posted
The Jan. issue of "Railfan and Railroad" magazine had a small blurb concerning a conference on "Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads", which occured back in Oct, 2007. The meeting was attended by Alexander Kummant. Mr. Kummant mentioned that LD trains will survive "in some form". He said that he (Amtrak) absolutely needs the LD train to maintain the infrastructure needed to implement corridor service throghout the country. I am not sure what Mr. Kummant meant...is he talking about access needs or something else?
The magazine stated there was a lot of "thinking out loud" at the conference. There was, at one point, a discussion of the possibility of a replacement of sleeper cars with overnight stays...a concept quickly rejected by NARP (maybe some Harvey House restaurants along the way?).
One outfit that does have overnight stops, and they do it well, is the Rocky Mountaineer RR, up in BC. It stops, both ways, in Kamloops, BC, where they shuttle-bus you to a moderately-priced but nice motel. Good restaurants are within walking distance. The overnight motel cost is included in the package. They then shuttle you back to the Kamloops station the next morning.
I was thinking about future train corridors now in effect and what may happen with time. Could Amtrak eliminate the sleeper car and have overnight stops? For example, how would they work it with the Empire Builder? Lets say you divide its route into daylight trips of 9-12 hrs..with departure in the early morning each day. Here is a possibility: 1st day, Chicago to St Paul/Minneapolis (approx 8 hrs). 2nd day, St Paul/Minneapolis to Minot, ND (approx 10 hrs). 3rd day, Minot, ND to East Glacier, Mt (approx 11 hrs). 4th day, East Glacier to Spokane (approx 8 hrs). 5th day, Spokane to Seattle (approx 9 hrs). The trip now , on the Builder takes, roughly, 2.5 days. Also, do they have the facilities in small towns, such as Minot, ND, to take in all passengers?
Another thing I was thinking about, what if the "bullet train" comes to Calif. The proposal is a train from LA to the Bay Area then on to Sacramento. What if they, then, eliminated the Starlight run from LA to SAC, and had the Coast Starlight only from SAC to Seattle? What if they eliminated the Starlight, altogether, and extended the Cascade down from Eugene to Sacramento? Would they have "packages?"..so you could go from LA to SAC on the bullet train, be bused to a motel, then back to the SAC stn and on to Seattle? Maybe a daylight from Sac to Eugene, overnight in Eugene, then off to Seattle the next morning (?).
What are the economic considerations? Amtrak now has sleeping cars. Would it be practical to bus people to a local motel (with reduced rates for train passengers?) and back to the station the next morning? Would people take "daylight, overnight trains" instead of current LD trains which do get you there faster? Maybe such a scheme would work in a limited way, on very specific routes. I really have my doubts. I would miss looking out at the stars, at night, from my sleeper unit window.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: Mr. Kummant mentioned that LD trains will survive "in some form". He said that he (Amtrak) absolutely needs the LD train to maintain the infrastructure needed to implement corridor service throughout the country. I am not sure what Mr. Kummant meant...is he talking about access needs or something else?
A quite safe assumption, Richard, is that Mr. Kummant was addressing the LD system as the catalyst for garnering Federal-level funding for what is essentially a regional operation - the Northeast Corridor.
Regarding your lodging stop proposal, I can't think of a quicker way to render the LD system into the world of a less than useless means of transportation that would lose any support for Federal funding - and take the Corridor down with it as there is no reasonable and practical means to secure funding other than at Federal level for an institution that traverses nine states.
Federal funding is for transportation - Point A to B - Rocky Mountain Railtours is a tourist operation, which incidentally does not receive any funding from the Canadian government.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, VIA Rail's The Skeena from Jasper, Alta., to Prince Rupert, B.C., overnights in Prince George, B.C. But it seems that one has to make one's own hotel arrangements in Prince George.
The scenery both days on this route is supposed to be spectacular.
I can't see the California Zephyr (all that boring flat scenery from Chicago to Denver) being a day train.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the first question, if long distance trains were only to operate in the daytime to eliminate sleepers, travel times, as you note, would be greatly increased. One might as well drive as there would really be no difference in time. The whole purpose of sleepers is to allow one to keep moving while sleeping. GBN has it right when he says it would render the LD trains less than useless. I sure wouldn't bother with 'em.
Rocky Mountain Railtours can't be compared with Amtrak's LD services. Rocky Mountain is primarily a sightseeing service, sort of what Gray Line tours is to Greyhound. They slow their trains for photo ops at many scenic locations. Amtrak's primary purpose, lest anyone forget, is transportation. Sightseeing is a wonderful side benefit, but not Amtrak's reason for existing.
As for the California high speed proposal, bear in mind that it would serve a completely different market from either the Starlight or proposed Daylight. The high speed service would primarily serve the San Joaquin Valley I-5 corridor, while the Starlight/Daylight serves the coastal Highway 101 corridor. Only the endpoints would be the same. No doubt most endpoint travelers would choose the high speed service, but as we all know, the vast majority of train travelers aren't traveling from end to end.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a great love for the area referred to as "flyover land" east of the Rockies. However, a little of it goes a long way. It is best left as "sleep through land" on the train. The price increase would also be prohibitive to many passengers.
For instance, if I want to go from St. Paul to Glacier Park by coach, it is only a few bucks more to go on to Seattle or Portland. Motels are so expensive at Glacier, that I save a bundle in motel charges by staying overnight on the train until the west coast. The point is that adding cost and time to an LD route would just drive away business.
There are also people who are willing to pay for the luxury of a private room for the day. Then you have the expense of housing the train crew and allowing cars to sit not earning revenue. Overall it would be a very bad idea.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some of us train travel is not a "land cruise". It is, because of medical/age related reasons, the only reasonable way to get from point A to point B.
I travel to visit family. Yes, as an additional benefit, I do make stops along the way. Seattle, San Diego, New Orleans, San Antonio, San Francisco and others have gladly taken my "tourist dollars". None of these destinations would have been possible without passenger train and/or bus service. For medical reasons I can not fly and age related issues make driving inadvisable/unsafe.
To eliminate sleeper service and make LD trains day only travel would greatly extend the time needed to get where I am going. For the life of me, I can not see any cost saving for Amtrak by going this route. I would still travel -- just less often.
Dee
Posts: 460 | From: North Central CT | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very much agree, Dee...the time problem is very significant.
Another reason for hoping the sleeping car will never go way has to do with the privacy it brings. If you go back to the "Civility Aboard Amtrak" thread, one good benefit of having a sleeper is the isolation it brings. You can go back to the sleeper, anytime, to read a book, take a nap, or just sightsee without being disturbed. I have never liked really long trips in the coach car.
I have enjoyed the "daylight only" trips on the Cascade (with, maybe, the exception of the trip from Vancouver to Seattle). The stopovers in Portland and Seattle are fun..time to stretch your legs, etc. I hope, however, they will soon have a through train from Seattle to Vancouver and back.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose a critical question to ask in this discussion is: Can sleepers break even or make money at the current rates? Just the sleeper alone. Any expenses of running the train itself should not be included, assuming it would run with or without the sleeper anyway.
I would guess they at least break even, but I don't know. If they don't, then a price increase or elimination of free food might be in order. I guess there would always be a certain population who would pay whatever charged to have the privacy and luxury, but are there enough of those people?
As for coach passengers, I would guess they would all prefer getting to their destination as quickly and cheaply as possible. Night stopovers would drive away coach passengers.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TwinStarRocket reminded me of one observation on my last train trip, some two weeks ago. The diner car patrons appeared to be mostly from the sleepers, only a couple of coach passengers used the diner. There were a few, but coach passengers appeared to be the minority in the diner out of Chicago going to St. Paul. TSR also raises something else I've noticed as well, which was that many people were looking strictly at the out of pocket costs of a train ticket when making their comparisons between driving and taking the train.
-------------------- "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the Earth all one's life." Posts: 506 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need more seemless service. Point A to Point E without having to get off the train at point B, point C, and point D. Overnight stopovers are nice if your purpose for riding the train is to, well just ride the train. But, if you have to get somewhere, riding straight through at the wee hrs of the night/morning is a tremendous advantage. Imagine trying to get cross country and having to do sleepovers in cities en route. It would take you almost a week (or longer). Its rough enough that anyone coming from the west coast has to go to CHI and then to Washington or New York in order to get to Florida...and this is coming from someone who did a cross country trip (LAX-CHI-NYP-JAX) in COACH! I think it took 6 days total!
Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: I suppose a critical question to ask in this discussion is: Can sleepers break even or make money at the current rates? Just the sleeper alone. Any expenses of running the train itself should not be included, assuming it would run with or without the sleeper anyway.
I would guess they at least break even, but I don't know. If they don't, then a price increase or elimination of free food might be in order. I guess there would always be a certain population who would pay whatever charged to have the privacy and luxury, but are there enough of those people?
As for coach passengers, I would guess they would all prefer getting to their destination as quickly and cheaply as possible. Night stopovers would drive away coach passengers.
I'm guessing that sleepers probably do break even on LD routes with strong ridership. I base this guess on the fact that, in Amtrak's September 2007 performance report, the two LD routes with the highest ridership came very close to their break even point *after* accounting for expenses of running the train itself. (These two routes were the 'Empire Builder' and the Auto Train.)
Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: I suppose a critical question to ask in this discussion is: Can sleepers break even or make money at the current rates?
I was asking that question several months ago and it occurred to me that one Roomette at current rates (ranging from about $450-600/day depending on how far you go) should bring in more than enough money in a night to cover an attendant for 24 hours. That leaves 12 more roomettes, a family room and five high priced bedrooms to cover supplies and linens, cleaning, a portion of fuel, food service, and maintenance. It seemed to me that should not be hard to do.
I found out later that NARP had done the same calculations, using figures provided by Amtrak, adding in a few more items that I didn't think of, and came up with the following balance sheet for Amtrak sleepers in 2004:
Sleeper Revenue $129,624,994
Sleeper OBS Cost $21,088,057 Linens & Laundry $2,559,663 Fuel Cost $10,923,035 Turn Around Services-sleepers $7,585,207 Turn Around Services - engines $2,275,244 Program Maintenance $6,018,586 Heavy Maintenance $2,110,015 Wreck & Accident $2,080,529 Ticketing & Station Operation $4,716,445 Reservations & Information $6,573,413 Commission & Inconvenience $8,863,750 Food Cost Savings $13,924,068 Sleeper incremental cost $88,710,220
I know some people think anything from NARP should be filed under Fiction, and some parts of the report seem a little confusing, but I think these numbers make sense.
posted
But I would argue that even some of these operating costs assigned to sleepers are not valid, in that they would still occur if the sleeper went away and the same people were to travel in coach, such as:
Turn Around Services - engines $2,275,244 Ticketing & Station Operation $4,716,445 Reservations & Information $6,573,413
I am becoming more convinced a sleeper pays for itself, and it might even leave a big tip. Of course any net income from a sleeper is offset by the operating loss of the route. But elimination of overnight service does not offer any financial advantage.
Even if the NARP figures are questionable, it still seems it would make business sense to build sleepers to the point where supply and demand are equal. This would also add jobs without taxpayer subsidies, as the sleeper probably pays for itself in a short time.
It even makes me wonder if, in theory, a private company could profitably pay Amtrak to haul their sleepers around and use Amtrak's reservation and ticketing service? They could do their own marketing and hire lobbyists to make the trains run on time.
Mr. Norman, our resident bean counter, am I crazy?
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I customarily defer on any discussion regarding matters relating to cost allocation.
I think I've been around long enough to know that "figures don't lie, but liars figure'.
Or how 'bout this one?;
'the only good system of Cost Accounting is one that shows the boss what he WANTS to see".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree strongly with Mr. Normon on the "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" and further, if the person is a politician, "If his lips are moving he is lying," these items included seem to go beyond the usual "avoidable cost" list in that some of them would not go away if the sleepers went away. Therefore, if, and it's a big if, the numbers are good, then to do away with sleepers would be an exercise in incredible stupidity. Recall, in the 1960's when sleepers were determined to be hopeless money pits, a night in a sleeper could be had for around $10 for the space charge, so even allowing a factor of 10 plus for inflation that was way under current prices, and that for cars with a capacity of 22 people.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
