posted
According to TRAINS.com, among other topics Boardman said he will not push for a daily Sunset nor add new car orders for Superliners or Viewliners - beyond what is already ordered. Future of LD trains doesn't look good. Here is a portion of his comments:
********** "Boardman said what Amtrak needs most from Congress is capital investment in the Northeast, and “for the Hill to decide what they want to do in policy investment is in long-distance trains,” because “long-distance trains [are] where we don’t cover our operating costs,” and “we’re not going to be able to do that forever.”
In response to a question from Trains columnist Don Phillips, Boardman said the company has no immediate plans to expand its railcar fleet beyond already announced acquisitions. Those include the 130 single-level baggage cars, sleepers, and diners now under construction in Elmira, N.Y., by Spanish manufacturer CAF, and a proposal to acquire 40 additional coaches for the 20 existing Acela Express trainsets. Rather than add equipment by piggybacking a separate Amtrak order for bilevel cars onto orders that California and Midwest states are poised to place, Boardman said the company intends to continue rebuilding its Superliner fleet at its Beech Grove, Ind., shop.
“One of the things I learned in the transit business before I came to [Amtrak] is that as I added more trains during the peak hour, my losses increased,” Boardman said. “Right now, the business model that exists for long-distance trains is that as you add trains, your losses increase.” He added, “that’s not where our policy direction has been coming from, from the administration or Congress. The importance of us to run a good service at a cost that can be supported by the policymakers is critical, and I believe that is [achieved] by rebuilding the equipment we have."
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
So true, but I am surprised Amtrak could justify new Viewliner sleepers but not Superliners. Especially since Viewliners are newer. But, guess we should happy with what we're getting and also the apparent commitment to maintain equipment - unlike the deferred maintenance prior to the recent stimulus sponsored repairs. At some point, though, cars for western trains - some now 30+ years old - will need to be replaced.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, the CAF (will they really resemble, let alone be named Viewliners, anyone?) Sleepers are simply "baking three quarters of the rest of the cake". 100 Viewliners were supposed to be "in the bag", but a last minute appropriation cut whacked that order in half.
The Diners and Baggages are simply replacing cars that have exceeded their economic life. There is at least one Diner out there, road number unknown, that is an ex-NYC Diner-Grill placed in service during 1947.
Although at times passengers must wonder, there still remains economic life in the Superliners.
Expansion? well I think the material with which you opened this topic speaks for itself.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: “One of the things I learned in the transit business before I came to [Amtrak] is that as I added more trains during the peak hour, my losses increased,” Boardman said. “Right now, the business model that exists for long-distance trains is that as you add trains, your losses increase.” He added, “that’s not where our policy direction has been coming from, from the administration or Congress. The importance of us to run a good service at a cost that can be supported by the policymakers is critical, and I believe that is [achieved] by rebuilding the equipment we have."
While I am happy to see that he is at the least committed to rebuilding existing equipment and buying new equipment to replace that which old enough to start drawing social security, I think he is misunderstaing the difference between transit with its multiple trains per day or even per hour and short distances with medium and long distance trains. he should look at the experieces of Nroth Carolina and California where adding trains to corridors resulted in larger passenger loadings per trainPosts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sometime this fall, the mega-cuts of last fall, the ones the Sooper-Dooper Joint Economic Committee failed to address, will kick in.
When they do, Katey Bar the Door. Every agency which is part of the discretionary budget (as DOD and DOT both are) will take mega-hits in budget authority. When that day comes, Amtrak may well have to make some difficult choices.
I'd not be surprised to see 180 day Notices of Discontinuance of Service show up.
Mr. Pullman, expanding upon your immediate as well as your captioned submission to Railroad Net, we both recognize that Amtrak could well have the "shotgun to the head' with a dictum of cut something - NOW. If that be the case (and recognize and respect that many here hope to the contrary), I fear the cuts will be made guided by political expediency rather than economics.
One would logically look to the two poorest performing routes, namely The Cardinal and the Sunset, but I have often contended that the Silver Meteor, while hardly poorest performer, would be first to go because it is the most expedient.
I believe that the Meteor could be discontinued without 180 Day Notice under ARAA '97, as there is other service along its entire route (reroute one train over the FEC; well then it's a whole new ballgame) . I continue to hold that Amtrak could be looking at embarassment and even a restoration of Sunset East if some party were to hold "feet to the fire' that the route was discontinued without Notice. Everytime a CSX freight operates over the route without incident, Amtrak's existing position of "temporary suspension" becomes weaker.
I think it is a very safe assumption that at 60 Mass, they are playing scenarios at this time titled "If we must cut, what will be the order they go?". I am certain that there are maps, likely within their Government Affairs department, showing the routes overlaying the legislative districts - and not necessarily just Federal level.
In short, IF Amtrak is compelled to cut an LD route, as has been the case during every Administration since Clinton (and every Democratic since Carter), the reaction could well be "why did they cut-----; it is a good performing route".
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the Sunset and maybe Cardinal are fair game, but I'm not sure I see the need to sacrifice other routes. If the object is to cut costs (rather than make a political statement of how many trains are cut), I believe Amtrak could make a big dent in their losses by redesigning their LD network.
A skeletal network is needed to connect the dots. The dots being those cities that support either corridor services or metro areas with extensive transit/commuter systems. Beyond that there is lots of room to have corridor type services (meaning two or more trains at times attractive to the public on relatively short routes) operated on segments of current LD routes or even a couple daylight trains covering an entire LD route (like the Silver Star's) but without the overhead of full crews (and away from home expenses) associated with a multi day longhaul trains with sizeable on board staff, station agents, extensive equipment requirements and mileage payments.
In other words, Amtrak may have the opportunity to make the best of what will likely be a bad situation. Let's see if they have the wherewithal to challenge 'orders' by making some logical counter proposals that might even increase revenues while reducing costs. But then, shouldn't they have already been doing that?
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
