My near term hopes for Amtrak, beyond basic survival

AmtrakFan wrote:Mr. Madison,
Thank You for helping me make my point. Mr. Wigwagfan you don't realize many people can't get a seat who want to ride Amtrak go esle where which means lost sales because Amtrak doesn't have enough cars.

Again - state your source! This is the fourth time I have asked you this.

I am, again, talking long distance services only. For example, let's use the Coast Starlight. There are multiple segments (Seattle-Eugene, Bay Area, Los Angeles area) where the Starlight is augmented by additional corridor trains, which provide additional service. But as a LD train, coach capacity is rarely if ever 100%.

If, say there is high demand on the short segment within Colorado, I see absolutely NO reason why a LD train spanning nearly 2,000 miles should haul around another coach, just because there is a 200 mile segment that is full. The solution is not adding another coach and increasing the cost of the entire train, causing it to lose money, the solution is to determine whether a corridor service is a better solution in that short distance.

If, as RMadisonWI states, the CZ was at 100% load factor east of Denver, then the train load factor would be significantly higher than 50% (unless the load factor west of Denver was virtually 0%, which would then lead me to wonder why the train even continues west of Denver, due to a lack of demand) which falls under my previous statement that the current train consist would be adequate, or possibly justifies an additional car. But Amtrakfan, you conveniently glossed over that statement of mine.

Regardless, I believe that it is actually a measure of success if Amtrak were to turn away passengers, because it would show demand (and thus proof that Amtrak needed new cars). Amtrak could 1: raise fares, generating more revenue and help to reduce demand (thus decreasing the loss), and 2: go to its creditors (the federal government) asking for more capacity to handle these displaced customers. Neither has happened.

The facts you purport simply do not exist, Amtrakfan. Please, in the future, back up your statements with some sort of validation. If you have a hard time doing so, you may want to check out the monthly performance reports on www.amtrak.com.

Mr. Wigwagfan,
I read the monthly reports, I check the Amtrak reservation System frequently to see what is sold out but I feel that we have a future in America's rail system. I often go out and see the trains very often which go thru where I live 3,4,5 and 6 at Naperville and I often see the train close to full if not full. My Idea of adding a car goes to promote Amtrak more agrresivley to like groups etc. Amtrak is short of all types of cars the top shortages are
1. Superliner Sleepers
2. Viewliner Sleepers
3. Superliner Transition Sleepers
4. Superliner Diners
5. Heritage Diners
6. Superliner Coaches
Amtrak needs to be able to expand capacity when trains are sold out long time in advance. Would you want your train to run without a Diner due to not having enough due to an Equitment Shortage? Answer I don't think so, this is what the Wreck Repair Program does to reduce car shortages.

"Close-to-full" does not justify adding another car. If a particular train is running a significant portion of its route at 100% load factor, and there is no other outlet for those passengers, that is justification for adding a car.

Let me ask you this - have you ever called an (800) number? Now, when you call, do you always get straight through to a representative, or do you sit on hold? Now, when you are on hold, do you sit for just a few moments, or for a great time?

It is a known fact that if a customer sits on hold for a few moments, they're not inconvenienced. If you sit on hold for five, ten, twenty minutes or more, you're likely going to have a negative opinion of the company.

Amtrak, and any other mode of transportation, works the same. If a train is occassionally sold out, that is no big deal. Yeah, an occassional person might be upset, but those few people should have planned earlier, should have known that the liklihood of a sell-out was high, etc. They will not cause a widespread negative perception of the company. But, if capacity is set way too low, that is a problem.

Take an airline. An airline that expects 100 passengers on a given flight is not going to use a 200 seat, or 300 seat aircraft. They're going to match capacity to ridership. A B737 or A320 works great, as they are just over 100 seats. An alternative would be to use two regional jets (which would increase frequency, a possible bonus). If the flight sells out for a few days, it's no big deal. If the flight sells out consistently, the airline will consider using a larger aircraft, or adding flights.

Again, Amtrak is the same way. You don't just go around hauling empty cars for no reason, it costs money. If people are actually going to use those cars, fine, put them in. But Amtrak's own statistics prove over and over again, that the cars aren't full. The problem (for coaches) is not the number of cars, its the utilization of the existing cars.

Your own comment, shows that the top four cars "in demand" are sleepers. Guess what? I covered that five messages ago and agreed with you. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me.

Further more, diners (the #5 car in demand) is an entirely different story, because dining cars don't work like coaches and sleepers (you don't sell diner seats). How many LD trains go without diners? I certainly agree that every LD train needs a (singular) diner, and the number of times an Amtrak train has to leave without a diner is rare. That seems to suggest that there is not a diner shortage. If one train has to leave because the diner is in the shop, then Amtrak gets to buy food for the passengers. If it's a one-time occurence, so what? Airlines occassionally have to cancel flights because of mechanical problems. So does Greyhound, cancelling bus schedules. You can only overbuild something so much before it becomes financially irresponsible.

Yes, having a train cancelled, or being told it is sold-out is a minor inconvenience. But no company is going to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to capture a handful of passengers who will not make up that expenditure. If you agree that it should be, then I invite you to call Fred Hansen, the General Manager of my beloved transit agency TriMet, and tell him that every bus should be a 60' articulated bus, and every route should operate 10 minutes or less 24/7, and there should be a special fleet of no less than 100 busses that are kept on reserve just for breakdowns and "overfill". (Currently, TriMet only has less than 700 busses in its fleet.) I have had my share of being passed over by bus drivers because the bus was full, not having a seat, waiting another 20 minutes because my bus broke down before my stop, or my favorite excuse, the regular driver was sick and the entire extra board was used up.