posted
Here are some "farebox recovery" figures for a number of Amtrak long distance trains:
Note the projected figure (58% farebox recovery) for the North Coast Hiawatha. The recent projections for the cost of a return of the Pioneer estimate 11.6 million in revenue with 25 million in annual costs suggested. I get a 46.4% farebox recovery, which would make the Pioneer only around 1 percentage point below the Capitol Limited and the Crescent. Note the Cardinal at 35.8% and the Sunset Limited at 24.3%.
I guess I have 2 questions, do not these figures suggest that a return of the NCH and Pioneer viable? Or, looking at it in a different way, why are the Cardinal and Sunset Limited not replaced with something more economical? I don't say this with rancor..I think the Cardinal and Sunset Limited are vital to the overall Amtrak services, although I know there has been discussion concerned with breaking up the Sunset into seperate lines.
It seems to me the projected revenue figures for the Pioneer or North Coast Hiawatha are difficult..the farebox recovery could be better or worse than projected depending on the ridership..which, to me, is really hard to determine until the trains are up and running, if that ever happens.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, would you be willing to identify the source for the revenue and direct costs cited. Likely Amtrak Monthly Performance Reports, but it would be beneficial if 'we the readers' knew which one.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, from a cursory review I made of Monthly Performance Reports, I'm prepared to state that wherever the blogger got those figures, they appear representative of LD train performance in either the current or preceeding Fiscal Year.
I now can hold they are sufficiently reliable from which to have discussion move forth.
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would suggest that the Sunset and Cardinal perform so poorly because they are tri-weekly trains.
Certain costs, such as maintaining station facilities, are constant whether the train comes three times a week or seven times a week. A tri-weekly train has significantly less opportunity to generate the neccessary revenue to show better performance.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally concur Mr. Presley; of interest, the only Amtrak route that has not had Daily service "along the way" is the Sunset. Cardinal has been Daily in the past.
Of course what is overlooked is the burden to the Class I industry of hosting additional passenger trains. On A-Day, the burden was simply a non-issue as track capacity was essentially infinite. For example, on my MILW over a double tracked line Milw-Mpls there were "four a day' through freights in each direction. A guess, but successor Canadian Pacific likely handles "seven a day" over a now single tracked line.
Warren Buffet, closet railfan he may be, did not commit billions of his investor's capital simply so he could have more passenger trains on his new 1:1 Lionel.
I continue to hold that there is a "detente" in place between the industry and Amtrak where the industry will accept the existing levels of Long Distance service so long as Amtrak or other party does seek to expand the routes or frequencies of such. This is why I give the snowball in Hades a better chance than I give restoration or addition of any LD routes; mandated (and now delivered) studies notwithstanding.
Of course, there could always be this "fantasy' I posted over at "another site":
Fantasy Thread - Top this One? by Gilbert B Norman on Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:45 am
While it was easy to predict that this topic was on its way to become a fantasy thread, allow me to add a fantasy which be assured I would be quite personally opposed to if it ever were to move forth;
I don't even think NARP has come up with this one yet.
FOUR A DAY HOUSTON LA
The trains would roundly be scheduled six hours apart and would enable travel between any two points on the route with both arrival and departure at "people hours'. Schedule would be 36hr - as prevailed during 1959. Superliner Sleeper, Diner, and Lounge service would be offered on each identical train.
Naturally the ROW West of Phoenix would be restored and an attractive "Adobe' styled station would be built there, as would a new station in Houston reflecting the area's culture.
This service initiative would be justified in that if the LD is going to make a stand anywhere, it will be where there is a fast growing population base and that there are 'LD Corridor markets Phoenix-LA, Houston-San Antonio, et al with passenger potential.
Not enough equipment on hand? Well, let's discontinue the Auto Train (gotta gore my personal Ox) and reduce consists of others so that these "Sunset" trains will have adequate capactiy - including Sleepers with enough available capacity to ensure "last minute' travelers can be accommodated (Central and Pennsy wanted Century and Broadway to be "nearly", but not "completely', sold out).
If UP won't fully cooperate including embargoing freight traffic, "throw 'em in jail'.
OK volks, top this one.
In closing; "This is Orson Wells' and Mercury Theatre bringing you .......THE WAR OF THE WORLDS........." (Google or Wiki if need be)
Posts: 9977 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to get some useful information on the VIA Toronto-Vancouver train. I wanted to see if I could figure a farebox recovery for that train. Surfing the internet didn't give me much information.
With regard to the revenue dissadvantage for tri-weekly trains, I have a question. Why doesn't the VIA Toronto-Vancouver train operate daily? Would the added costs override the additional revenue advantage if daily service was available? Maybe ridership would be a factor, especially a likely reduced ridership during the Canadian winter months?
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Everybody has to believe in something. I believe I'll take the train! Posts: 230 | From: Ithaca, New York | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed your fantasy, Mr. Norman. And even though it provoked laughter, it would be nice to see it come true - except for the final proposition. I wouldn't want to jail anyone, even Martha Stewart; heavy fines should be adequate.
Posts: 326 | From: San Antonio Texas USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, I would submit that your 'four a day' might find a better home in the still growing southeast.
While the metropolitan areas you mention are worthy of frequent intercity rail, linking them by LD trains is a bit of a stretch. How many miles San Antonio (or El Paso) to Tuscon/Phoenix?
Why not go for the already defined southeast HSR: Atlanta-Washington. Thanks to NC, part of the route is already 3 a day.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the trains are moving fast enough, you won't really notice how many pine trees there are!
Seriously though, if the NCDOT brings a 'mid-day' Piedmont between Raleigh and Charlotte on-line in March 2010 as expected, that actually moves the former Southern main between Greensboro and Charlotte up to four a day in each direction....three of them in 'people' hours after you discount the nocturnal passage of #19 & 20.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a classic case of how statistics can prove any point of view depending on how you calculate them. (I was reminded of this seeing the Empire Builder near the top of the farebox recovery list.)
Someone was calculating the average Amtrak per passenger revenue for station locations based on passengers passing through, not just getting off or on. #1 on the list was Wolf Point, MT. Now if you consider the overhead to run the Wolf Point station, it is obviously the most profitable station in the Amtrak system, right?
Of course this is logical, considering most of the passengers passing through Wolf Point are probably on a long enough journey to have paid a hefty amount for their ticket.
(The source was Andrew Seldon, local MN Association of RR Passenger president and URPA member, in his newsletter column.)
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TwinStarRocket:
Someone was calculating the average Amtrak per passenger revenue for station locations based on passengers passing through, not just getting off or on. #1 on the list was Wolf Point, MT. Now if you consider the overhead to run the Wolf Point station, it is obviously the most profitable station in the Amtrak system, right?
***************************
I'll bet Essex, Mt. would be high on the list.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
