Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

Can you define what exactly ARE the valid discussion point to this topic?

Amtrak does not operate in a vacum - and I dare say it doesn't really even respond to the public, it answers to congress for it's true revenue. Likewise, it is a national operation, what happens in one area affects others, and more importantly, serves to prove or disprove theories. If we can't discuss those points, we at best are going to have a lopsided discussion, at worst be presenting false facts because we cannot support or rebuff them.

The original question posted was, I believe:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Here is in pertinent part, a response made by Mr. HSR Fan to my thoughts:

I think the public good should come before the private railroads' desire to move freight. The LD trains are not that much of a burden, and lest we forget, the private carriers were let off the hook for passenger service when Amtrak was created in exchange for guaranteeing trackage rights

Let our mature and respectful discussion begin.

Out of that, we have had to discuss whether the public good is being served by Amtrak and if in fact it is actually worth the money we are spending on it. We can't discuss that point if we can't compare the LD service to the Short haul service.

I am worried that we may be getting to strapped in to have a meaningful discussion about LD service.[/quote]

Paris06,
Please give the GOA report number that backs up your claims that the costs/loss increased 50% with a change in frequency from 2 to 3 a day. Without even seeing it I would guess that the costs went up because a large amount of the costs are produced by formula and not by actual cost accounting. Further, I seem to remember that Amtrak didn't have 50% more sleepers during the era of extended frequencies or even 50% more coaches. So if they just operated more frequencies with the same number of cars of course the revenue/cost picture would not improve. I don't really think that you have a valid point but we will see once you reveal your sources.

MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

cloudship wrote:Can you define what exactly ARE the valid discussion point to this topic?

Why, yes, I can.

Erik Halstead wrote:MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Mr. Norman and Mr. Paris have presented some serious insight as to ridership history on the LD trains, based upon proven and published evidence.

Let's focus on the points made by these two gentlemen; and let me remind you that any "claims" must be substantiated by fact - include your sources. Posts which do not are subject to edit or removal by the Moderators.

John Perkowski wrote:This is the Efficacy of Long Distance thread, folks.

We are off topic.

Capitalization of the Northeast Corridor is Out of Bounds for debate in this thread. Our Forum has multiple other threads to debate capitalization across the NEC.

Speeds and service on the Pacific Surfliner route (California Corridor) are equally Out of Bounds for debate on this thread.

I will be splitting off selected posts to start new topics in these areas.

The operation of the NEC or any of its attached corridor services has very little to do with the continuing efficacy of the Long Distance network. If one takes the time to read the previous messages in the thread, one will see that the Cascades service is merely an overlay and has little interaction with any long distance services; the California system also has little interaction with the long distance network and has flourished in its own way, without regard to the long distance network and its successes or failures.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Judging from the last 24 hours, I think it's in everyone's best interest to call "time out" on this thread.

New posts will be locked for a minimum of 24 hours. Those who wish to participate in this thread afterwards, I encourage you to please re-read (at least) the last two pages of posts before submitting a new post to the thread when it is unlocked.

As Mr. Perkowski has noted, posts which deviate from the direction of this thread will be split into new topics. This thread is specifically to discuss the long-distance route structure, and not corridor, NEC or commuter services.

Thanks,

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

We shall now continue with this debate.

wigwagfan wrote: The operation of the NEC or any of its attached corridor services has very little to do with the continuing efficacy of the Long Distance network. If one takes the time to read the previous messages in the thread, one will see that the Cascades service is merely an overlay and has little interaction with any long distance services; the California system also has little interaction with the long distance network and has flourished in its own way, without regard to the long distance network and its successes or failures.

Operation of the NEC and California system has everything in the world to do with the efficacy of the LD network - no trains operate in a vacuum!

Decisions about priorities and where to place funds effect ALL trains. If something works on one line, then that should be taken at explored for use on another line. The NEC and California system are key elements in Amtraks ability to receive funding from the government and support from congress. Likewise, LD trains are key to generating support for the NEC and California system. Amtrak does not get it's money from revenues or the stock market - it receives it's money from the political system. Likewise, it has to answer to the political system and decisions are made by appointment from the government, not the public, it's passengers, or the marketplace.

Amtrak is a SYSTEM, not a bunch of independent trains You can not look at the California Zephyr, the Empire Builder, or any other train without looking at how it fits into Amtraks network. You can't find the problems with Amtrak's network without examining how services connect - or make porr connection. Thos eocrridors are, or should be, part of the Amtrak netowrk. Their inability to make proper connections speaks volumes about where the inefficiencies are.

Amtrak is caught having to balance it's financial situation not by how well it serves its customers or how well it serves its investors. Its funding is provided by the government, therefor ridership numbers and bottom lines are less important than how it fills political interests and agendas. Efficacy is related to the political impact.

I know I am going to get this thread closed down, perhaps it is for the good. But there is a huge problem that has never been addressed and dealt with that is holding passenger rail back. And this is not just directed at railroad.net or railfans, but at our government and the public, too. Amtrak will never be anything diferent from what it is now unless people start looking at the whole picture of America's passenger rail network.

We have to start understanding that people dod not just go from Chicago to Portland. That is why every respectably-sized air network has at least some form of a hub. People are coming from multiple points, and going to multiple points. Long distance trains are one link in that chain. Just as the California or NEC system should be. People don't make their choice based solely upon what they find on one train. The reputation of lines such as the NEC as well as the (negative) reputation of some of the other LD trains has a huge impact on people's decision to take the train across the whole system! Amtrak needs to be concerned with marketing itself as a transportation network and not individual trains.

Likewise, funding (since in fact it is funded, not earned), needs to be thought of in a global sense. If you continue to look at each line and each component separately, then you fail to see how any of them impact other servicesand the choices they cause. The financial success of the NEC not only impacts Amtrak from a money balance issue, but also from a financial perception issue when it comes to funding from the government.

We connot afford to keep thinking of the LD trains as separate tourist lines. WE have to start loking at Amtrak as a whole system and start working with that.

Operation of the NEC and California system has everything in the world to do with the efficacy of the LD network - no trains operate in a vacuum

I tend to agree, especially since a goodly number of long-distance trains use the Northeast Corridor and other such "corridors". Furthermore, historically and presently, the rails that long-distance trains used and use are also "corridors" in their own right. And this brings back to light the stated goal of Amtrak that Congress intended in the RPSA, that of revitalizing these corridors with "modern, efficient intercity railroad passenger service". The definitions of "modern" and "efficient" have changed greatly over the span of thirty-five years, and Congress has not upheld its own law in terms of helping Amtrak achieve any best-practice standard of any point in that very long time.

Corridors is a key point. The conventional way of thinking isolates train routes. We tend to think of corridors now as short haul routes, with long haul routes being isolated tracks. But the true sense of a corridor is a main line, and off of that main line are the connecting services. Thus you would have a mationwide system of long distance corridors (the NEC being part of one), and from this corridor which serves the major cities, smaller lines branch off to serve smaller cities. But we have gotten too far away from an integrated system right now for that terminology to apply.

I entered this thread early, made my comment, then stayed out of it except as a Moderator. I've read just about every one of the 300+ posts in the thread, though.

Bottom line is this: The funding for Amtrak is a creature of the political process, including the White House and DOT on the Executive side and both Houses of the United States Congress on the legislative side. Unless and until the citizens of the United States convince our political leaders...
1) A sitting President
2) 218 members of the House of Representatives
3) 51 members of the United States Senate
... that tripling to quadrupling the US Government subsidy and providing equipment procurement funds to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation is in the best interests of the Nation, structural growth for Amtrak will not happen.

Even Mr Gunn's State of Good Repair was simply a status quo maintenance budget, not a growth budget. Given the interests of the political parties on both sides of the aisle, I believe it fantasy to expect the political process to yield a growth budget for Amtrak before Fiscal Year 2010.

http://www.house.gov/writerep
http://www.senate.gov
comments AT whitehouse DOT gov (address munged)

Or alternatively our leaders could lead the people. It is not completely hopeless that advocates and wonks could convince some politicians that leadership is required to bring about a radical change in the American transportation landscape.

Pro LD rail people don't need to bring along the majoity of 300 million citizens, or even the majority of those who vote. We need to convince 1000 of the right people, and then they will go after the rest.

icgsteve wrote:Pro LD rail people don't need to bring along the majoity of 300 million citizens, or even the majority of those who vote. We need to convince 1000 of the right people, and then they will go after the rest.

No, but you do have to bring along 218, 51, and 1. Of the first 273, quite a few look at any issue in context of "how will this help my District/State and my re-election."

Get the wonks lobbying. They've got a lot of work to do.

cloudship wrote:You can't find the problems with Amtrak's network without examining how services connect - or make porr connection. Thos eocrridors are, or should be, part of the Amtrak netowrk. Their inability to make proper connections speaks volumes about where the inefficiencies are.

Re-read my post about ridership numbers on the Cascades vs. the PNW served LD trains, and the California trains vs. the California served LD trains. I have no idea what "inefficiencies" that are being referred to; because those corridor trains have been deemed by many to be a success story; yet clearly they are earning their success from factors outside of the number of connecting passengers from the LD trains - whatever they may be.

The problem is that we have a bunch of long distance trains, that travel sparsely populated areas, that have an extremely high cost to operate. The corridors are a real solution to a real problem - large numbers of people needing to get from point 'A' to point 'B', or any point inbetween; known traffic congestion and pollution concerns; and the need for more transportation options, not fewer. The LD trains don't solve those problems - in fact they don't solve any problem, and they certainly don't solve airport congestion problems or highway congestion problems (certainly anyone who suggests they do ought to drive U.S. 2 across Montana; the only "congestion" would be the traffic light at the intersection of U.S. 93 in Kalispell - which, by the way, is 15 miles south of Amtrak.)

If something works on one line, then that should be taken at explored for use on another line.

That is easier said than done.

What works on the NEC (i.e. Acela Express, HHP-8, AEM-7, Amfleet cars with high level boarding) doesn't work on the LD network. What works on the LD network (i.e. Superliners) doesn't work on the NEC. Superliners don't work on the Corridors as well, due to limited ability to board/deboard passengers and difficult ADA accessibility. Talgos won't work in California because there is too little capacity and they can't be easily expanded. Surfliner/California Cars require speed restrictions up north in Washington (notice the difference in running time between the Cascades and the Coast Starlight, even know the Cascades makes one additional stop that the Starlight doesn't.) The Talgos wouldn't work on the LDs either because of low capacity, and that the Talgo sleeping compartments used in Europe would likely not receive acceptance by the U.S. passenger (largely communal sleeping quarters).

Sleeping cars? Why do you need them on a corridor service? Same with Sightseer lounge cars? But cafe cars, is that all you want on a two-day-long Long Distance train trip?

Amtrak is only a nationwide railroad in name, and maybe at the call center and on the website. The NEC is drastically different than the LD network, and the corridor services are each unique - driven largely by their state sponsors to define what each corridor is and what it does, by the service offerings. We don't expect every freight railroad to operate exactly the same way, nor do we expect every railroad line to operate the same way. What is important that passengers can get from point 'A' to point 'B' with as little hassle as possible, and can change from mode to mode, from carrier to carrier, or from train to train (or bus to bus, or plane to plane) as easily as possible. Connecting between flights at an airport can be a real chore if you have to walk (or run) between terminals, and especially if you aren't familiar with the airport. Trains have a huge benefit - I once made a transfer from a Surfliner to a Coast Starlight in Los Angeles by simply getting off the train and waiting - I never had to walk into the station itself. This was common practice in Germany when I visited that country years ago - the longest walk was getting from a S-Bahn or a Regionalzug to a U-Bahn, but it was still easy to do within the confines of a station.

Decisions that affect the NEC don't largely impact what happens on the Empire Builder or the Coast Starlight, or any of the other LD trains. The two systems don't use the same equipment, don't use similar technology - even the operating rules used by the engineers and conductors are different (GCOR vs. NORAC). The signal systems even are very different. The trains serve very different clientele - mostly business travel on the NEC; mostly vacationers on the LDs with some locals travelling from town to town.

I agree that "best practices" should certainly be used, shared, and implemented across an industry - but "best practices" on the NEC rarely applies to success on the LD system. Improving electric catenary and generation reliability - what the heck does that have to do on a train that runs with P42s, and whose only contact with catenary is on Portland's steel bridge - because MAX runs on the upper deck?

wigwagfan wrote: Amtrak is only a nationwide railroad in name, and maybe at the call center and on the website. The NEC is drastically different than the LD network, and the corridor services are each unique - driven largely by their state sponsors to define what each corridor is and what it does, by the service offerings.

I agree in general, but I think that something gets lost in some of these corridor v. LD discussions.

The LD people take a valid idea -- a network structure -- and misuse it. The LD trains don't really support a network structure. They're just extensive (and expensive) corridors. A network is a system with nodes that link in several directions. Cities enmeshed in a rail network certainly achieve some economies, mostly in staffing and real estate. Unfortunately, the state-sponsored corridors don't really offer much of this, except in Chicago, Philadelphia and New York, where the state-sponsored trains help feed thriving hubs.

On the other side of the ledger, a more integrated network can add passengers. I'd bet that at least at low frequency, the additions aren't usually transferring passengers, as the poster before you implies. Instead, I think that an integrated network front-brains Amtrak as a transportation option. If you live in Cleveland, and you can't get anywhere south, like Cincinnati, without going through Chicago, and can't get to a major, nearby destination (Columbus), then Amtrak is always an afterthought. Likewise in St. Louis, if you can't get anywhere east in your region without going through Chicago, then Amtrak remains a particular option ('I sometimes take it when I happen to be traveling to Jeff City'; or 'I tried it once, but I don't really look to Amtrak, since it doesn't go lots of places I need to get to') rather than a general transportation option ('I take Amtrak many places; when I want to go somewhere in my region of the country, I usually at least look at Amtrak to see if I can get there that way').

Add a train running Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville-St. Louis, and suddenly you've got three big metro areas where Amtrak offers access omni-directionally. A whole class of people can now think of Amtrak as a general transportation option, rather than just a way to get to Pittsburgh (for Clevelanders), or KC (for St. Louisans), or Indy (for Cincinnatians willing to tolerate an awful schedule).

There's a big difference in priority between someone who thinks High Speed corridors of 300 miles or so from a few hubs are the answer, and the kind of system I'm describing. But there's also a big difference between me and those LD people.

I'd argue that the ideal route can be run roundtrip every day with one train set (or better, twice with two sets); is long enough for the cycle of loading/offloading to run twice, but short enough that time-keeping is reasonable; and has starting and ending points that are both already on the system, allowing for the economies of real estate and staffing.

For instance, I'd prioritize getting a 10-hour one-way trip Cleveland-St. Louis over 3 hour, 5X day service Chgo-St. Louis that is the big goal of corridor fans. Likewise, I'd take a pair of middle-distance trains -- say, Indy-Louisville-Atlanta and Nashville-Memphis-Dallas -- over a single Chicago-Miami train that the LD people pine for.

Given the greater likelihood of in-state trains, I'd look to leverage such support into longer trains, perhaps bending my Indy-Louisvill train to Nashville and Memphis in the hopes of getting Tennessee dollars. This would still be a middle-distance corridor that could work, since you'd have decent ridership between any two adjacent cities combined with fair ridership between more distant pairs (say, Indy-Nashville or Louisville-Memphis), and you'd have some people willing to make the transfer to other trains in Louisville and in Indy. But my goal would always be to use state support to fund a train that ran far enough to have significant system endpoints at both ends, rather than the stub-end service that most states fund.

I am inclined to agree with Irish Chieftain that corridor and LD services are stronger together as a network than either would be separately. Specific numbers of passengers making connections between corridor and LD train are difficult to come by, but I did find these references from the San Joaquins '05-'06 business plan:

The San Joaquin Route also connects to Amtrak’s California and national intercity rail passenger network. Many passengers use the San Joaquins as part of a longer rail trip. Coordination of schedules with other services generates additional ridership and can improve overall efficiency. The San Joaquins connect to the following corridor and long distance routes: Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr and Southwest Chief.

Coast Starlight – This train provides service between Los Angeles-Oakland-Sacramento-Portland-Seattle. This train provides important connections between the San Joaquin Valley and the Pacific Northwest, including Portland and Seattle. Historically, the official connection point has alternated between Martinez (which involves a direct train-to-train transfer) and Sacramento (which involved taking the bus between Stockton and Sacramento), depending on schedules. Now, there is a direct train-to-train transfer in Sacramento with one of the Sacramento-Bakersfield San Joaquin round-trips.

California Zephyr – This train provides service between Emeryville-Reno-
Denver-Chicago. This popular train provides connections between the
San Joaquin Valley and Reno, as well as points east, including Salt Lake City, Denver, and Chicago. Connections can be made either through Martinez or Sacramento, depending on schedules.

Southwest Chief – This train connects with the San Joaquin feeder buses at Los Angeles. It provides important connecting service to the Southwest, Midwest and Chicago. In addition, a number of passengers currently use the San Joaquin Route to make a connection between the southbound Coast Starlight and the eastbound Southwest Chief, since these trains do not make a connection in Los Angeles.

Evidently the authors of the business plan feel there is at least some relevance for LD train connections. How much is unfortunately not specified. If the Cascades service isn't making a similar effort towards connectivity, perhaps they are missing out on potential sales.

As an aside, I might note that the farebox recovery for the San Joaquins currently hovers around 44.5%, while the Capitol Corridor is currently at 46% with a stated goal of 50%.

Amen to Mr. Halstead's post!!!! Very well stated.

I would just add that the NEC and other corridors are separate from LDs because of what they really are - further out commuter service. The same people make daily or frequent trips on these trains to get to the city to work, to get to other locations for business meetings, shopping cultural events, etc. These corridor trains are part of the transportation fabric of a region.

The LDs are just there. The on time performance of many trains is so erratic that no one can use them for any time-specific travel. "If you've got time to spare, come with us." To think that the Congress in the current budget situation will all-of-a-sudden pony up extra billions for Intercity LDs is not realistic at all.