Shawn Ryu
Conductor
Well, at least Auto train will always be safe.
The challenge is to discuss how to improve cost recovery and reduce losses with specific changes, many of which are not obvious or visible from the viewpoint of a passenger, rather than the blunt force approach of cutting a daily train to 3 days a week or canceling the service. The PRRIIA reports provide ideas for further incremental improvements in reducing costs and enhancing revenues which could be expanded. Cashless club diners, better food choices, Viewliner sleeping attendents covering 1.5 Viewliner cars, etc.Additionally, while I know that Henry's ideas aren't popular and as noted based upon history probably aren't going to solve the problem, I do want to mention two things. One, he is at least thinking. I haven't really noticed any other plans from anyone, save just killing the Sunset. Two, please remember to attack the ideas and not the person. Thanks!
The running most LD train other then daily and the business units ideas have already been tried and where a big failure, that would be one of the worst things to try.I will give you my 2 cents worth which no one will agree with. There are not enough trains now so I wouldn't cut anything, I would do some layoffs and cost cutting in the high salary management levels and get within my budget. Having said that, rather than eliminate LD trains which would alienate the states that get only LD Service, I would start by totally restructuring Amtrak. Spin off the NEC as a separate entity. Set up separate business units to operate western LD train, eastern LD trains and state supported trains. If that doesn't cut it then start looking at making the western LD trains three times a week as Via does the Canadian. That would free up some LD equipment, reduce staff requirements and concentrate more passengers on fewer trains. The only western train I would keep daily is the Southwest Chief. In the east, the LSL and the Capitol should only require two sets of equipment, not three. Change the schedules appropriately. Something is wrong with the Silver Service if it continues to hemorage money as it is. It needs better marketing or restructuring of equipment and schedules. I would add a restored Pioneer or City of Portland with the spin off equipment from going three times a week and run it opposite the EB. And thats just for starters. All these LD trains are just cruise trains. Hardly anyone really uses them for business transportation, so start thinking and marketing them as such. Next I would start looking at new short distance markets that have potential such as the Texas 'triangle' and work with the states to get these running. Amtrak needs to get out of the 'bunker' mentality and start innovating and marketing. Obviously they are not going to be able to continue feeding at the trough as they have been.
The Canadian was daily for many years.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.Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?
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.
Really? Huh...must have gone to daily sometime after the initial rollout (I believe it was thrice-weekly in the advert in my 1956 Guide).The Canadian was daily for many years.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.Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?
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.
Which of the two routes in the Carolinas are you going to abandon?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.I can attest to that!!!Orlando and Tampa, to name two (on the Silver Service).How many places does a train stop and over 100 are waiting to get on?
You still seem to be ignoring my first post in the thread, in which I provided my answers and explained the rationale behind them. Perhaps you can get past your "Ryan hates Texas" fury, and actually read the whole post?You guys keep trying to pick my posts to pieces, yet you have no answers.
You might believe that, but you're mistaken. Simply repeating the same stuff over and over isn't "defending". Contrast that with Trogdor and T29 that have produced actual figures, facts and calculations to show that your "make everything 3x a week" plan is a terrible idea.I believe I have defended my arguments. You guys have not defended yours, actually you haven't even presented any.
I think that it's pretty obvious that the consist of the Canadian varies widely, so there really isn't a "right" answer. In any event, the point is moot, since Trogdor brought forth the numbers that show that emulating the Canadian is a bad idea from a budgetary standpoint.While I for one don't like Henry's ideas for the future, I do have to say that based upon my experience riding the Canadian in July 2010 (peak season) that he's not too far off on his coach count. My train only had three, and I just confirmed this by pulling up the spreadsheet that I had created on my iPhone in which I recorded the train's consist. Henry claimed 2 coaches, while other's were claiming 6, which puts Henry much closer to the actual count and in the win column on this one IMHO.
You're right there with Henry in missing my first post where I put the Cardinal on the chopping block as well. Given the constraints of this thread (Which train(s) would you cut), it is any wonder that the worst performing trains are getting almost the entire discussion?Additionally, while I know that Henry's ideas aren't popular and as noted based upon history probably aren't going to solve the problem, I do want to mention two things. One, he is at least thinking. I haven't really noticed any other plans from anyone, save just killing the Sunset. Two, please remember to attack the ideas and not the person. Thanks!
Why do you keep saying this, when it's been clearly demonstrated to be untrue (on a per passenger basis, which is what is really important)?They will need much more drastic measures which is why I proposed the tri-weekly ideas which I still think would cut Amtrak's losses substantially on the western LD trains.
Demonstrably false. Amtrak is proceeding with plans to put a through car/cars from the Pennsy to the Capitol Limited. They have also added checked baggage service to the Cardinal.Amtrak has published all those pretty slick paper PRIIA's but has done nothing to implement any of them.
What personal attacks?I think some good ideas are surfacing in this discussion inspite of all the personal attacks.
If it's so clear, then why did the 'for profit' privately owned and operated railroads use this tactic to reduce costs before Amtrak? Why has Amtrak continued the practice off and on since inception? As usual, you are missing the point of this discussion which is to find a way for Amtrak to survive the budget cuts with as much of the system in tact as possible. Per passenger losses don't matter in this scenario, only total system losses.Why do you keep saying this, when it's been clearly demonstrated to be untrue (on a per passenger basis, which is what is really important)?They will need much more drastic measures which is why I proposed the tri-weekly ideas which I still think would cut Amtrak's losses substantially on the western LD trains.
Which of the two routes in the Carolinas are you going to abandon?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.
???What personal attacks?I think some good ideas are surfacing in this discussion inspite of all the personal attacks.
Amen!The train I'd like to see cut is the "train of thought" in Congress that Amtrak is not as worthy as the other modes of transportation that receieve $$ from the gov't.
I think we'd all agree with you on that. Nobody seemed to care that much about Amtrak until one party made a strong show of support for passengr rail. Almost immediately after that members from the other party began attacking passenger rail as both incredibly wasteful and vaguely socialist. There are several areas where Amtrak could be legitimately criticized, but Amtrak's total cost versus other transportation options and vague accusations of socialism aren't part of that mix in my view. I think that's what bothers me more than anything. That we can't even agree to discuss Amtrak based on the actual merits of the service but are instead forced to waste lots of time defending against accusations that aren't based in reality and make no logical sense.The train I'd like to see cut is the "train of thought" in Congress that Amtrak is not as worthy as the other modes of transportation that receieve $$ from the gov't.
That of course is the old standby used by all 'foamers'. The private roads did it because these trains were hemoraging huge losses and it was the only thing they could do if the ICC, which regulated the railroads then, would not let them discontinue the service. It was a compromise. And it reduced their losses. Passenger train operation losses were threatning the actual continued existance of the private railroads and forcing some into bankruptcy. That is why Amtrak was formed in the first place, to take this burden off the freight railroads.The private roads did it because they didn't want the passenger business to survive.
The Alaska Railroad runs it's winter service Anchorage to Fairbanks weekly. It goes north on Saturday and comes back on Sunday. Via's Churchill train is twice weekly. Several of their other mandated services are tri-weekly.I have always wondered what is the magic with 3 times a week. Why not 2 times a week.
OK, so? Nothing you've said contradicts my statement. Unless you're looking for the end of passenger trains, reducing to 3x weekly service and decreasing efficiency is a terrible idea.That of course is the old standby used by all 'foamers'. The private roads did it because these trains were hemoraging huge losses and it was the only thing they could do if the ICC, which regulated the railroads then, would not let them discontinue the service. It was a compromise. And it reduced their losses. Passenger train operation losses were threatning the actual continued existance of the private railroads and forcing some into bankruptcy. That is why Amtrak was formed in the first place, to take this burden off the freight railroads.The private roads did it because they didn't want the passenger business to survive.
I'm going to split the difference here. I think that some railroads were actively trying to bail on the passenger business from fairly early on (SP leaps to mind), but in a lot of cases I think the connectivity collapses were more bungling. Granted, it was the same logic that got us the tri-weeklies in the 1990s (that people would shift their business to the remaining trains), but I think it was unintended bungling and a desperation to close losses in most cases. You've got others that wanted out, so help them, and I'm willing to imply a concerted effort on at least SP's part, but I think most roads were pulling the plug because of honest budget problems (that were killing them elsewhere on the balance sheets...frankly, if a lot of roads were as profitable then as they are today, most of them would likely have just let the passenger business roll).That of course is the old standby used by all 'foamers'. The private roads did it because these trains were hemoraging huge losses and it was the only thing they could do if the ICC, which regulated the railroads then, would not let them discontinue the service. It was a compromise. And it reduced their losses. Passenger train operation losses were threatning the actual continued existance of the private railroads and forcing some into bankruptcy. That is why Amtrak was formed in the first place, to take this burden off the freight railroads.The private roads did it because they didn't want the passenger business to survive.
Even though Amtrak's mandate was to eventually make money, no one ever really expected it to. So now 40 years later we are still arguing this point. I personally do not have the answer. Should we continue to throw money at Amtrak or try and replace it with something else? It's something for all the 'smart guys' to figure out. Ride em while you can.
I'll take a stab at what happened: One of the two probably ran tri-weekly for a few months while CN/CP were getting their consists delivered and tested out. It may well have been the Super Continental (which was slammed together as quickly as possible to compete with The Canadian) that was tri-weekly at first. I'll pull out my old guide and check this just to be safe, but at this point I'm guessing it was a temporary measure.Thanks for the Via link. I knew that Via was a poorer performer than Amtrak, but never had seen the details. Now if we only had some on-time type information for them. What we don't know here, or it hasn't been presented, is how much Amtrak has to cut it's losses to make it through 2012. If we had that number then this discussion would be more focused. If they have to find 200-300 million then cutting a train that only loses 39 million won't help much. They will need much more drastic measures which is why I proposed the tri-weekly ideas which I still think would cut Amtrak's losses substantially on the western LD trains. Remember, the EB did not operate for days, even weeks at a time as did the CZ and people still show up to ride them so I don't see any problem with loss of business going tri-weekly. And the corridors that show more demand could be covered with day trains as is mentioned above. Amtrak has published all those pretty slick paper PRIIA's but has done nothing to implement any of them. Most of the Sunset Ltd one could be implemented on the existing tri=weekly train, yet nothing has been done. So I don't believe Amtrak is really serious about making any of those changes. They published these reports because they were mandated to by Congress. I think some good ideas are surfacing in this discussion inspite of all the personal attacks. Keep thinking.
I did find where Via claims an 84% on time record for the western trains which includes the Canadian. I don't remember who posted that it was always tri-weekly, but when it was new the Canadian Pacific ran it daily along with other secondary trains on the route like the Dominion and the National's Super Continental was daily also. when I rode it the first time in 1962 it was still daily and by the way, only had two coaches. They did however run some tourist sleepers on it then which were refurbished section sleepers. I do not know when it went tri-weekly.
The SP just saw the handwriting on the wall much earlier than some of the other roads and they were burdened with a host of LD trains that were big losers. What got them the bad rep was the manner in which they approached it. But remember, they had to deal with the California PUC. It just turned into a big knock down fight. No other railroad was as exposed to the California PUC as the SP was. And in spite of everything they did, they could never shake off the Sunset Limited which is still with us today. Here in Texas where the law was much different the SP exited the passenger business sooner than anyone else.The private roads did it because they didn't want the passenger business to survive.
I'm going to split the difference here. I think that some railroads were actively trying to bail on the passenger business from fairly early on (SP leaps to mind), but in a lot of cases I think the connectivity collapses were more bungling. Granted, it was the same logic that got us the tri-weeklies in the 1990s (that people would shift their business to the remaining trains), but I think it was unintended bungling and a desperation to close losses in most cases. You've got others that wanted out, so help them, and I'm willing to imply a concerted effort on at least SP's part, but I think most roads were pulling the plug because of honest budget problems (that were killing them elsewhere on the balance sheets...frankly, if a lot of roads were as profitable then as they are today, most of them would likely have just let the passenger business roll).
Right mandated service comes with associated targeted subsidies covering the cost of operation, otherwise they don't run. So cost recovery is somewhat of a non-issue.The Alaska Railroad runs it's winter service Anchorage to Fairbanks weekly. It goes north on Saturday and comes back on Sunday. Via's Churchill train is twice weekly. Several of their other mandated services are tri-weekly.I have always wondered what is the magic with 3 times a week. Why not 2 times a week.
Enter your email address to join: