Amtrak would have to be pretty lame to not have a SIGNIFICANT penalty for a railroad to delay them INSIDE their window.
That is, if Amtrak has a one hour window that is “theirs”, any delay caused by the carrying railroad–big penalties.
However. If Amtrak is outside its window, nope.
Thus, just as it would prove irritating to the railroad to block the window, it would also prove irritating for Amtrak not to STAY in the window.
Since the above is so obvious and necessary, Amtrak must have it in their contracts. It remains only to find the details: the size of the window, and the various penalties.
The computer system searches all available means of transportation between point A and point B and finds the lowest priced means of transportaion within a travel timeframe between two points. Depends on where the recruit is comming from and traveling to that influences that answer. Some recruits live in Moosejaw, Mont. In which case if it is near an Amtrak station it would make sense to place them on a train between that point and the largest big city, where they would put them on an airplane.
NS has not been receptive to operating Amtrak ‘with dispatch’. Pittsburgh to Chicago is all NS.
Some railroads ‘tried’ to operate their passenger service as if their names and reputation were on the service, prior to Amtrak. Some railraods actively tried their best to discourage any customer from ever returning as a repeat customer.
I find it hard to believe a lot of the posters on here, is this not a forum FOR passenger trains put on by Trains Magazine?
We rode Amtrak for our 50th anniversary in 2017 and very much enjoyed it. Glad we did it in 2017 though because they still had Pacific Parlor cars, nice meals on all trains and ALL well used.
Where I live buses have been done away with. Tell the lady in New Orleans who had travelled all night on a MegaBus you don’t need sleeping cars, she was so looking forward to one on the City of New Orleans. We need long distance trains with sleeping cars, lounges and diners.
The Empire Builder had about 500 people on it, getting on and off all across the country.
I used to take the train from Edmonton to Prince Rupert but not any more because you have to say in hotels in Jasper and Prince George. There aren’t any buses anymore and the trip takes forever now. I’d drive!
Also, we had the handicap room on every long distance train we were on. I thought it was a good service and a Great trip. Sorry for the rant but this post got me riled up, I’ll leave now and go back to reading.
Re: Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.
I want Amtrak to run buses when and WHERE it makes sense and trains when and WHERE in makes sense. For the cost of running a long distance train, you can run allot of buses.
Connect the bus network to a short distance rail network connecting higher density areas. Connect the buses and trains to the airports.
Amtrak LD are useless to a majority of the population RIGHT NOW.
A majority of the population doesn’t even have a train.
A majority of the population doesn’t need ONE train a day.
A majority of the population doesn’t need a train that runs at 40 mph.
Period, end of story. Amtrak LD trains - and it’s supporters - are living in the 50’s trying to prove the SP was wrong. The SP was right THEN, and they are still right.
Re: is this not a forum FOR passenger trains put on by Trains Magazine?
I’m all FOR passenger train transportation that is USEFUL to a majority of the population. The KEY concept is USEFUL TRANSPORTATION for the MAJORITY.
Having a government agency providing a CUSTOMER SERVICE product will ALWAYS be a losing proposition, ALWAYS.
Even WORSE, trying to run USEFUL TRANSPORTATION on an 1880’s rail system is pointless in the 21 century.
All Amtrak LD trains are providing now is a nostalgia trip for old-farts like myself. I take the CZ or Coast Starlight once a year. It’s roughly akin to camping (or a bus trip as someone below pointed out) and I ABSOLUTELY cannot see a majority of the population putting up with Amtrak levels of service.
But, it’s fine for old-fart train enthusiasts in the top 20% (aka rich people who can afford the sleeping cars and don’t mind fantasizing about “how good it could be, if ONLY…”). Well, “if ONLY” ain’t never gonna happen.
Amtrak is a GOVERNMENT Agency. It CANNOT be improved. The railroads in this country are antiquated and cannot run 21 century passenger trains.
That would be Unconstitutional since a government agency cannot source private funds and has to exist solely upon fund appropriation by the Congress. Furthermore,…
The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which established Amtrak, specifically states that, “The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government”
I have been told by university researchers that were involved in a major study of small town rural transportation that, for those not driving a car or flying, establishing government support of bus routes was the way to go. The reasons were as quoted in earlier posts: more routes, more reliable than Amtrak, more frequent service, meals aren’t a problem since buses make meal/rest stops, and far less expensive to subsidize.
No surprise, the greatest reason for LD rail & bus financal problems was the introduction of the discount airlines which brought air fares within reach of almost all the traveling public. Also, most of the public now being computer literate enough to book their own travel by using the various travel programs plus individual sites [such as SW Air] to compare fares has played a role.
When people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC. Amtrak’s mission is to provide a service citizens will use. You are the one talking about eliminating a service people will use (as evidenced by high load factors on LDs like the Zephyr) and replacing it with one that will drive demand for it out of business.
Lost in this thread completely is the fact that Amtrak IS NOT providing the same service the Private railroads provided pre-1971. Several posters here are attempting to equate Amtrak to what was here pre-1971 but I have to say that is like comparing apples and oranges. You could clearly tell the difference between First Class and Coach on the private Class one Railroads. With Amtrak it is much harder to see that line.
Amtraks marketing and pricing for most of it’s like was directed towards making the passenger train affordable to the masses. Thats how we ended up with Dining Car menus with the highest price item only being $20, it’s how we ended up with a Roomette and Bedroom offering in the sleeping car priced as low as they are. Most of all that is how we ended up with a lounge car that doesn’t have a bartender, etc, etc. Most importantly, Amtrak made a very poor attempt to replace the mail contracts but never really succeeded in that venture and so never replaced a chunk of revenue the former railroads had to offset some of the former costs. It’s Amtrak Express feature, another poor attempt to boost revenue by attempting to replicate the former REA is also mediocre at best.
Then you also have to look at average speed of an Amtrak LD train and compare it to what existed prior to 1971. Most of Amtraks LD trains are degenerating slowly into the milk runs of past that every traveler used to hate. Stopping at almost every small town regardless of how many pas
Actually, some people DIDN’T have a choice, because the CZ didn’t stop at every tiny town. And that is what Dave was concerned about: rail passenger service to tiny towns for old and invalid.
It appears you may be asserting that hardly anyone rode the Zephyrette. If true, it would imply that my proposal to again run RDC’s, would fail. So, according to you, if LD trains are pulled, then there should be NO rail service over those lines at all.
Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
If it has to operate at a loss, perhaps subscriptions should be sold to support it. You, yourself, could buy in and do your part to support Amtrak. So could other people who want to ride it. And those who aren’t interested could decline the offer.
No. I am talking about what, if any, passenger rail service to run over those lines AFTER the LD trains are pulled for being too expensive to run.
The big complaint with LD trains is that they cost money. If they produced profit, who would want them removed?
If an LD route comes close to breaking even on above the rails costs, keep it.
The problem with LD train routes over 6 hours between endpoints is that they became non-competitive with other modes for 50 + years and therefore irrational. But let’s see if many folks are willing to pay the actual costs for sleepers and dining services, as required by law. I doubt if they are.
When freight railroads were running them in the 1950s, they did their best as a way of garnering good PR from customers, or so they hoped, even at a loss. Part of the cost of advertising and marketing. This situation has never existed with Amtrak and the freight lines dropped as much service as possible prior to 1971 because they saw no positive benefit and they are in business to make money.
I think it was 60 minutes or 20/20 that did a segment on this. I wish I could find it in YOU TUBE. However, most airline routes are only very marginally profitable. A good portion of the domestic airline routes would lose money if it were not for the mail contracts and cargo hauled under the passenger compartment. Now that analysis was performed before airlines started charging for carrying baggage so it might be a little off but I am confident it is still pretty close. The TV segment zeroed in on one NY to LA route on American Airlines where some flights were only making a few hundred bucks in profit.
Most airlines succeed on flight frequency on specific routes and even then the routes are only marginally profitable per flight. You don’t normally see one flight per route airline schedules anymore and I suspect thats because you need 3 or more flight frequencies and decent patronage on each flight to start to make a profit with the fixed costs of the gate and ramp. In this way the airline industry is not that much different from the LD passenger train.
If you go to Southwest Airlines Charter site they will tell you the costs of flying a Southwest 737 between two cities with a crew and ground support plus a little extra for profit. I didn’t want to spend time looking but I think the Southwest estimate was approx $50,000 to $75,000 one way for a North South routing crossing most of the country North-South. So my really rough estimate would be $100 to $125k for a NY to LA flight. Do the math on the fares per seat, even using yield management you need frequency to reduce the
That 60 Minutes story must have been quite a few years ago. The US3 are very profitable. They have actually cut capacity in the past 10 years. That’s why their load factors are over 90%. There are seldom any empty seats, even on “red eyes”. Delta didn’t have a profit of $1.2 Billion last year by flying marginally profitable flights. They save money on small stations with only 1-2 flights a day by outsourcing their ground staff. They even have a subsidiary that will service flights from other airlines (DGS).
I just checked the SWA website and you appreciably overstated charter rates. Coast-to-coast is $70-80,000. They even say it costs more than buying out a scheduled plane. That’s because they have to assign a special crew and get the plane to your origin. Airlines just don’t have spare planes sitting around. You also have to pay for the convenience of the plane meeting your schedule.