On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service.
The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222.
The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes.
I saved $122 by opting for a business class seat on the regional train. I wonder how many people would choose to pay a $122 premium to save 15 minutes if they were paying it out of their pocket? If the answer, as I suspect, is not many, it should raise a question as to the incremental value of high speed rail vs medium speed rail.
It has been a couple of years since I have ridden the Acela, but the coffee on the regional train seemed to be every bit as good as the coffee on the Acela. The car attendant, as well as the other members of the crew, were pleasant and helpful. My regional train arrived on time into Baltimore and was actually a few minutes early arriving back at Penn Station, New York.
Amtrak’s e-ticket system, coupled with what is as good an on-line reservation system as any that I have found, works very well. Moreover, if you lose your ticket, just show the conductor proper identification, and she can look up your reservation on the spot.
This has been my point about HSR here in the US all along…at what cost to save only a few minutes…not is it worth it but who is it worth it to? Very few. Plus we don’t have good solid definitions in people minds but rather dream scapes of supersonic races across time and space which is just emotions not pragmatisms. We have to fully understand what HSR is and what it will and will not do. If we can accept…and pay for…a super four track rapid transit system with all stop locals on the outer track and real high speed limiteds on the inner tracks with economical spacing of their stations, we might have a chance in our densely populated and crowded corridors. But speed for speeds sake, because the Japanese or the French do it or that China tries, is not the reason to try to be Buck Rogers on rails.
I’m happy to hear about your pleasant experience, Sam. I haven’t been to Baltimore in many years but I do go to Washington occasionally and I have a similar experience. I am a frugal traveler so I ride Northeast Regional trains as you did but I also take the coach.
If you go again may I suggest you but your coffee and whatever you want to go with it in one of several excellent places in New York Penn Station. Au Bon Pain is one that comes to my mind. Carrying it on the train is a little awkward. Amtrak’s coffee is good but rolls and Danish are not nearly as good as they are in the station.
For all of that a lot of people do ride the Acela. For a long time I commuted between Newark and Princeton Junction and there were always people at Newark waiting for the Acela. As my Mom used to say some people demand the best no matter what it costs.
Henry: & SAM1 ------- IMHO you are right on. The NEC network is a prime example. There are many population centers that will require some trains to stop but other trains can by-pass if there is 1/2 hr peak to hourly off peak service at by-passed stations.It is a matter of eliminating the slow(er) orders. Trains capable of the planned 160 MPH or even just 125 MPH on present NEC ROW with alterations can – with one stop in PHL complete the 225 miles WASH - NYP in about 2 hrs flat. Those speeds fit the current capabilities of Acelas. More importantly that would allow Acelas to make more trips in a regular day without decreasing turn times.
Standard NEC trips with the ~ 8 - 10 stops shoud be able to reduce trip times fromaverage 3:25 to ~ 2:30 - 2;:50. Again allowing quicker equipment turns.
Unfortunately the NYP – BOS route does not have the track profiles to elimate many slow sections. That section is really going to need the inland re route. to reduce times. Probably first complete the Hartford - BOS new route ?
So again IMHO 225 miles is the minimun distance for a non stop 220 MPH train over a dedicated 2 track ROW that could be scheduled in about 1:25 - 1:30. Eenroute figures reflect the necessary padding of any route schedule because of necessary closings of 1 track for maintenance or any other reason. IMO it is much better to arrive early 10 times than be late once.
This maintenance requirements will slow all 2 track HSR routes where ever built ?
Drawing that argument to its (absurd) extension: Megabus would be happy to haul you from some street corner in NYC to another street corner in Baltimore, spending 3 hours and 10 minutes doing so (at least they claim they can do it in that time) for as low as $10 (at least on the random day I looked at). So why is anyone paying more to take the train or even the plane? After all, for an extra 50 or so minutes on the road, you could save a cool $92!
Of course, Megabus doesn’t have business class seats… [:)]
CJTRANGUY, there are many reasons for the differences and the choices. First I’ll point out a fact that bus drivers and travel agents revealed to me: people are more likely to get motion sickness aboard a bus than any other form of transportation. Second, there is probably more reliability in a train schedule than a bus especially in the traffic clogged Corridor area. Third, as you mentioned, bus lacks business class and there are people who want and can afford luxuries and comforts and are willing to pay for them. Fourth, and it goes with
The point of the fare comparison was to show the difference between Acela and NEC regional fares. And raise a question by implication. Given the slight difference in scheduled times from New York to Baltimore, should the United States invest in high speed rail (220 mph) or moderate speed rail (125 to 160 mph).
The NEC covers its operating costs. However, because of the large infrastructure costs required to support higher speeds, it loses more than $400 million per year after factoring in depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. After depreciation, etc., the NEC loses nearly as much money per passenger mile as the long distance trains.
If the investment in high speed rail could be funded by private interests, as opposed to the taxpayers, then its promoters would have a good case for it. Unfortunately, as per the California High Speed Rail Project, no private investors without hooks in the project have step forth with any money for high speed rail anywhere. So the financial burden falls onto the taxpayers.
Megabus, which is owned by a British company, makes money. One can argue that it does not pay its fair share of the infrastructure that it uses, but that argument is not supported by every expert. In any case, it gets no direct cash subsidies from the federal and/or state governments. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Amtrak.
Actually, Acela could run significantly faster on the same tracks with a new constant tension catenary. Amtrak will put it in. Where there is none the catenary reached the end of its useful life years ago. So while Acela does not now offer much in the way of a speed advantage it will in the future.
There are levels of markets where the members of that market are willing to pay the price for what they want or think they are getting. Thus it may surprise those who couldn’t afford Acela to understand why and how one can afford and will pay for Acela or business class on Regional. Conversely there are those who ride these trains who don’t understand why others won’t sacrifice the extra dollars for the comfort or conveniences they enjoy. Marketers know the differences and will play to each to get the most money out of each.
To expand on Henry’s statement. It has been stated by several persons including a Bill Moyers program that the highest level of wealth is now inside the Capitol beltway.
I have seen several other reports that make the same claim. Why? Could it possibly be because of the growth of the federal government and the direct beneficiaries, i.e. lobbyists, lawyers, consultants, etc.who reside in the counties surrounding the nation’s capitol?
In FY12 10.87 per cent of Amtrak’s passengers rode the Acela. And 29.7 per cent of the NEC passengers rode it.
Is the selection of the Acela a function of the passengers willingness to pay the up-market fares for the Acela?Or is it because many if not most of the Acela passengers are traveling on an expense account? Which means that the cost of the ride ultimately will be passed through to rider’s customers, clients, or taxpayers. Which further means that many if not most of the riders are not really paying the premium fare to ride the Acela. Someone else is picking up the tab.
Companies pay for Acela for the same reason they pay for employees to go by plane instead of bus. Time is money. Upgrade to first class? A rested individual is more productive.
Only the executive team in the Fortune 250 corporation that I worked for were permitted to upgrade to business class. No one was permitted to fly first class. Everyone else was required to fly economy class, on the lowest cost airline, except when traveling to and from Australia.
Travel by train was not common in our company. On a rare occasion an employee might be traveling to a location where use of one of the corridor trains was desirable, i.e. NEC, California, etc. They were expected to travel coach.
Our travel policies, procedures, and practices were aligned with those of a cross section of other Fortune 500 companies. Periodically the travel group surveyed a statistical sample of other companies to be sure that we were following similar practices. Thus, I am not sure that most corporations would ante up for the Acela. Some law firms, investment bankers, government employees, etc. might, especially given that they can fob the cost off on their clients, customers, and taxpayers.
As I noted in my original posting, the scheduled time difference for the Acela and NEC regional train between NYC and Balitmore was 15 minutes. The fare difference between the Acela and NEC regional business class was $120. The difference between the Acela and NEC coach would have been $173. That translates into some pretty expensive minutes. But that’s just the fare differences. Add in the fully allocated cost of the Acela and the differences are even greater.
Hopefully the railroad companies that I hold stock do a good job of managing their travel expenses. Allowing employees to book the Acela to save 15 minutes at an incremental cost of $120 to $173 is not effective cost management.
I know a number of people who would consider that cost difference a part of doing business and pay for it because they perceive a greater value. Just because you or I don’t see it that way, doesn’t mean the value isn’t there.
There are plenty of rail lines in the world that have been upgraded with new or partially new alignments at significant cost to save on the order of 15 minutes of travel time point to point. Just as there are plenty of examples of freight lines being realigned to cut out a steep hill or a very curvy stretch. Viewed over 10-20-30 years that time saved can make the cost almost no-brainer (except the cost is up front and the benefit comes in increments over years).
Where high speed rail has been introduced, ridership goes up. In a number of corridors, rail readily beats flying and captures the higher market share.
I am thankful that we have the NEC as it is today. I also know that there is lots more potential. Improved tracks, catenary and so on. I ride NJT from New York Penn to New Brunswick and wonder at the leisurely pace of the train. A comparable train in Europe would be moving at a top speed of 100mph, making all the same stops. Fast acceleration and slowing down. Shaves a few minutes off the travel time and makes it all more of a choice compared to driving.
I agree with other posters that the capabilities of NEC aren’t exhausted. It is an infrastructure that was largely built for
And CJ, it is not the NY-Chi passengers that will make that corridor reallyworthwhile, but NY-Buffalo, Rocohester - Cleveland, Buffalo - Toledo., Cleveland - South Bend, Albany - Elkhart, etc. It is whole bunch of useful short corridors strung together. It could start with service every two hours and then go to hourlly as business developes, and then add an overnight train with suitably priced sleepers, possibly to be run by the new Pullman operation.
The distance is perfect for an overnight train. Yes, I have ridden the Lake Shore Limited. The current about 20 hour schedule is significantly longer than the 20th Century schedule of 16 hours. And even that was too long for an overnight jump. Ideal would be a 9-10pm departure and a 7-8am arrival. That would require a total running time of about 10 hours.
As in other countries, HSR can be achieved by strategically building new alignments or upgrading segments. It doesn’t have to be the entire line at once. There just needs to be a plan behind it. We are seeing upgrades happen on the NEC. Amtrak is also upgrading its Michigan line from Chicago and the line to St Louis. Better alignment/track cuts a few minutes off the travel time and/or improves on-time performance, both vital for attracting and keeping riders.
On many lines in the US, I’d be quite happy to see passenger trains move at 79mph consistently and not have to go in the hole for freights.
Getting the freight lines to accommodate a real passenger service (not just a few trains) at a much higher average speed is going to be very hard.
The concept of an LD train running as segmented and overlapping corridors ignores the factor of schedules. Even if you could have that 21st Century Ltd. departing CHI at 9 and arrive in NYP at 7 or 8, it is not likely you will have many passengers getting on east of Toledo or getting off before Albany. Better to have some additional short corridors between city pairs en route if a market study justifies.