quote: Amtrak could significantly boost its revenues and cut expenses if it improves its on-time performance, according to a report by the Transportation Department's inspector general. Doing so, however, would require the cooperation of the freight railroads, which host the national passenger carrier on their tracks.
I think everyone here would agree this is from the DUH! file. But its nice to see someone has finally quantified the cost to Amtrak of delays caused by freight congestion. The story goes on to say that between cost savings in fuel and overtime labor, and increased ticket revenue from better reliability for passengers, would reap an additional $111.4 million towards Amtrak's bottom line.
When I have some time I'll look up the OIG report to see how they arrived at that figure. In the meantime I'll leave it to our resident accountants for analysis.
As an aside, the title of this thread is my favorite line from the otherwise forgettable movie Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
4021North Member # 4081
posted
I'm not an accountant, but I can appreciate those figures. Now let's see them do a report on how many more passengers Amtrak would get from expanding the frequency of service and increasing the number of cars on the trains. The conclusions may be obvious, but there is no substitute for getting the word out to the people who make the decisions. That report should be required reading for everyone in manager and higher level positions in Amtrak and the railroad industry.
sfthunderchief Member # 7204
posted
I'm reminded of the old saying about Mussolini, something of a backhanded compliment for an otherwise villainous leader: "But he made the trains run on time."
This, more than anything in my opinion, is a fundamental rail travel imperative. Regardless of how fast anyone can potentially get anyplace, the issue of speed may actually be a secondary consideration. We know it's impossible to drive a car coast to coast in 5 hours, even though you can fly that distance in that time. People often compare rail travel to air travel and use the speed comparison. If you're traveling great distances there may be an imperative of getting some place in a day.
But for rail travel the important thing is keeping the schedule. If you need to travel 175 miles to a not so prominent place or even 300 miles, is it more important to get there fast or is it most important to arrive very near when expected? I think it might be the latter for a great many potential passengers.
Greg Member # 66
posted
While it's good to finally see the cost of delays quantified, I'd also like to see numbers on the increase in costs for trains whose schedules have been lengthened due to congestion or deteriorated track.
How much higher are the operating costs for the Sunset, for example, due to increases in the scheduled running time? Longer running times presumably increase labor costs and sometimes break connections reducing revenue potential from connecting passengers.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
"Memo from the DUH! file"
Some of the British guys I used to work with described this sort of stuff as a publication from the Bureau of the Blooming Obvious.
Southwest Chief Member # 1227
posted
An interesting side thought to chew on.
On my more recent travels on the Southwest Chief, I've noticed many of the delays in on time performance comes directly from slow boarding passengers and heavier then normal passenger boarding and detraining. I know the Chief benefits from relatively little freight interference that other Amtrak trains must deal with, but my observations lead me to an interesting theory.
If Amtrak (that's almost an imaginary if) can somehow increase the number of cars and thus passengers, would the on time performance be hurt just by adding passenger capacity? Schedules would likely have to be altered to reflect the potential increase in boarding times. Not a big deal, but something to think about.
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Detials - details please. Until we can see the report we do not know how the delays occured. How many were weather related, AMTRAK caused, emergency stops like at a crossing accident or other factors.
Knowing politicians as we do I suspect several of these factors are reflected in the statistics. But it is election year and also a likely time to criticize RR's because they are now profitable.
Let's wait for the details before reaching conclusions.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Once upon a time, LD coaches had one vestibule and loading door for every 44-56 passengers. In the Superliner era, I believe that number is on the order of 1 to 76 or 80 passengers.
Ditto sleepers. A 10-6 streamliner era sleeper had one vestibule for every 22 passenger. (As a note, a HW 12-1 had one door for every 14 passengers). A 14-5-1-1 Superliner sleeper has one door for every 44 passengers.
Bottom line is this: Trains have to make at least the rate of advance an auto can from A-B, wherever A-B happen to be. Time competitiveness matters.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
When one car attendant has to cover 2-3 coaches, this can also slow down boarding and detraining time. I believe going back to one attendant per car would pay for itself by improving customer service and satisfaction enough to increase demand. But then there is the same thorny issue of whether Amtrak has the equipment to deal with increased demand.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
PullmanCo: A 12-1 heavyweight sleepere was 12 sections, one compartment. The capacity was two people per section, so the passenger capacity of the car was 26. In the travel crunch era of WW2, two men were placed in a lower for military moves.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr Harris,
Be the Pullman car of plan 2410 or 3410, Diagram 5 of the Pullman Company, for a 12-1, was 12 sections, 1 DRAWING ROOM.
12x2=24 1 x3=3
27
Care to bet a beer at the Golden Ox?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Harris, I expect a steak at Ernie's
I totally concur with Mr. Pullman; from having personally ridden 12-1's in revenue service (to Summer Camp during the "50's") the configuration is 12 Sections 1 Drawing Room.
TBlack Member # 181
posted
Mr. Norman,
You're dating yourself; Ernie's has been gone for well over a decade. Same thing with the Blue Fox!
TB
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Yes PullmanCo, I will meet you at the Golden OX, dutch treat perhaps, It is a great place in the West Bottoms; and their thin olive soup made with Boodles will enhance the IQ.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Yes Mr. Black; I have not been in SF since 1990 - and I am 67 years of age.
I was at "the OX' in KCMO with Mr. Pullman as of last August - it's there and still as good as I remember it to be during the 70's when I frequently had occasion to travel to KC on MILW Rd business.
And finally, many of the restaurants I enjoyed entertaining at both in Chicago and New York during the 70's and into the 80's, when I was much more of age to "want and get out', are simply gone.
Sic Degusta Gloria
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
OK, three people per drawing room. Guess I backed up a 10-6's bedroom into a heavyweight. I, like some others around here have trouble reminding myself that the 70's and early 80's are a quarter century in the past.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)