Another try at Acela non-stop service

[Matt Johnson]

Note that's round trip. (Acela capacity is 304 pax per train.)

[STrRedWolf]

So pulling the latest (Sept 23) NY to DC schedule... Acela Nonstop 2401 (6:34am Dept, 9:14 Arr) and 2402 (4:30pm Dept, 7:05p Arr).

Not quite commuting hours, but enough to grab a bite at Penn or on the train, peddle some influence and lobby the Congress Critters, lunch in DC, repeat for others, train back up, dinner and a drink, and bed.

That's a lot of lobbists form NY and back.

[mtuandrew]

So out of those 320 passengers (160/direction), how many are new to Acela? Or if they’re all Amtrak regulars moving from a regular Acela, how many new passengers (from airlines, cars, coach buses, and Northeast Regional service) are taking their place on regular Acela service?

[SouthernRailway]

So the new nonstop Acela is running at only about 50% of capacity. Not great.

The article that was linked to says that an investment of about $675 million would eliminate 15 minutes from the NY-DC trip time. That's not much- why has Amtrak not done that?

[gokeefe]

So the new nonstop Acela is running at only about 50% of capacity. Not great.

They're probably running light on one or more days of the week. "Average" is the key phrase here. Amtrak is giving itself time to experiment with this service to see how it fits in the demand pattern.

It may be "not great" but it's also "not bad".

FWIW I'm satisfied with this result. At the fare premium they're getting it's probably a money maker already. Stealing away premium fare travelers from the airlines is difficult at any level. Breaking even or better on that market is truly impressive given the costs and barriers to entry.

It's not as if they can go down market with Acela. Having almost maximized market share on the existing service pattern (and equipment) I think this was a natural decision.

[SouthernRailway]

Well, Amtrak's overall load factor is only about 50%. I get it: it's hard to have train load factors as high as airlines' because trains have customers getting on and off at various points along the route and some portions of routes just don't have a lot or ridership but are unavoidable.

But if any Amtrak service is like a plane (for determining load factors), it's the Acela Nonstop. One origin and one destination for everyone.

So this is the one service for which Amtrak should be able to sell every seat, at the right price.

Since Amtrak is operationally break-even at a 50% load factor, imagine how it could be done with dependence on Washington with load factors significantly higher.

[dgvrengineer]

It is also probable that the non-stop Acela is taking some passengers from the regular Acelas which opens up some of those seats on trains that may be sold out on some days. Thus generating more revenue.

[gokeefe]

But if any Amtrak service is like a plane (for determining load factors), it's the Acela Nonstop. One origin and one destination for everyone.

So this is the one service for which Amtrak should be able to sell every seat, at the right price.

I don't think they have enough data yet to effectively revenue manage this service. One year is a start but two years is what you really need to understand the baselines. This is particularly true with passenger travel because of seasonal shifts in demand and the specific political and business cycles of Washington-New York.

Furthermore if they start offerring incentives now it distorts the results. By testing the market with a relatively steady fare they're getting some good data to work with down the road.

Even old stats from the previous non stop service won't necessarily properly reflect market conditions now. So much has changed since the early 2000s when Amtrak last attempted this.

The 50% load factor tells us that they are "in the ballpark" on fares and now can spend the next few years picking off more and more premium customers. This offerring has real potential to eat into private jet and charter business. These are exactly the customers that Amtrak needs more of for their premium service.

[Greg Moore]

My understanding is that this round-trip is an additional trip, i.e. it doesn't replace an existing trip, but adds one more round-trip a day, meaning better equipment utilization, something many here have argued Amtrak has to get better at.

If so, I find it quite likely they're already making a profit, and it'll only get better.
And I can see once the Avelia trains come on the property and have worked out their teething problems, this is probably the first Acela train that gets replaced, making it even better.

I've got to say, I've got to take the train to DC in December and I'm considering this as an option.

[Suburban Station]

It is also probable that the non-stop Acela is taking some passengers from the regular Acelas which opens up some of those seats on trains that may be sold out on some days. Thus generating more revenue.

right but as a Philadelphia passenger I'd prefer to be on the 430 to either the 4 or 5 pm thus filling more seats on the 430 pm time slot. by adding Philadelphia they'd make more money.

getting an extra trip out of existing equipment is a good move regardless of stopping pattern.

[Tadman]

Also keep in mind it's a truly fixed consist. This means that filling seats is probably second as a metric to profitability. If it makes money and fills half a train, is that bad? And is there another use for these sets that can fill more seats and make the same or more money? That's how I'd look at it if I were Amtrak.

[Arlington]

I think the real thing with the nonstop is that it represents the first increase in peak-hour frequency and capacity in a long time.

I also think that if you were thinking about this as "premium runs are supposed to make premium profits" then you are thinking about this wrong.

Think just for a moment: this is a utilization run with resultingly low new revenue expectations.

Do we really know why it is a Nonstop? Could be any mix of:

1) MAYBE It was good for PR, but not meant to be sustainable. They could make some news while waiting for the Avelias to arrive and could generally get people talking and thinking about the speed and convenience of the train, for which even ongoing operating losses would be made up by marketing value for the whole service (besides, few would ride the Nonstop both ways...any new pax on the Nonstop would probably run a regular Acela on the other leg)

2) MAYBE It was a utilization run paid for by squeezing two extra frequencies out of the same aged fleet. By scheduling when they did, they got themselves a "free trainset" at peak times. As such the train did NOT need to win normal load factors in order to be an economic win--they just needed to pay for the extra electricity and grease, not the extra rolling stock ownership costs (besides, the Acelas are reverting to the lessor...why not run them extra hard knowing that a replacment is coming)

3) MAYBE Departure and Arrival were dictated by peak-time platform slots at NYP and WAS--it wasn't that the trip needed to be fast, it was that it needed to be at its platforms at certain available times at either end. Similar to the utilization run theory, at (2) above, the real story here is that the nonstop does a better job of sqeezing marginal new fare revenues out of a very fixed asset set.

4) MAYBE They actually thought skipping PHL and BAL was worth it to NYC and WAS area patrons. I personally find this hard to believe. Given how big PHL is as a market, and how the train has to crawl through WIL and BAL anyway, it is hard to argue that the costs of stopping exceeded marginal revenue from selling seats that are OBVIOUSLY going unsold.

5) MAYBE it was done to hurt the DL and AA shuttles-to encourage Delta and American to continue reducing capacity in the market, by biting them at what'd otherwise be peak flight times. Given that the train is at something like 3/4 market share, one could easily believe that Acela wooed 100 customers off the airlines--easily enough to tip some AA and DL flights into losses. If it means that either down-gauges a couple of planes or drops a frequency, it could be well worth it from a market-share and pricing power standpoint.

But, I would like readers here to consider that Reasons 1, 2, & 3 may have been enough to make the Nonstop a win on PR & utilization alone, and so they may be (a) real reasons for calling half-full trains a success and (b) lots of tolerance for not needing to add back PHL, WIL, or BAL.

Personally, I do think they should add back PHL--a onestop is probably closer to optimal, unless only the most precise scheduling at 2 & 3 above can make the train and slots available.

[rcthompson04]

How much time would the train lose if it stopped Philly?

[SouthernRailway]

Yes, there are reasons to view a 50% load factor on this trip as a good thing- but a railroad that is dependent on "those people" in Washington needs to be doing everything it can to increase revenue, just as a for-profit business would be required by its investors to maximize revenue.

Even if Amtrak sold otherwise unsold seats on this Acela trip for $0.99 each above cost, then Amtrak would come out ahead, and be less reliant on MY tax dollars, and it should do so.

[ExCon90]

How much time would the train lose if it stopped Philly?

Not much; I don't think they can exceed 30 mph or so through there even without stopping. But there's a cachet to "nonstop" which would be spoiled by adding a stop. Back when the Metroliners were introduced people would let a Regional go by and wait for a Metroliner (which would arrive at destination after the Regional!) because of the name.