hold costs down, make real improvements to the LD trains to improve cost recovery, the LD trains could keep going just fine, if not see some modest expansion in service. If not, then some LD trains go away.

I'd like to see which routes the improvements were on, but it looks like we're going to have to wait. As an aside, why didn't Amtrak wait until the end of the fiscal year to screw with the system?

Anyhow, that's a complaint for another day. It looks like Amtrak managed to seriously close its losses...which on the one hand is going to make Amtrak look a bit foolish with their projections, but it should at least cool off some of the criticism. Something feels strange about the numbers, though...I'd like to get a better feel for non-cash items other than depreciation, since it at least looks like depreciation was a lot of the net improvement.

 

[Donctor]

Cut the Cardinal.

 

[trainviews]

If any routes need to be cut - and that is a big if - it has to be done so it hurts the least. In my opinion the obligation of Amtrak is to provide as much transportation to as many people as possible for the money available. Reasonable regional concerns has to be taken into account too.

And as to the suggestion of cutting a number of LD's to tri-weekly: It is cheaper to run a train three days a week in total, but it is more expensive per train, and even if you use the spare equipment for longer trains, it still will loose passengers due to inflexible schedules and transfers. CR will likely worsen dramatically. To me the only benefit is that it will still look nice on a map for railfans to salivate over. As a transportation alternative it will be a joke.

Generally I think corridor services are more important in terms of transportation, but the LD's have an opportunity to serve as a skeleton to add new corridors upon and to connect them, benefitting both. Therefore I think that three criteria ought to be the base of the selection:

- low cost recovery, lack of opportunities for development and trains that can be cut without creating a too big hole in the national network.

The resulting consideration for individual trains is thus not the result of hating any state or wanting to preserve "my" train. Probably being permanently back in Europe, I have no personal interest in any of them (except for being interested in transportation politics)

Cost recovery obviously brings the SSL and the Cardinal in the searchlight. The factor bringing the SSL to the front of the chopping block line is the second criteria though. The Cardinal should have the possibility of going daily with some moderate investment as soon as the equipment is available, and that would help CR. It also could serve as the trunk for a future Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinati service. And even if the endpoint to endpoint route doesn't make too much sense it does run through quite a bit of territory, which is small town but not that sparsely populated, and which has very bad connectivity due to lack of major airports. That creates a fair amount of passengers and a real transportation need.

As for the Sunset the UP in reality blocks it from going daily in any foreseeable future and a tri-weekly will never have any perspective to reach a decent CR. Its problem is also that it's a very long (read expensive) run through some very sparsely populated areas. Only SAS and eastwards and maybe LA-Phoenix, if rerouted, have any perspective of being the trunk of a corridor service. Cutting it will leave a bad hole in service for western Texas and soutern Arizona though, but it is a service that it barely delivers today except as a line on the map.

Next in line would be the Silver Star. It is almost doubled by the Meteor, leaving not too many areas stranded, and it's CR is not great. Tagging the extra cars to the Meteor instead would keep a daily alternative that probably would pick up a good part of the passengers and maybe even create an LD that was close to positive CR! A split to serve Tampa is possible if feasible. It will have to be considered though if there is enough demand for both of them to be able to get a decent CR when more equipment becomes available.

Sharing place no 2 I guess is the Crescent south of Atlanta. We don't have the numers, but fare prices indicate that ridership is low and CR probably with it. Again it will hurt the already underserved South, but all things considered it is probably the lesser pain.

And fourth would be the Cardinal. In spite of the potential to perform better, it still likely wouldn't reach the top of the class. Not being the best connection between its endpoints is also a factor in spite of the middle markets.

Hopefully it will never be necessary to continue the list, but obviously a couple of the other western LD's would be under consideration. The worst performers - the Eagle and the Zephyr - both have a lot going for them. They both serve as trunks for successful corridors in Illinois and they both have other potentials. The Eagle in Texas, as part of the triangle, aleady connecting to the Flyer and with another possible corridor connection to Sheveport and beyound if Texas ever gets its act together on the corridor services. The Zephyr on the Chicago-Denver segment and connecting to possible services being mulled in Colorado.

And finaly on the NEC. Cutting here would be plain stupid, unless one or two of the regionals is shown to perform so poorly that they are dragging down the whole network. But the Regionals basically break even today, and thinning the service significantly might very well have the opposite effect, driving away passengers and increasing the losses.

The NEC costs money though - a lot of them - in capital expenses as very expensive parts of the infrastructure is worn down. This is the part of the budget that is directly comparable to investment in roads etc. and to grants for railroad projects in other states. As the NEC states are now asked to chip in too for new investments like other states are in their corridors, the only difference is really that it is part of the Amtrak budget because Amtrak owns the infrastructure here. Raiding it for operating grants for the LD's is neither fair nor wise, as it would undermine the sound operation of the NEC in the longer term. And after all it does transport an awful lot of passengers.

 

[henryj]

If any routes need to be cut - and that is a big if - it has to be done so it hurts the least. In my opinion the obligation of Amtrak is to provide as much transportation to as many people as possible for the money available. Reasonable regional concerns has to be taken into account too.

And as to the suggestion of cutting a number of LD's to tri-weekly: It is cheaper to run a train three days a week in total, but it is more expensive per train, and even if you use the spare equipment for longer trains, it still will loose passengers due to inflexible schedules and transfers. CR will likely worsen dramatically. To me the only benefit is that it will still look nice on a map for railfans to salivate over. As a transportation alternative it will be a joke.

Trainview, I would not disagree with your assessment. But, Amtrak's LD network is now down to the bare bones level as it is. Once you start the process you describe the network will disintegrate rather quickly. Also, you have to remember there are 50 states that have representatives that vote on these budgets. Once you start leaving more and more of these states with no rail service Amtrak will lose valuable support in Congress and it starts to snowball on them. And remember the other part of this scenario is leaving the states holding the ball on all short distance trains under 750 miles. So at that point....just what service is Amtrak providing? Will the rest of the country still vote money to support the NEC? Probably not at which point Amtrak becmes a dead entity, the NEC is farmed out to a private company and the states start accepting bids from private companies to operate their own services. There are other countries outside of Europe and Japan that now have little or no rail service left. We could become one of them. Once that happens, passenger rail will only come back when it is financially viable and competitive. LD trains will become summer only vacation cruise trains as in Rocky Mountaineer. How many LD trains does Europe have left?

 

[eagle628]

Next in line would be the Silver Star. It is almost doubled by the Meteor, leaving not too many areas stranded, and it's CR is not great. Tagging the extra cars to the Meteor instead would keep a daily alternative that probably would pick up a good part of the passengers and maybe even create an LD that was close to positive CR! A split to serve Tampa is possible if feasible. It will have to be considered though if there is enough demand for both of them to be able to get a decent CR when more equipment becomes available.

I don't know which of the pair I'd save...the Meteor is faster, but I expect the Star serves more people with Tampa and Raleigh, the only big city the Meteor serves between Virginia and Georgia is Charleston. And the Meteor's route still has daylight service with the Palmetto...of course, cutting the Meteor kinda kills the northern Florida/Savannah-Northeast overnight business, assuming the Star stayed on its current schedule. But of course one would hope it won't come to making this choice, and cuts, should there be any, stop before that particular decision has to be made.

 

[Anderson]

If any routes need to be cut - and that is a big if - it has to be done so it hurts the least. In my opinion the obligation of Amtrak is to provide as much transportation to as many people as possible for the money available. Reasonable regional concerns has to be taken into account too.

And as to the suggestion of cutting a number of LD's to tri-weekly: It is cheaper to run a train three days a week in total, but it is more expensive per train, and even if you use the spare equipment for longer trains, it still will loose passengers due to inflexible schedules and transfers. CR will likely worsen dramatically. To me the only benefit is that it will still look nice on a map for railfans to salivate over. As a transportation alternative it will be a joke.

Trainview, I would not disagree with your assessment. But, Amtrak's LD network is now down to the bare bones level as it is. Once you start the process you describe the network will disintegrate rather quickly. Also, you have to remember there are 50 states that have representatives that vote on these budgets. Once you start leaving more and more of these states with no rail service Amtrak will lose valuable support in Congress and it starts to snowball on them. And remember the other part of this scenario is leaving the states holding the ball on all short distance trains under 750 miles. So at that point....just what service is Amtrak providing? Will the rest of the country still vote money to support the NEC? Probably not at which point Amtrak becmes a dead entity, the NEC is farmed out to a private company and the states start accepting bids from private companies to operate their own services. There are other countries outside of Europe and Japan that now have little or no rail service left. We could become one of them. Once that happens, passenger rail will only come back when it is financially viable and competitive. LD trains will become summer only vacation cruise trains as in Rocky Mountaineer. How many LD trains does Europe have left?

For Europe, you'd have to define "long distance" trains. Do we mean overnight trains from A to B? I ask because a lot of your major city pairs (Paris-Berlin, etc.) are less than 750 miles, and for longer pairs (say, Madrid-Berlin), one would expect to change trains somewhere along the line.