This is topic solutions to Amtrak losing so much money yearly. in forum Amtrak at RAILforum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/3146.html

---

Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
 
Amtrak came very very very close to dying this year.
What is being done to improve Amtrak?
What are your personal advice you would give David Gunn?


1.I think Amtrak should commited to an agreement with Greyhound and other bus lines to be partners. A code sharing partner like American airline to American Eagle. Amtrak does the long distant runs, Greyhound feed and get fed through Amtrak. The same concept using motorcoach currently, but on a bigger scale; All Greyhound. It would require Bus and Train stations combine into one station.


2. Amtrak's bedrooms are booked up for months. Why not add more sleepers. Increase Amtrak first class paying customers. Am I missing southing here?
 

---

Posted by Pojon (Member # 3080) on :
 
Sounds logical--your two points should be acted upon. Greyhound is falling apart and a marriage to Amtrak might be just the right thing to save Greyhound on the costs of maintaining the smaller stops.
 

---

Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
 
"Why not add more Sleepers?"

An easy question to type gp35 and an easy one to answer: Amtrak does not have enough money to just up and order a whole bunch of new sleepers. Add to that the "tense relationship" they currently have with the Superliner patent holders: one Bombardier, and I'm not sure if they could even get an order in.

By the way, I like your handle: I saw a GP35 in the BNSF yard at Eola the other day.

Anyone out there know of any other North American Companies building passenger cars?
 

---

Posted by CoastStarlight99 (Member # 2734) on :
 
#1--I agree with Jgart..Amtrak cannot just get as many cars as they wish.

#2--If people had to connect with buses alot, that would be really bad, When you make airplan reservations you travel in the air 100%, when you make train reservations, hopefully you are on the rails most of the time and only need a bus in the start or conclusion of your journey.
 

---

Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
 
Amtrak has 70 coaches being built. They need not retire the coaches they are planning to retire.
 

---

Posted by MDRR (Member # 2992) on :
 
That's news to me...who and where?
 

---

Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
 
MDRR it was in a Amtrak spending file. I'll have to go look it up again.


Another Idea. Let the food industry take over the dining car. Let the hotel industry take over the sleeping car.
 

---

Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
 
I was reading about Amtrak screwing up a good idea. Mail and express mail service. Amtrak hired a bunch of people, used stops to uncouple mail cars, etc etc... If this is true, dumb on Amtrak part. Solution, mail truck deliver mail in airplane style container. Load and unload in 5 minutes. Amtrak need not hire 1 person. Let UPS and Postal service handle their mail coach.
 

---

Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
 
Actually, Mr GP-35, your view of what Amtrak Mail & Express should be was reality during the seventies and eighties.

Palletized mail and express was loaded and unloaded at major stops but in volume limited to what could be handled during station time needed for other purposes such as fueling locomotives, watering cars, and the required 500 mile inspection. Trains were rarely delayed account this limited operation.

Well somehow "the pig became a hog", and apparently you are familiar with the rest of the story.
 

---

Posted by B.T.Rider (Member # 3975) on :
 
Before Amtrak came into existence, mail was mostly carried between cities by passenger trains and sorted en route.

LBJ's secretary of the Post Office and a former Airline executive, ended that, ended the extra charge for "air mail", and shifted that business to the airlines. Reputable sources say that single action alone reduced passenger train revenue by 1/3. From then on, the RR's devoted a major effort to getting rid of passenger service.

On the subject of Amtrak priority. Most railroad s in the west ARE single track. Most sidings are too short for modern freight trains, therefore, the only trains to fit in sidings are passenger trains. Contracts with the RR's are only scraps of paper when the RR's dispatchers must put a long freight around a short passenger train.
 

---

Posted by North American Railroader (Member # 3398) on :
 
I liked the idea of an Amtrak-Greyhound partnership, as long as I was assured that no Amtrak lines would be cut as a result, Amtrak service would not deteriorate, and finally, that Greyhound would improve its comfortibility, cleanliness, and service. There is no way, at present, that I'd ride Greyhound anywhere. Two other suggestions, one that I've made before, would be to: sell the naming rights of Amtrak cars to towns and cities to generate extra income for Amtrak and to promote tourism in those areas. Also, maybe Amtrak could raise more money in the dining industry onboard by offering fastfood by a select few companies in its lounge car, and then keeping a share of the profits for itself. Example: Chick-Fil-a sandwichs, Pizaa Hut Pizza, etc. However, lets not fool ourselves, Amtrak, like most any other long distance rail provider, will always lose money, the service is what really matters.
 

---

Posted by midwesthsr (Member # 3981) on :
 
Sell naming rights - that would get $20 million in one year that would be blown in less time than it takes for Acela to breakdown. The answer is not to keep Amtrak from losing so much money, but for it to increase revenue. High Speed Rail is the key - without it Amtrak will and should die. If we have High Speed Rail, averaging 2x the speed of a car at a fraction of the cost of a flight for short hops - success. The revenue increases so the loss is not as great percentagewise. Then shift as much capital cost from Amtrak to Federal Rail Administration, so Amtrak runs like Greyhound - leeching off of government-subsidized highways.
 

---

Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
 
I have a news flash: No high speed rail anywhere had achieved the ridership estimates projected for it. That is not to say it shouldn't be done, but that it should be done realitically, and incrementally to provide better service to a proven passenger base and without the expectation that it will solve all the world's transportation problems. Solid reliable service with reasonably good equipment on a schedule more or less equivalent to driving time does find ridership. We mainly need a fleshed out network instead of a skeleton. Short run trains are big time money losers in most areas. You need to have longer distance trains on multiple daily frequencies and they will serve multiple short-haul markets as well as the long haul market. Many times people will drive a short to medium distance almost regardless of alternatives because they want their car on the other end.
 

---

Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
 
Yup Mr Harris its the car at the other end. If you traveling with kids or even 4 young people it would always be cheaper by taking a car. especially if your destination is outside a city.
It would not be cost effective if you need to add the cost of a rental car.
 

---

Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by North American Railroader:
I liked the idea of an Amtrak-Greyhound partnership, as long as I was assured that no Amtrak lines would be cut as a result, Amtrak service would not deteriorate, and finally, that Greyhound would improve its comfortibility, cleanliness, and service. There is no way, at present, that I'd ride Greyhound anywhere.

---