Trump proposes cutting long distance support

John_Perkowski wrote:

BandA wrote:You can't subsidize something for 45 years then just shut it down with 6 months notice.

Care to bet on that?

All Amtrak has to do is put up the 180 notices of discontinuance. Do you really think the STB will not fall in on the President's desires? The message will be sent them clearly and unambiguously.

The requirement for 180 day discontinuance notices does not apply when service is withdrawn due to not being funded.

A more reasonable proposal would be a 5 year target to reduce or eliminate the LD subsidy.

Gradual elimination of operating subsidies was tried before; Didn't work then, won't work now. All the "glidepath to self sufficiency" (read: "freefall to bankruptcy") did accomplish was to nearly bankrupt the company for real. Poor business decisions and other damaging compromises were made all in the name of achieving an unreachable goal.

While this Nicholas Kristof column hardly mentions anything to do with rail passenger service, there are strong cost/benefit analogies that can be drawn across all social programs. I hold the Amtrak LD system can only be held as a social program:

http://nytimes.com/2017/03/30/opinion/p ... -bird.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This Fair Use quotation from the column, if you choose to read, could well draw analogies with Amtrak funding. For example, multiply by ten the numbers cited regarding NEA.

So what if President Trump wants to deport Big Bird?

We’re struggling with terrorism, refugees, addiction, and grizzlies besieging schools. Isn’t it snobbish to fuss over Trump’s plans to eliminate all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Let me argue the reverse: Perhaps Trump’s election is actually a reminder that we need the humanities more than ever to counter nationalism and demagoguery.

Civilization is built not just on microchips, but also on arts, ideas and the humanities. And the arts are a bargain: The N.E.A. budget is $148 million a year, or less than 0.004 percent of the federal budget. The per-capita cost for Americans is roughly the cost of a postage stamp

While I wouldn't lose sleep if the LD system - including Auto Train - were to vanish, there are many here who hold otherwise. You may find support for your position within Mr. Kristof's column.

I would be sad if the LD system were to vanish. I wouldn't wish to categorize the LD network as a "social program", even though it is clearly in place because the societal benefits justify the costs (to those who vote to fund it), since treating it as a "social program" is a sure-fire way to generate Republican (and Libertarian) opposition.

I view Amtrak as far different from PBS and arts/humanities funding. Transportation has long been recognized (even by conservative hero Adam Smith and other economists over hundreds of years) as a core function of government. PBS and arts/humanities funding are not, at least in my view. Further, Amtrak is a case of market failure: the free market has failed to deliver products and services that are economically beneficial. I don't view PBS and arts/humanities funding as a case of market failure (in that even though I was a humanities major in college, I'd suggest that the economic benefits of it are not great); I'd think that the private sector could fund PBS (although perhaps on cable, which nearly everyone has these days, or online) and a significant amount of arts/humanities funding.

Some have said the closest parallel to Amtrak is the National Parks Service.

Woody wrote:

David Benton wrote:The Coast Starlight is the only long distance train that runs through states that all support corridor trains. I would say it is the LD train with the biggest portion of its route shared with corridors. ...

The Coast Starlight is a great example that it's not "either/or" with corridor and LD trains, it's "both/and". The Starlight already benefits from overlapping corridor service, and further overlapping and mutual benefits are on the horizon.

This year the Stimulus-funded upgrades will cut about 10 minutes from the schedule of the Cascades Seattle-Portland stem. The presently lousy On Time Performance should greatly improve for the Cascades and the Starlight alike.

At the other end of the route, California continues making piecemeal time-saving upgrades to the Pacific Surfliner's growing L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo segment, it will shave the same minutes from the Starlight's overlapping schedule.

The big bang from this corridor will come in a few years, after California invests serious money to straighten curves, widen bridges, add passing sidings, double-track sections, improve signaling, etc. The state will be putting in money mainly to support more and better Surfliner service L.A.-San Luis Obispo, but also a revived Golden State/Coast Daylight train all the way up to San Jose and San Francisco. Eventually the upgrades on these 400+ miles of slow track should chop 2 hours, likely more or maybe less, out of the Starlight's run time, saving costs and passengers' time.

The Starlight's schedule hinges on Sacramento: SB arrival 6:30 in the morning, NB arrival about 12 midnight. These times put the overnight travel in the least populated segment, and they are unlikely to change more than an hour or so. But faster speeds will allow better departures and arrivals in L.A.

The NB train now leaves L.A. at 10:10 a.m., but after upgrades make for faster tracks, it could leave at 11 a.m. and still arrive at Sacramento an hour before midnight. (The connecting Surfliner now leaves San Diego at an early 6 a.m, but riders could sleep an hour later.) The SB train now reaches L.A. at 9 p.m. -- connecting to a Surfliner that arrives in San Diego at a little after 1 a.m. With a new 7 p.m. arrival in L.A., those transferring passengers could make it to S.D. by 11 p.m. These changes could be almost like adding San Diego to the Starlight's list of cities served!

And almost all of these gains from these coming upgrades on the Coast Daylight/Golden State will be a free ride for Amtrak.

A few years further ahead, California has plans for corridor service Sacramento-Chico-Redding. The NB Starlight now covers this 160-mile stretch in about 4 hrs 10 min, barely 40 mph. I'd expect to see the state work to get the average speed up to 60 mph and get this run time down closer to 2 hrs 30 min or so, saving 1 hr 30 min here. Remember we won't expect big changes to the departure time at Sacramento.

But look when those 90 minutes saved get pushed up the road: Arrive Eugene currently at 12:36 p.m., but make it 11 a.m. instead; arrive Portland now at 3:32 p.m., but 2 p.m. will be better; arrive Seattle at 8:12 p.m. now, (probably 8 p.m. soon, after the upgrades at Point Defiance kick in) but reaching Seattle at 6:30 p.m. will let you kiss your kids goodnight. And the Thruway Bus that now arrives in Vancouver, B.C. after midnight could arrive at a more civilized 10:45 p.m. instead.

Then SB, with 90 minutes to work with, the 5:30 a.m. Thruway bus out of Vancouver could leave at a more comfortable 7 a.m. The train could leave Seattle at 11 a.m., not 9:30 as now; depart Portland at 4 p.m., not 2:30 as now; depart Eugene at 6:30 p.m., not 5 p.m. as now -- and still arrive Sacramento by 6:30 in the morning. These city pairs would be much more appealing for overnight sleeper customers if riders didn't have to be awake a day or half a day before turning in.

There's also more minutes to come out of the overlapping Capitol Corridor route Sacramento-San Jose and out of the Cascades' overlapping route Eugene-Seattle, especially Portland-Eugene.

With 75% of its route overlapped by corridors, the Coast Starlight will benefit from the states' spending to upgrade the routes. Of course, without adding a dollar to Amtrak's budget, more federal grants to the states for corridor infrastructure would make things happen faster. Every minute saved from the corridor trains in the West Coast states will be saved from the Starlight's schedule. So if the Starlight isn't killed off with the other LD trains, it will get better and stronger with every passing year -- thanks to the states and their corridor trains.

We had a thread at one time, where we fantasied how to speed up/ carve up the Coast Starlight. I would like to see what could be done with the schedule using Talgo equipment. I think splitting the whole route into 2 daylite runs would be possible. Wether this allows it to break even is another question, but it should be able to run without Federal support, if the 3 states subsidize their sections.

David Benton wrote:

Woody wrote:

David Benton wrote:The Coast Starlight is the only long distance train that runs through states that all support corridor trains. ... the LD train with the biggest portion of its route shared with corridors. ...

The Coast Starlight is a great example that it's not "either/or" with corridor and LD trains, it's "both/and". The Starlight already benefits from overlapping corridor service, and further overlapping and mutual benefits are on the horizon.
...
The Starlight's schedule hinges on Sacramento: SB arrival 6:30 in the morning, NB arrival before midnight. These times put the overnight travel in the least populated segment ...
...
... if the Starlight isn't killed off ... it will get better and stronger with every passing year -- thanks to the corridor trains.

We had a thread at one time, where we fantasized how to speed up/carve up the Coast Starlight. ... splitting the whole route into 2 daylite runs would be possible. Whether this allows it to break even is another question ...

Carve it up? Here's that cannibalism thing again.

We need to strengthen the Starlight and the other LD trains, not carve them up. And I've just explained where we can expect a 4- or 5-hour savings from the run time, thanks to corridor upgrades over most of its length that are in the pipeline. The faster timetable will cut costs a bit and improve ridership a lot. I didn't get into the savings from shared costs as the state-supported corridor trains overlap more and more of the LD route. Meanwhile Neroden tells us that by his calculation, the Starlight is very close to making a positive contribution to operating earnings, and could be positive next year.

We had a thread at one time that argued about chopping the Atlantic Coast trains into day train corridors, dumping the sleepers and their expensive diners. One problem with day trains: night. If you aren't using your equipment midnight to dawn, you are parking it while paying for it. If you run your trains thru the night, you get modest but real revenue from the overnight service.

Carving the Starlight into two day trains you would force LD passengers to sleep in the coach seats, get a hotel in Sacramento, or lose those riders altogether, while paying to store the trains overnight. Let's not dismember our LD routes. Let's grow them.

Woody wrote:
We had a thread at one time that argued about chopping the Atlantic Coast trains into day train corridors, dumping the sleepers and their expensive diners. One problem with day trains: night. If you aren't using your equipment midnight to dawn, you are parking it while paying for it. If you run your trains thru the night, you get modest but real revenue from the overnight service.

Let's not dismember our LD routes. Let's grow them.

If you just extended the Pennsylvanian to Chicago in both directions you wouldn't have to service the train in PGH either direction and it could streamline maintenance operations (you could close down PGH's service facilities). It of course would cost more to run it and extra 400 miles each way, even if you don't have sleepers. I doubt the federal government would consider picking up the Pennsylvanian (especially if PGH's maintenance is on PA's dime) but maybe PA can strike a deal with Amtrak to split the costs. I'm guessing OH and IN wouldn't help but if you detour from TOL to the Detroit area and go through Michigan then maybe Michigan would chip in too.

Woody wrote:Let's not dismember our LD routes. Let's grow them.

Truer words.

Congress is a spit show, the president is loathed by over half the country's citizens, the Supremes are looking through their case notes from '94, '74, and 1868 while wondering what butt will fill Antonin's seat, and the Federal agencies are waiting nervously for the other shoe to drop. Amtrak isn't a hot button issue, except as part of a full budget. A LD cut will be the least of America's troubles if other cuts happen, more than most conservatives or pro-infrastructure independents may realize.

Philly AF: call your senators and reps, maybe they can get the LDSLs Amtrak needs to make the Cap single-level and combine it with the Pennsylvanian at PGH. A combined Capitol and Broadway Limited has a really nice ring to it.

Woody wrote: Carve it up? Here's that cannibalism thing again.

Bad choice of words by me.
What we were discussing in the thread were ways to improve the Starlight, not cannibilize it. For sure , as soon as you change a route, it doesn't suit somebody.
But , from memory, we were working out ways to have faster overlapping trains, so you could basically do any section of the route in daylight. The central section would still have overnite sleepers, but someone doing the whole route would have to change trains at SFO or SAC.
From the NARP ridership stats , I think this was only 4 % of riders, whilst you should gain many more from more daylight service along the route.

The problem with most Eastern ( and some Western, including the Starlight) sleeper services is they spend most nights in the depot. The Florida services spend a night in NY, a night on the rails, then a night in Miami.
The Crescent is similar. The LSL does manage to spend 2 nights on the rails, then 1 in the depot.
So Viewliner Sleepers, Amtrak's most scarce and highest earning revenue equipment, spends most of its Nights in the depot , earning nothing. To be fair, they also earn a premium running daylight hours, but its not hard to figure they could earn a lot more at night. Especially if passengers can continue on a business class connecting service.
I have always argued Amtrak should turn at least one of the sleepers on each train at Washington, with NYP passengers continuing on by business class or on the Acela. The counter argument is NY is the biggest market, and you would lose passengers from there. I contend the Sleepers are so scarce, having more sleepers available on the night section overrides the inconvenience of changing cars or trains.

David Benton wrote:

Woody wrote: Carve it up? Here's that cannibalism thing again.

Bad choice of words by me.
What we were discussing in the thread were ways to improve the Starlight, not cannibilize it. For sure , as soon as you change a route, it doesn't suit somebody.
But , from memory, we were working out ways to have faster overlapping trains, so you could basically do any section of the route in daylight. The central section would still have overnite sleepers, but someone doing the whole route would have to change trains at SFO or SAC.
From the NARP ridership stats , I think this was only 4 % of riders, whilst you should gain many more from more daylight service along the route.

I'm not sure where you get 4% of riders go through which ever point would be your transfer point.
https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/3442/34.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4.6% travel 1300-1399 miles while 3.5% between 1100-1199 miles. Best guess is the 1300-1399 crowd are going between LAX and SEA (1377 miles, 3rd most popular city pair by ridership) while the 1100-1199 crowd are going between LAX and PDX (1190 miles, 6th most popular by ridership). That's already 8.1%

David Benton wrote: We had a thread at one time, where we fantasied how to speed up/ carve up the Coast Starlight. I would like to see what could be done with the schedule using Talgo equipment. I think splitting the whole route into 2 daylite runs would be possible. Wether this allows it to break even is another question, but it should be able to run without Federal support, if the 3 states subsidize their sections.

Right now the train is currently supported federally. If you break it up, are you absolutely sure the 3 states will subsidize their sections? Even if you are 90% sure they will, why risk the 10% when keeping it under the federal branch guarantees 100%. Then the question comes who takes care of between PDX and SAC? California has no state supported service north of the Capitols and the Cascades only go to Eugene. They'd be paying for service which is much less traveled.

You mentioned in the top post about the central section (I assume between SAC and PDX) will still have sleepers but in your second post you suggest splitting into 2 daytime runs. If you say to still run the sleepers, I don't see why splitting the train would be worthwhile rather than inconvenience the passengers by forcing a transfer (ask anyone in PA about the Capitol Limited-Pennsylvanian transfer that mtuandrew was referring to). If you suggest two sections with daytime only service, I'm thinking you would have LAX-SAC one day and SAC-SEA the other. So what happens to the passengers passing through? Not only are they forced to transfer but they have to stay overnight in SAC on their own dime!

I don't think this about all trains, but I think there are enough passengers who travel roughly endpoint to endpoint (in this case, LAX-SEA and LAX-PDX ) to justify a single through train. In the case of the CL-Pennsylvanian, it was shown a lot of passengers do make the transfer in PGH, even though the hours are horrible and a PRIIA suggested they lose passengers traveling between CHI-Ohio and PA east of PGH if they didn't have to transfer so a through train of any kind would result in more business between the two halves. If you are running the train the entire length in both halves, you might as well just run a single train with the exception of at Chicago (although I personally would like to see a 3 day overnight one seat ride between PHL and LAX without a transfer). The advantage of shorter legs would be less accumulation of delays on each half. I think that argument holds some weight for the 3 day transcontinental or a 2 overnight train but I think most 1 overnight trains are fine and the % of passengers traveling endpoint to endpoint or near endpoint to endpoint traveler are greater (more passengers would likely take an LAX-SEA in one night than LAX-CHI in two nights). I have proposed for some trains not running the whole route but cutting out the middle portion which is very little traveled. At least there you would save many train miles. But if you are going to run the train the full length, you really don't save much if any money (unless you split into two daylight sections so you can get rid of the sleepers on the route but that would really really kill any through traffic).

Philly, Too late at night here to cut quotes up etc in response, but basically I assumed there would be enough savings/ extra ridership to run 2 trains daily over most sections of the route.
The midsection I referred to was SAC- Kamalth Falls, or possibly to Eugene. This section would have a day train, and a night train with the sleepers. The night train would connect with daytime Talgos on the end sections either side of its endpoints, and would have more sleepers avaliable( faster turnaround, every night on the rails). There will be overlapping sections. The faster Talgo running times would allow the train changes necessary to be at acceptable times of the morning/ night.
I will try to find the old thread. Again the idea was to provide more service for the same money/equipment, not cut service.
I guess that doesn't fall into this current thread assuming there will be no federal support, though it may make the States more likely to pay for extra service.
For passengers , there would be inconvenience for the very long distance riders, but alot more service for everyone else.

David Benton wrote:
I have always argued Amtrak should turn at least one of the sleepers on each train at Washington, with NYP passengers continuing on by business class or on the Acela. The counter argument is NY is the biggest market, and you would lose passengers from there. I contend the Sleepers are so scarce, having more sleepers available on the night section overrides the inconvenience of changing cars or trains.

This poster has contended that as well. Once all the V-2s are delivered and V-1s rehabbed then turning Meteor, Star, & Crescent 1 each sleeper would be feasible. Just don't book that one sleeper or maybe even two north of WASH ? That would make some more sleeper space available for sale. 3 each day on those routes. A WASH <> ATL might work as well ? Crescent in SOU RR days had several.

Unfortunately Cardinal times don't fit.

David Benton wrote:The problem with most Eastern ( and some Western, including the Starlight) sleeper services is they spend most nights in the depot. The Florida services spend a night in NY, a night on the rails, then a night in Miami.
The Crescent is similar. The LSL does manage to spend 2 nights on the rails, then 1 in the depot.
So Viewliner Sleepers, Amtrak's most scarce and highest earning revenue equipment, spends most of its Nights in the depot , earning nothing. To be fair, they also earn a premium running daylight hours, but its not hard to figure they could earn a lot more at night. Especially if passengers can continue on a business class connecting service.
I have always argued Amtrak should turn at least one of the sleepers on each train at Washington, with NYP passengers continuing on by business class or on the Acela. The counter argument is NY is the biggest market, and you would lose passengers from there. I contend the Sleepers are so scarce, having more sleepers available on the night section overrides the inconvenience of changing cars or trains.

You could improve equipment utilization somewhat without cutting cars to turn them at Washington. The Silver Meteor formerly ran on a schedule (arguably better, current schedule times for intra-Florida business are uselessly close together) which required only three trainsets instead of four; A return to this timetable would alone save three sleepers without short-turning anything. On the other hand, turning one sleeper at Washington on the Silver Star wouldn't actually save any cars at all. Current schedules are such that you couldn't make a same day turn at Washington from #92 to #91 (and it would be a bit tight to regularly do so on the Crescent). May as well just send the car on up to New York.

Aside from the very real matter that people just don't like to change trains, and thus you shouldn't aggravate your highest-revenue passengers by making them transfer, remember that Acela capacity is also often at a premium (that's part of the rationale for the replacement sets on order). You certainly don't want to trade one capacity limitation for another.