SCRRA (Metrolink) to Amtrak: 'You're Fired'

When outdated practices are held in place by those seeking to preserve their advantages (and that usually boils down to urban politicians and labor unions), natural market forces will work to seek a lower-cost alternative.

No rant.....just fact.

The Liability to do Metrolink was too high for Amtrak. That's why they pulled out.

AntrakFan

It seems to me that the intercity trains are an entirely different product than the commuter lines, and there are compelling reasons to stay under Amtrak control. The most obvious reason to me is marketing: the centralized reservation center and website drive a lot of traffic to the Amtrak California trains - and the cost of duplicating that service from the ground up, especially considering California's fiscal situation, would seem to make breaking up hard to do

Of course, government works in mysterious ways - but I think California has bigger fish to fry. Also, the governor seems to be concentrating on other matters. His recent signing of the ban on foie gras is just plain weird for a business-friendly, less-regulation, Republican Governor to undertake. Jerry Brown would have signed it in a second - but Arnold?

This isn't about Amtrak being lower cost, but about Amtrak having more to loose than some upstart management firm. Amtrak declined to bid because the liability arrangements were too much of a risk. Connex has little to loose so they are taking on the risk. The only loosers will be the Metrolink commuters as they are now having to deal with a firm that lost its franchises in the UK due to abysmal preformance.

updrumcorpsguy wrote:It seems to me that the intercity trains are an entirely different product than the commuter lines, and there are compelling reasons to stay under Amtrak control. The most obvious reason to me is marketing: the centralized reservation center and website drive a lot of traffic to the Amtrak California trains - and the cost of duplicating that service from the ground up, especially considering California's fiscal situation, would seem to make breaking up hard to do

It is a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of traffic on the three California Corridors is intrastate, with most trips terminating on the route on which they were begun. Setting up a website to give route information and sell tickets for these routes is no big whoop. In fact, it would be much simpler to do since there are fewer stations to worry about and only San Joaquin trains require reservations (reservations are required for Pacific Surfliner business class, tho). Maintenance could be farmed out to Metrolink and Caltrain.

California agencies already set the standards for these routes and handle functions such as marketing, pricing and scheduling. The bottom line is that Amtrak truly does not add much value to the California services, especially since the state is funding capital improvements and subsidizing fares. I'm not saying that California should ditch Amtrak for intercity service, but if there is a compelling case to stay with Amtrak I'm not aware of it.

2nd trick op wrote:When outdated practices are held in place by those seeking to preserve their advantages (and that usually boils down to urban politicians and labor unions), natural market forces will work to seek a lower-cost alternative.

No rant.....just fact.

What do you suggest the "unions" give up?
For your information, the operating unions gave up a lot over the past
few years just to help keep Amtrak in operation.
In my opinion, you are ranting and I believe you should get your facts
together first.
I do not know about commuter service but so far as intercity passenger
service, I believe Amtrak has the first refusal whether the service is
state supported or not. The railroads do not have to deal with anyone
else with regard to passenger service, they might and they might not but
I don't think they have to.
Noel Weaver

We're missing the basic issue here: Metrolink. Amtrak does not sell nor ticket LA-based Metrolink service. Amtrak does apparently provide the operating crew and they maintain the commuter agency's fleet (for now).

We're not talking about the San Joaquins, Capital Corridors or the Pacific Surfliner services, which will remain "Amtrak California" and which Amtrak does sell and ticket.

Well said Mr. Baker I forgot that I've ridden it and it had Amtrak emplyoees.

AmtrakFan

LI Loco wrote:
It is a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of traffic on the three California Corridors is intrastate, with most trips terminating on the route on which they were begun. Setting up a website to give route information and sell tickets for these routes is no big whoop. In fact, it would be much simpler to do since there are fewer stations to worry about and only San Joaquin trains require reservations (reservations are required for Pacific Surfliner business class, tho). Maintenance could be farmed out to Metrolink and Caltrain.

As someone who works for one of the more prominent retail websites, I respectfully submit that setting up and running a retail site is indeed a "big whoop", and it takes a heck of a lot of "whoop" to keep it going: Namely, a lot of IT workers and software engineers. That talent is abundantly available in California, but it don't come cheap. From the look of the current amtrakcalifornia.com website, it's not a resource that they already have in-house.

Even if reservations were not required on any train, you would still need to operate a call center, as some folks just don't trust the internet. That adds more redundant overhead costs.

All of the Amtrak marketing that I've noticed in California may be paid for by the state, but they use the same basic stuff that comes out of DC. Again, to hire an ad firm to develop that stuff adds to more redundant overhead costs.

The truth is that, if 90% of the Amtrak California passengers are intrastate, then the call center and website are a great deal for the citizens.

Whatever happens to passenger trains in this country, I hope that there is someone smart enough to make all of the operators take reservations and sell tickets from a common website/call center. Rail travel is unique enough to most of the citizens of this country - if you create a bunch of fiefdoms with a bunch of redundant support centers, it will surely fail, because no one will know where to look for it.

updrumcorpsguy wrote: .....Even if reservations were not required on any train, you would still need to operate a call center, as some folks just don't trust the internet. That adds more redundant overhead costs.

All of the Amtrak marketing that I've noticed in California may be paid for by the state, but they use the same basic stuff that comes out of DC. Again, to hire an ad firm to develop that stuff adds to more redundant overhead costs.......

No doubt there is some cost associated with maintaining web sites and call centers, but they are a relatively small slice of the pie. California does not get these services for free from Amtrak. They are part of the overhead that must be subsidized. [If someone has information on how California and other 403-b states are assessed for Amtrak overhead, please share it here.]

Whether California could save money or do a better job by going it alone with respect to web sites and call centers cannot be determined without analysis. I merely opined that because of the relative simplicity of its operation and the limited need for reservations, there is less complexity involved and that should generate savings.

While advertising is part of Amtrak's overhead, there are questions California might have regarding that investment. Is California subsidizing advertising for the Northeast Corridor and LD services? I don't have the answer, but surely as head of California's transportation agencies I would want to know.

Working with a local, i.e. California, agency provides greater control and, in theory, better understanding of the local market. The investment would probably be better spent if it were done locally. I would hardly call having a separate agency for a specific market redundant if the local agency can do a better job.

While a common reservation system works for Amtrak and provide a valuable service, there is nothing to suggest that a system of multiple operators couldn't work, in the event the country moves in that direction. Prior to Amtrak, railroads sold interline tickets and the Official Guide of the Railways was a bible kept in the offices of travel agents and railroad ticket agents. If the system could work in the era of 50+ separate carriers and paper and voice technology, i.e. no computers, it could be made to work in the Internet age.

i dont know about the USA , but here , current business practice seems to be to change service providers / suppliers so often , you wonder if the same courier company will be delivering your goods from a company 2 weeks in a row .
Other companies are used to losing and regaining contracts , i dont know why we should view Amtraks losing this contract as some huge failing on thier part .If it leads to reduced costs / more efficency , then metroloink wins , if it doesnt , it will probably come back to amtrak eventually .

There's more to running your own railroad than a website and marketing. There's operations, planning, tariffs, maintenance, T&E personnel, etc. If California were to truly make a go of it alone, it would cost them far more than what Amtrak is charging them for it's portion of the expertise and manpower.

Also, in the ancient days of individual tariffs and Official Railway Guides, it sometimes took hours, days or even weeks to get a cross-country itinerary put together by a clerk in one of the local carrier's ticket offices. Heck, even the San Dieagans of yore were part of the larger AT&SF system!

Having the advantage of one unified national tariff does makes things work more smoothly for how ever many passengers use a Pacific Surfliner segment to begin and/or end their long-distance journey with Amtrak - whether booked on-line of with a human agent.

Another example of a commuter railroad is Caltrain. The Peninsula Joint Powers Board owns the right of way and rolling stock, however it contracts out to Amtrak for staffing and maintenance. Conductors wear the Caltrian uniform and name tag. Only issues I have heard of while up in the cab were issues regarding Amtrak and safety, however, this was from a Risk Management guy. Much improvement has been made over the years. Last summer I was an intern working at the Capitol Corridor service, however I worked for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), which manages the day to day operations of the Capitol Corridor Service as well as it's own subway service. Our staffing level was 12 people, with the remainder of the employees (non-management) working for Amtrak. Essentially, our main concern was the OTP with a goal of 90% (I believe we were in the high 80%'s with the UP incentives in place) and marketing the service, while maintaining the capitol corridor website (www.capitolcorridor.org), establishing a trip planner, and handling customer complaints with what state funding we received. Pretty much the Capitol Corridor budget allows for 18 trips (it's been a flat budget for the past few years), but we run 24 trips. Amtrak is an important part of Amtrak California services and I doubt that intercity rail services would be contracted out to someone else because Amtrak handles ticketing, station, and most operational services. We worked very closely with Amtrak staff and were able to maintain a service that still remains in the positive cash flow and ridership marks. With all the success and the opening of the new maintenance facility last month outside of OKJ for Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and California Zepher services it looks like the partnership is working out quite well. Commuter railroads have more options because of the increased independance already, but intercity rail has a dependancy on Amtrak because of all the services it provides.