The big ax just fell. Long distance to 3x/week.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:20 pm Let's hope that Amtrak keeps their promise and eventually restored daily LD service. The problem with tri-weekly service (and having daily service in some popular corridors in general such as NY to Chicago) is that their frequencies are too limited for existing and [most importantly] potential customers to choose from. For example, the only trains that stop at Cleveland, OH and Salt Lake City, UT stop in the middle of the night and have amshacks. If these corridors had at least twice or tri-daily service, then those trains would be arriving at major cities and small towns at more desirable times and would give customers a wide variety of times to choose what train to board, thus attracting more passengers and therefore, profit.

There are a few problems with your idea. There are not 2 to 3 times long distance rolling stock to run in places serviced in the middle of the night so there would be service in the middle of the day.
Let's use your examples, Cleveland and Salt Lake City.
Cleveland is served by two long distance trains, the Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited. The Lake Shore stops in Cleveland either around 0330 or 0530, depending upon direction. The Capitol Limited stops in Cleveland either around 0150 or 0250, depending upon direction. All the trains arrive and depart within 4 hours when on time, very easy for Amtrak to crew the station with just one 8 hour shift every day.
Salt Lake City is served by just the California Zephyr, which stops in Salt Lake City either around 0300 or 2300. Again all the trains arrive and depart within 4 hours when on time, very easy for Amtrak to crew the station with just one 8 hour shift every day. Other stations locales where there are greater than 8 hours between trains are usually unmanned, or manned with a skeleton crew.

So, it is not just the availability of rolling stock, it is also the availability of staff. and the costs to increase both.

Then we should discuss using resources efficiently. Is it better to have 2 crews running two trains a day frequency in a direction with 5 cars or 1 crew running one train a day frequency in a direction with 10 cars? Efficency wise, to double the frequency, to maintain the balance you must also double the ridership. In almost all previous cases where Amtrak increase the frequency of the train by an additional train per direction a day, ridership did not double. You would be hard pressed to find a 50% increase in total ridership per day.

Amtrak in good times saw around 30 million passengers over an entire year over the entire country. Cruise lines departing American sea ports in a good year have over 14 million passengers per year. Airlines have over a billion passengers per year from American airports. The number of passengers on scheduled domestic flights was 777.9 million passengers in 2018 and foreign scheduled flights to and from the U.S. was 233.6 million passengers in 2018. Golly, cruise ships carried half as many passengers as Amtrak, and airlines carried 33 times as many passengers as Amtrak. Amtrak's share of "schedule" intercity transit not including buses was a mere 2.9% of the total.

And by the way, Greyhound reports around 18 million passengers per year, and Megabus reports around 10 million passengers per year. Yes, the two largest intercity bus services get almost as many passengers as Amtrak, without direct government subsidies.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:09 pm It seems to me that the main problem with cutting from 7x to3x a week to save money is that it doesn't save money. It didn't when they tried it before (I still can't imagine what got into Mercer to suggest it) and it doesn't now.

Misters Flynn and Gardner have both stated that in normal times that would be exactly the case - you’d actually lose more money by suppressing revenue. However they claimed to have crunched the numbers and that based on their calculations because ridership is so poor it actually does save money to squeeze the few riders they do have on to less trains. Obviously taking their word for it, but it at least seems that could be plausible if the situation is bad enough. But it seems you’d want to go back to daily as soon as you see evidence of an increase in demand or at a time you know demand will go up. The choice of late spring in this case is probably not a terrible choice. It appears there is a chance Congress may throw money at them to restore right away - so who knows maybe they’ll be running within a month or so. I have to imagine it will take some time to recall people and pull rolling stock out of mothballs and get things back to daily.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:01 pm Mr. Lurker, you won't hear it from me that Amtrak is about to, or should, die.

Really? It sounds like you are ready to put Amtrak out of business. At least the parts you don't like.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:01 pm It won't happen overnight, but it's time for the Adios drumheads.

If Amtrak ceases to be a national network and turns in to Boston to DC extended commuter rail why should anyone in the flyover states support it? The LD trains through Chicago tie the network together. Without them one might as well create two coastal agencies with nearly 100% state funding. Perhaps there can be a midwest coalition to keep the Chicago based regionals running - but Amtrak works better with the LD trains in place.

The typical NIMBY approach is wanting something (transit, freeways, development) but not wanting it in one's own back yard. In this case NIMBY takes on a different meaning. If it is not in my back yard - my state and region - why pay for it? Kill the LD trains and you will kill Amtrak.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:13 pm Clearly the current management wants to grow corridors - but if they have to run long distance trains in order to do so and Congress throws money at them to do both I don’t think you’ll hear them complain too loudly. I think they’d love to ditch a route like the Chief where they have a ton of track to maintain or routes like the sunset and cardinal - but do you honestly think they want to eliminate, say, the Auto Train which is the only train system wide (including corridors) that they haven’t made any amenity cuts to during Covid?

Mr. Lord, I sincerely respect the maturity with which your postings made here (and over at "that other site" that shoved me out the door) convey your advocacy; notably your comment regarding the Chief and that 300 some miles are being maintained solely at present, and Amtrak's expense, for one Tri-Weekly train.

But like one certain composer and performer, who I think should stick to composing and leave the performing to others, it's "blowin' in the wind" that Congress is prepared to fund Amtrak "for what counts" without the LD's. Most of the equipment assigned to the LD's (S-II's still have a way to go), especially the engines, are at the end of their service lives. To re-equip, which for likely the next five years until pre-COVID ridership hopefully recovers, the only source of funds would be an appropriation, will only add to the cost of (higher depreciation offset somewhat by lower maintenance) of the service.

Let's "not get into" any possible amenity restoration.

Now it likely will be a five to ten year process to kill the LD's, as there will still be Congressional "pockets of resistance", and I would like to think that at tri-weekly frequency, the existing single-level fleet, augmented with single-level Coaches as part of the inevitable Amfleet replacement order (for which the now financially weakened Amtrak will have not choice but to go to Congress) that can readily converted to a short distance seating configuration. As I've noted previously, but recognizing I've never been there, I could envision a service/amenity level as presently exists on the State operated LD's along Australia's East Coast (Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne). There's plenty of YouTube material available at which to take a peek.

But for these reasons as well as my previously noted intrusion they represent to the Class I's Precision Railroading model, "it's time for the Drumheads".

I'm in full agreement with Professor Norman.

As Mr. Lurker said, if there are no LD trains there won't be any NEC either. Amtrak was started to save the NEC primarily with a few other plausible corridors out of Chicago and along West Coast. The rest of the system was a way to get the votes in Congress.

Mr.Electricron, thank you for the operational details concerning Cleveland train schedules. Despite some who keep insisting on calling the station there an 'Amshack', it is not, of course it probably needs updating, it is 1977 vintage, but it is much better than what existed before [CUT in 1974 was getting bad].

Some of the LD trains may not return as before and others such as SW Chief may get routes altered. We will just see as time goes on.

Nah, the NEC will be there with or without Amtrak, but arguably it would make it easier to privatize Amtrak since it has an economic business case....

My guess is ten years from now Amtrak is a marketing agency that owns track and contracts out the operations. Arguably that would put airlines, trucks and trains on a level playing field - the terminals and pathways are government funded, and the operations are at-risk.

Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk

Observed:

#4(8) 2 P-42, 3 "Pvt Rm", Diner, Lounge, 3 Coach.

45 ML by 18.32.

Just now hearing #3(10) pass 18.70; about 20ML.

Busy piece of road at present. Don't think the Train Dispatchers want to see 3-6 Daily again anytime soon.

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:56 pm Nah, the NEC will be there with or without Amtrak, but arguably it would make it easier to privatize Amtrak since it has an economic business case....

My guess is ten years from now Amtrak is a marketing agency that owns track and contracts out the operations. Arguably that would put airlines, trucks and trains on a level playing field - the terminals and pathways are government funded, and the operations are at-risk.

Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk

I agree with everything you just said.

Of course Greyhound is subsidized; it runs on public highways. Railroads alone of all major modes of transportation have to maintain their own infrastructure.

If Amtrak didn't own the NEC but ran its trains there on track owned and maintained by someone else, as it runs its long-distance trains, how would that affect its bottom line?

218+51+1

Amtrak in 1971 needed lots of votes from lots of States. Now, California alone brings 1/4 of the votes needed in the House. The Senate is a bit more of a problem, but not that much.

Until the COVID ask, Amtrak was a teat on a boar hog. Now, it’s a bit more. Short version, though, is Amtrak has the votes it needs, as long as it stays in a very narrow lane.

Now we sit and wait on the next cuts with no stimulus passed by December 11th.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:41 pm 218+51+1

Amtrak in 1971 needed lots of votes from lots of States. Now, California alone brings 1/4 of the votes needed in the House. The Senate is a bit more of a problem, but not that much.

Not so sure. CA lost House seats to the GOP this go-around, so the reliable pro-Amtrak votes are probably down to about 40. I also suspect the urban center delegation would gladly take more corridor support at the expense of long distance.

charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:19 pm Of course Greyhound is subsidized; it runs on public highways. Railroads alone of all major modes of transportation have to maintain their own infrastructure.

Just because Greyhound runs on public highways does not make it subsidized. Greyhound pays through the roof in a whole slew of taxes for the privilege (not right) of operating on public roads.

Every time Greyhound buys a tire for its buses, it pays tax.
Every time Greyhound buys diesel, it pays tax.
Every time Greyhound rolls one of its buses onto a public roadway, it is paying tax (weight-mile tax).
Every time a Greyhound employee clocks into work, it is paying tax.
Every time Greyhound collects money from a passenger, it is paying tax.

Call me when Amtrak is forced to collect sales tax on its tickets, when Amtrak collects sales tax from dining car revenues, when Amtrak pays diesel taxes, when Amtrak pays property tax.

I won't say Greyhound is not at all subsidized as they do receive subsidy payments for running certain routes (in California in particular, in cooperation with Amtrak) but to argue that Greyhound is somehow unfairly subsidized is a blatant lie and a falsehood, unless you have financial documents to back up the assertion. Surely, any subsidy payments would be easily identifiable on audited financial statements.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:10 am

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:13 pm Clearly the current management wants to grow corridors - but if they have to run long distance trains in order to do so and Congress throws money at them to do both I don’t think you’ll hear them complain too loudly. I think they’d love to ditch a route like the Chief where they have a ton of track to maintain or routes like the sunset and cardinal - but do you honestly think they want to eliminate, say, the Auto Train which is the only train system wide (including corridors) that they haven’t made any amenity cuts to during Covid?

Mr. Lord, I sincerely respect the maturity with which your postings made here (and over at "that other site" that shoved me out the door) convey your advocacy; notably your comment regarding the Chief and that 300 some miles are being maintained solely at present, and Amtrak's expense, for one Tri-Weekly train.

I try to be a "middle of the road" advocate. While I do support the long distance network I also acknowledge that service between metropolitan areas is the best place for new rail service and long distance advocates who trash the northeast corridor and other corridor service for instance I think do so at their peril. At the same time though, with respect, I would disagree with the notion that there is no place for long distance. I think the desire at the top of Amtrak is to change but not eliminate the network.

I think long distance service in a reformed network can have a renewed purpose when it is in proximity to clusters of corridor service - particularly in areas of the east. Where I guess I would most disagree with both advocates who aren't open to any change and those folks who are completely anti long distance is that routes and service should be evaluated on their own instead of evaluating entire classes of service, such as long distance service as a whole.

In a corridor centric Amtrak, I think certain long distance routes examples being the Silver Service, Palmetto, portions of the Crescent, and Lake Shore Limited just to name a few are similar to state supported longer distance trains such as the Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, and Carolinian and can serve a similar role connecting corridors together and to connect these corridors to remote locations. And some of these same trains stand to gain more of this as other corridor service comes to life along their routes particularly in the southeastern areas. Longer distance once a day trains (both state supported and long distance) run through denser corridors and connect them to additional destinations and feed additional riders into, and are enhanced themselves by, the denser corridor service. These services, while yes part of long distance, are very different from the sprawling routes that go through vast stretches of the country without interfacing with other Amtrak service. I think there is also a usefulness in an Amtrak 2.0 in maintaining some sort of connectivity between all the major Amtrak regions including transcontinental rather than just a completely severed network of dense corridors- now whether you need all of the current long distance trains to do that is up to congress.

I think it's important to look at each route/service on its own - there's a heck of a lot of difference between the Lake Shore Limited and the Sunset Limited and a heck of a lot of difference between both of those and the Auto Train. I think Amtrak management does look at certain routes differently. There maybe some areas where changes are appropriate, maybe a day train would work better than a night in some circumstances or maybe one route should instead be two routes joined at the middle, but I think it would be a mistake to just abandon all areas of service that are under the long distance umbrella just for that reason.

I do think it is important in all aspects of the future to keep in mind the importance of our freight railroad network and things like corridor development and preference enforcement need to include cooperation and accommodations to Class Is and other railroads to ensure our freight network remains strong which should include things like market based appropriate compensation to freight operators for accommodating passenger service and investments in the physical plant to ensure that increased corridor service does not impede freight service.