Sucessfully got reservations on the Builder however many days were full. There appears to be capacity problems CHI - Minot (MOT) maybe due to oil field workers. As of now Amtrak does not have any spare equipment. Maybe some Comet-1Bs could take up some slack just as they are in California.
OK how to pay for the $1.2 M per car upgrades ? It might be that the oil patch companys could pay for the car upgrades and sell the seats directly to their workers? If Amtrak did the upgrades in an expedited rate at Beexch Grove maybe he first 3 - 4 needed cars could be in service in 6 months ? Weekends appeared to have the greatest demand so maybe workers from CHI on Friday & SAT and MOT SAT & Sun could start out this service ?
Naturally the additional locos needed might be a problem ? If the bookings were sufficient then maybe more days as well ?
The Builder already uses an extra Superliner coach on the Chicago/Twin Cities portion of the run. I took a look at the timetable with the thought of extending it to Minot, but that can’t be done without additional equipment.
I don’t think attaching single level cars to the Superliner consists is practical without modifying one end of some of them to mate with the Superliners. Perhaps that could be done, but I suspect the cost would be substantial.
One potential solution might be better equipment utilization, but I don’t think any of us have enough data to make an informed judgment on this matter. The reason for mentioning this is that recently the eastbound Builder was 10 hours late into Chicago due to an accident, but the Superliner trains departing Chicago after it’s scheduled arrival (the Capitol and the City) went out on time. What that indicates to me is that the cars from the Builder consist normally sit in Chicago from 3:55pm until at least 1:45pm the following day when the Eagle departs.
In the end I guess we’re stuck in the same old place – Amtrak as a stand alone entity doesn’t generate sufficient income to order new equipment, so any addition has to come from the taxpayers.
The Texas Eagle switches two cars to or from the Sunset Limited at San Antonio. It is done without a switcher. The cars are at the end of their respective trains. At San Antonio the westbound Sunset Limited, for example, backs down and couples onto the two transfer cars from the Eagle. The process is reversed for the eastbound train.
In FY12 the average load factor for the long distance trains was 62.4 per cent. The average load factor for the Empire Builder was 61.5 per cent. Undoubtedly the train is sold out on some days, especially during the busy summer and holiday travel seasons. Whether there is enough spillover, i.e. a person who wanted space and could not get it, to justify another car is unknown.
The westbound train has coach seats on ten different bookings from Chicago to Minot that I ran from August 28th through September 28th, although the lower level coach seats were sold out on two of the dates. Roomettes were available for all 10 bookings, but the bedrooms were sold out on several days. The cost of the roomettes ranged from $356 to $408. One could get a very good hotel room for that amount of money.
The cost of a coach seat on the Builder from Chicago to Minot is $318 return. The cost to fly return is $406. The train takes approximately 18 hours, 20 minutes. Flying takes 3 hours, 45 minutes. If the train traveler eats in the lounge car, it will set him back approximately $40, thereby bringing the cost of the train travel to $358.
A few oil field workers might take the train to Minot. Knowing some of the workers in the Eagle Ford operations (San Antonio), which are relatively close to where I live, I doubt it would be many. Most of these folks are relatively young. They will drive to the fields or fly. If the North Dakota oil fields are anything like the Eagle Ford and west Texas ones, which are booming, many of the workers will tow a RV trailer to the work-site so that they will have a place to live. &
I’m with Sam in wondering if there is much market here. Recently I rode the Empire Builder and observed the oil patch in North Dakota (seemingly forever). I saw many travel trailer parks and modular temporary housing developments. Many of these did not appear to be in incorporated areas and were accessable only by rural road. I don’t think life in such places is feasible without a private vehicle.
There may be some travel by oilfield workers to visit their families, but I’d guess that travel is more likely north/south than east/west as families are likely to be located near traditional oil producing areas.
True. I doubt if many of the oil workers, per se, are from Chicago, though some workers in associated jobs might be. In any case, they would drive if they have the time or fly if they only have a few days off.
Of course oilfield workers are riding the Empire Builder, and the ridership figures prove it:
.
In 2010, 4,549 people entrained/detrained at Stanley. In 2011, the number was 6,146, even though there was no train for about two months due to severe flooding. In 2012, the number was 10,234.
.
At Williston, 2010/2011/2012 ridership was 24,586, 29,920, and 54,324 respectively. In other words, ridership at Williston nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012 due to the boom, and was even up from 2010 to 2011 in spite of service truncations in 2011.
.
It’s not unusual for 100 people to get on an off each Empire Builder in Williston.
.
Ridership at Minot has been up and down over this same period because of the aforementioned service interruptions in 2011 and additionally because the Minot station was flooded in 2011 and was closed much of the year (and the stop discontinued during this time), so it’s not a good representation.
.
The Empire Builder is known locally as the “Bakken Streetcar.” It’s great that flying from Minot to Chicago might be comparable to taking the train, but a huge market for the train are workers from Northwest Montana, Northern Idaho, and Eastern Washington to Williston with oilfield workers. (Unemployment remains high in those areas, and use the train to go to their jobs). Here are some interesting facts:
.
For FY2012:
.
Williston was the number one destination for passengers boarding at Spokane, Washington and Sandpoint, Idaho and was also first in ticket revenue at those stations.
.
Williston was the number one destination for passengers boarding at Libby, Montana, and was second in ticket revenue.
.
Whitefish, Montana is a huge tourist destination for Empire Builder passengers, yet the number four most-patronized city pair from Whitefish was Williston, ND.
I’ve noticed this is typical of many of Sam1’s postings. He quotes rail and airfares where air service is fairly direct. The reality is that Amtrak is fantastically cheaper to travel to and from Minot/Williston than would be air service to/from places like La Crosse, Fargo, Havre, Whitefish, and Spokane, and to/from places like Sandpoint and Libby, where Williston is THE major destination, and air service is higher than Amtrak by a factor of about infinity because there is no air service.
And you would be incorrect (see my previous post). Ridership at Williston nearly doubled in 2012 from 2011 due to the boom. Minot’s ridership static, due to flooding service interruptions in 2011, including rendering the station useless for many months.
It’s true that most oilfield workers do not arrive by train. But the train is acknowledged as a significant contributor to the local economy for those it does handle from the numerous stations along the Empire Builder route where alternate transportation is poor or non-existent.
Did you notice the 50 or so vehicles parked at the Stanley station on your trip? Or the 100 and more at the Williston station. That’s how. Train to nearest station stop and then drive.
.
More on the boom affecting the Empire Builder:
.
Number of train passengers rises with the oil boom
This thread started with the idea that additional capacity is needed from Minot eastward. What the ridership data presented above seems to say is that the capacity should be carried much further west that that, perhaps Whitefish. If you are going to add capacity that far west, you might as well go to Spokane as switching moved are required there anyway.
The 900 pounder we aren’t discussing is where additional the Superliners come from. Do you cannibalize another route? Are there unused transition cars that would allow the addition of low level cars? Can you improve the utilization of existing equipment? Would Congress pay for the purchase of additional high level equipment?
Today’s Newswire announces the appointment of an operations analysis specialist whose background is in the airline industry. We can hope that he addresses maximum utilization of the existing fleet forthwith.
Comparing the cost of flying from Chicago to Minot or other smaller communities locations was just an example. To get a clear picture of all the cost comparisons one would have to cobble together hundreds of point pairs to get a complete picture. And he would need to include all modes of transport. Clearly, in many instances taking surface transportation from relatively close communities is more cost effective than flying, especially if one does not factor in a value to time.
From Spokane to Minot on the Empire costs $158. A flight on Frontier would cost $162.90. And a trip on Greyhound would be $99. The cost to fly from Spokane to Williston would be $295.77. The cost of a coach seat on the Builder would be $145.
Amtrak gets a direct cash subsidy from the federal government for each Builder passenger. The average subsidy in FY12 was 14.8 cents per passenger mile. Thus, from Spokane to Minot the subsidy was $138.97, whilst from Spokane to Minot it was $121.06. When added to the Builder’s fares, the cost jumps from $158 and $145 to $296.97 and $266.06.
In FY11 29,920 passengers got on or off the Builder in Williston. In FY12 the number was 54,324 or an increase of 81.6 per cent. Amtrak’s station activity numbers show passengers getting on and off the train. Thus, the average number of people getting off the Builder in Williston in was 20 per day in FY11 and 37 per day in FY12.
Amtrak does not disclose the demographics for the people riding the Empire Builder, other than to say that a high percentage of its long distance train passengers are seniors. How many of them were oil field workers is unknown. Undoubtedly, some oil field workers are taking the train. And the number has increased.
Unless one takes a valid statistic sample of the people getting off the Empire Builder at the “oil field” stops, how many of them are oil field workers remains unknown. The larger question is what p
If Amtrak had a compelling case for additional equipment, it could arrange a lease for it in the capital markets. Unfortunately, making a strong case for additional equipment for a train that lost $59 million in FY12 before capital charges, especially for a country that is nearly $17 trillion in hawk, would be a difficult slog.
I think two issues have become confused on this thread.
The first issue is whether or not the United States should, as a matter of policy, have Amtrak at all. Those who oppose the existence of Amtrak because it requires a Federal appropriation to operate will always oppose any expenditure for Amtrak. The fact that Amtrak cannot keep up with the demand for service does not rebut the argument. The argument is that Amtrak is just bad and we should not spend money on it.
The opposing argument is not that Amtrak is good. The opposing argument is that the US should have a rational transportation system, a system that will include air transportation, highway transportation, water transportation and rail transportation. The issue then is one of balance. What is the appropriate balance of funds between all of our transportation needs.
I don’t pretend to have a perfect answer to the question. I imagine there will always be discussion and debate over the issue. However, when discussing it I do think the discussion should be a little more sophisticated than it was in Andrew Jackson’s day.
I have no idea where Sam is getting his figures about how flying from Minot to Spokane is within $5 of the Amtrak fare, but I don’t see it on my Internet.
.
For travel August 11, Minot to Spokane:
Amtrak $267
Cheapest Air $532
Bus $193
.
For travel about a month later on September 10, Minot to Spokane:
Amtrak $120
Cheapest Air $296
Bus $119
.
Sam’s adding the per-capita “investment” in the Empire Builder to the cost
Yes it is difficult to make the case for additional equipment for a train that lost $59 million last year because too many people are sufficiently ignorant of history and take it at face value. Amtrak “subsidies” are easy to see. But we don’t know what the subsidy would be per passenger if the government stepped in to provide infrastructure to run a second train, or even to allow the current one train to run dependably. Again, it sucks when you have to rely on the private sector to get basic infrastructure in place.
In 2003, the state of Montana commissioned a study on the economic benefits of the Empire Builder in that state, which was over $14 million annually. I don’t have a figure for the “loss” of the Empire Builder that year, but it has been rising, so it would have been less than now, and given inflation, the benefit today is probably greater. Given that Montana is only one of 8 states served by the Empire Builder however, it’s clear that the economic benefit provided by the train exceeds the cost to run it. Would other modes of transportation using government-created infrastructure step in to fill the void if the Empire Builder was not around? In the case of the Bakken, probably, but not having the train comes with a cost. Workers to and from Western Montana, for instance, would spend more money driving or flying, which would decrease their spending capacit
How many riders to the oil fields ride to/from MT?
For Glacier Park tourism, I suggest you check the Amtrak state annual reports for the appropriate stations. The ridership is small, as I recall, both as a percentage of park visitors and absolutely…
If there is a demand for passenger rail from Chicago to the oil fields (including intermediate stops, would it not make far more sense to run a train from Chicago to ND? Why continue it all the way to the coast, losing another $50 million?
Let ND pony up some bucks for a state-supported train. With all that oil money pouring in, they should be able to find the funds in loose change.
August 11th is tomorrow. Yep, walk-up fares for flights and/or other forms of commercial transportation tend to be very high for next day or next week travel. For comparison purposes I priced Amtrak, air, and bus on September 4th. Potential travelers who do not plan ahead will pay for it.
Amtrak, as well as the commuter airlines participating in the Essential Air Services Program, get a cash payment from the federal government for each passenger carried because the fares don’t cover the costs. The difference is picked-up by the federal taxpayers. They are real and should be factored into the revenue/cost model.
The Brooking Institutes’s A New Alignment: Strengthening America’s Commitment to Passenger Rail, contains some thoughtful suggestions on how to move forward with passenger rail in the United States. I highly recommend it. Google the title. It is readily available as a pdf download.
Amongst other things the study points out that PRIIA requires the states the pick-up the operating deficits for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains. Why not have the same requirement for the long distance trains ask the authors, Robert Puentes, Adie Tomer, and Joseph Kane? The report is dated March 2013 and is one of the best reports on passenger rail in the United States that I have read.
As an example, if Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas believe the Texas Eagle is vital for the well being of their states, as per the Brookings Study, they would cover the loses. If they did, in all probability, they would insist on having a say about its schedule, equipment, service levels and, hopefully, in time the operator. Requiring the states to cover the operating deficits of trains operating over distances of less than 750 miles whilst exempting
Thank you for the link to the Brookings report, Sam. Certainly its main point, that state subsidies for Amtrak are desirable is well taken. Currently individual states provide about $840 million for Amtrak for the five year period covered by the report. This benefits the Federal government because what the states pay the Feds don’t have to. It also benefits the states that provide the funding because it gives them a real say about important issues such as schedules. States probably will not pay for middle of the night schedules but their funds can be an incentive for Amtrak to change its schedules. And of course state funding provides more trains for more riders.
Right now 15 states fund Amtrak trains. A few states also fund trains but provide their own. My own state, New Jersey, is one of those. In theory states can make an objective decision based on their need. But I’m not sure that is the way it works out. For example, North Carolina funds 4 trains, the Piedmonts. They operate in NC and connect Amtrak routes among other things. South Carolina funds no trains. It that because SC objectively has no need for rail transportation? Or is it simply because SC prefers not to spend money on rail transportation? Or perhaps both.
My state, New Jersey, finds it can provide commuter service for significantly less money that Amtrak would charge. Since Amtrak owns the NEC tracks it will rent them to New Jersey and it does. I suspect other states could provide their own commuter service more cheaply than Amtrak does but private railroads may be unwilling to allow the states to run their own service. If Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana wanted to operate their own commuter service between Mobile and New Orleans would CSX, who owns the track, allow them to do so? From what I read here CSX may not be willing. Some states who feel they cannot support Amtrak might
But it wouldn’t take another $50 million. The additional cost to operate another frequency would be minimal. This is because revenue increases as the service becomes much more attractive due the creation of more choices of times for travel, and the expenses are pretty much only the cost of operating the train (crews, fuel, etc.). Stations, station personnel, and servicing facilities are already there. (Also, of course, there would be the cost of creating equipment for another train, which is currently not available.)
.
This is the problem with Amtrak’s long distance service: no economies of scale. For the most part, infrastructure and support personnel are in place for one train daily each way. The worst performers are the tri-weekly Sunset Limited and Cardinal which are really an inefficient use of resources.
.
As stated earlier, Amtrak doesn’t keep track of ridership by purpose, but that Williston is one of the top or a top destination for many stations from Washington to Wisconsin along the route cannot be a coincidence. That people are using the train means that the train is contributing to economi