If you had to eliminate one Amtrak route...

[Ispolkom]

I think that is important for Amtrak since they are supposed to provide a service, not to earn money,

It was supposed to earn money

I'm further confused. Is Amtrak supposed to earn money, or is it not supposed to earn money? These are two contradictory statements that you posted in less than an hour.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I think that is important for Amtrak since they are supposed to provide a service, not to earn money,

It was supposed to earn money

I'm further confused. Is Amtrak supposed to earn money, or is it not supposed to earn money? These are two contradictory statements that you posted in less than an hour.

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

 

[Donctor]

Swadian, did the Auto Train offend you or something? Why does anything have to be done to it?

 

[Ispolkom]

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

Oh, good. Now we agree that Amtrak is supposed to earn money, even if it doesn't turn a profit. Surely, then, it should do what it can to minimize its losses, and to so minimize the federal subsidy Amtrak receives, within the political system that requires it to maintain a long-distance service of some sort. After all, Amtrak's subsidy is a political issue, just as its maintenance of a long-distance system is essentially a political issue.

Given these constraints, eliminating the least subsidized long-distance service to increase capacity of other lines that are more subsidized seems an odd way to decrease the size of that total subsidy. It would seem to me to do the reverse. I think that is what Texan Eagle is trying to point out with his hot dog parable. I'm sure that's why Fox News didn't focus on the Auto Train.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Swadian, did the Auto Train offend you or something? Why does anything have to be done to it?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

Oh, good. Now we agree that Amtrak is supposed to earn money, even if it doesn't turn a profit. Surely, then, it should do what it can to minimize its losses, and to so minimize the federal subsidy Amtrak receives, within the political system that requires it to maintain a long-distance service of some sort. After all, Amtrak's subsidy is a political issue, just as its maintenance of a long-distance system is essentially a political issue.

Amtrak tries to minimize losses, but the Auto Train is still losing money, along with most other trains. Except that the AT loses that money while doing less good for a wider range of people. Improvements should be done to the entire system to make it more profitable, but the AT has the biggest problems because the losses are not even worth the service to a small range of passengers. Despite the train being full, it could still serve more people if it were not locked down to regular pax. That might generate more losses, but it more be worth it because it would serve more people.

 

[afigg]

Amtrak tries to minimize losses, but the Auto Train is still losing money, along with most other trains. Except that the AT loses that money while doing less good for a wider range of people. Improvements should be done to the entire system to make it more profitable, but the AT has the biggest problems because the losses are not even worth the service to a small range of passengers. Despite the train being full, it could still serve more people if it were not locked down to regular pax. That might generate more losses, but it more be worth it because it would serve more people.

In FY2011, the Auto Train carried 259,944 passengers and 126,281 vehicles (source: Amtrak Florida state fact sheet). Looks like it served a wide range of people to me.

If you want to get from DC to Orlando without a car, there are two Silver trains available. In addition, the Silvers will get more sleeper capacity and new diner cars in the next 2 years. I really don't follow your reasoning for changing how the AT functions.

 

[haolerider]

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

Oh, good. Now we agree that Amtrak is supposed to earn money, even if it doesn't turn a profit. Surely, then, it should do what it can to minimize its losses, and to so minimize the federal subsidy Amtrak receives, within the political system that requires it to maintain a long-distance service of some sort. After all, Amtrak's subsidy is a political issue, just as its maintenance of a long-distance system is essentially a political issue.

Amtrak tries to minimize losses, but the Auto Train is still losing money, along with most other trains. Except that the AT loses that money while doing less good for a wider range of people. Improvements should be done to the entire system to make it more profitable, but the AT has the biggest problems because the losses are not even worth the service to a small range of passengers. Despite the train being full, it could still serve more people if it were not locked down to regular pax. That might generate more losses, but it more be worth it because it would serve more people.

I guess you just don't get it! The Auto Train is full, there are three Silver trains running from the northeast to Savannah and to Miami. There are more trains on that corridor that serve that region of the country than anywhere else in the system. Where in your scenario is the demand for more service? Who is being turned away or not offered the service? You keep saying the AT should serve more people, but where are they? In your your mind, when should the AT begin to take non-auto passengers? Always? When the car racks are full? What if it takes too many non-auto passengers and turns away higher revenue producing car owners? What that make you happy? Maybe you don't have a car and want to ride the Auto Train!

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

Oh, good. Now we agree that Amtrak is supposed to earn money, even if it doesn't turn a profit. Surely, then, it should do what it can to minimize its losses, and to so minimize the federal subsidy Amtrak receives, within the political system that requires it to maintain a long-distance service of some sort. After all, Amtrak's subsidy is a political issue, just as its maintenance of a long-distance system is essentially a political issue.

Amtrak tries to minimize losses, but the Auto Train is still losing money, along with most other trains. Except that the AT loses that money while doing less good for a wider range of people. Improvements should be done to the entire system to make it more profitable, but the AT has the biggest problems because the losses are not even worth the service to a small range of passengers. Despite the train being full, it could still serve more people if it were not locked down to regular pax. That might generate more losses, but it more be worth it because it would serve more people.

I guess you just don't get it! The Auto Train is full, there are three Silver trains running from the northeast to Savannah and to Miami. There are more trains on that corridor that serve that region of the country than anywhere else in the system. Where in your scenario is the demand for more service? Who is being turned away or not offered the service? You keep saying the AT should serve more people, but where are they? In your your mind, when should the AT begin to take non-auto passengers? Always? When the car racks are full? What if it takes too many non-auto passengers and turns away higher revenue producing car owners? What that make you happy? Maybe you don't have a car and want to ride the Auto Train!

That's been my thought.

 

[afigg]

Maybe you don't have a car and want to ride the Auto Train!

He could rent a car and take it to Florida on the AT. Subcompact to keep the cost down. Get a rental with no-drop off charge. Or ride to Lorton/Sanford on a motorcycle and take that to Florida. Or a moped? Although it probably has to be a street legal vehicle with tags; not sure exactly what Amtrak's minimum requirements for the vehicle are. Hmm, can you get Virginia or Florida tags for a Segway? :lol:

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

My opinion is not partial. It is not based on some "I don't have a car" or "I had a bad expierience on the AT" but on what I have already told you.

 

[jis]

I do not know if you are really confused or just sarcastic, but I will clarify anyway. I think that Amtrak was originally supposed to earn money eventually, but that has still never come, so nobody expects it to earn money anymore.

Oh, good. Now we agree that Amtrak is supposed to earn money, even if it doesn't turn a profit. Surely, then, it should do what it can to minimize its losses, and to so minimize the federal subsidy Amtrak receives, within the political system that requires it to maintain a long-distance service of some sort. After all, Amtrak's subsidy is a political issue, just as its maintenance of a long-distance system is essentially a political issue.

Amtrak tries to minimize losses, but the Auto Train is still losing money, along with most other trains. Except that the AT loses that money while doing less good for a wider range of people. Improvements should be done to the entire system to make it more profitable, but the AT has the biggest problems because the losses are not even worth the service to a small range of passengers. Despite the train being full, it could still serve more people if it were not locked down to regular pax. That might generate more losses, but it more be worth it because it would serve more people.

I guess you just don't get it! The Auto Train is full, there are three Silver trains running from the northeast to Savannah and to Miami. There are more trains on that corridor that serve that region of the country than anywhere else in the system. Where in your scenario is the demand for more service? Who is being turned away or not offered the service? You keep saying the AT should serve more people, but where are they? In your your mind, when should the AT begin to take non-auto passengers? Always? When the car racks are full? What if it takes too many non-auto passengers and turns away higher revenue producing car owners? What that make you happy? Maybe you don't have a car and want to ride the Auto Train!

That's been my thought.

There's an easier solution..... rent a car and go for it! :lol: You don't need to screw up a relatively successful operation just because you don't have a car?

In case you can;t drive, just find a friend who can

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Maybe you don't have a car and want to ride the Auto Train!

That's been my thought.

There's an easier solution..... rent a car and go for it! :lol: You don't need to screw up a relatively successful operation just because you don't have a car?

In case you can;t drive, just find a friend who can

When did I say that was the reason for me wanting to alter the AT? It is not!

 

[Donctor]

When did I say that was the reason for me wanting to alter the AT? It is not!

Again, why does the Auto Train need to be altered? There is nothing wrong with the way it operates.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

When did I say that was the reason for me wanting to alter the AT? It is not!

Again, why does the Auto Train need to be altered? There is nothing wrong with the way it operates.

Lockdown to regular passengers? Inconvenience of stops? Not connecting to any other trains? Losing money even though it ain't a lot?

 

[Ryan]

Performing better than any long distance train Amtrak runs?

Yeah, we should definitely "fix" that.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Performing better than any long distance train Amtrak runs?

While not available to a large amount of American people. And nobody has talked about the inability to connect to to other trains. If the AT was opened to regular pax, it could connect to other trains. And when other trains suffer from rolling stock shortages, the AT is swallowing twice as many cars per train as some other LDs, closing those trains to further passengers due to sell outs.

 

[Ryan]

What exactly would Amtrak gain by doing that?

Edit to your edit: Look at the number of consists most LD trains need, then try that again. Since the AT only uses 2 consists, it doesn't actually "swallow twice as many cars per train", it makes very effective utilization of the cars it's allocated.

 

[Ryan]

No, I don't understand. Since the Auto Train sells out in its current configuration, more people won't be able to take Amtrak.

Edit: For the love of God, stop editing your posts. You're absolutely impossible to follow.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

What exactly would Amtrak gain by doing that?

Edit to your edit: Look at the number of consists most LD trains need, then try that again. Since the AT only uses 2 consists, it doesn't actually "swallow twice as many cars per train", it makes very effective utilization of the cars it's allocated.

Actually, I mean "per consist" not "per train route". By "train" I meant each train, not the entire train route.

 

[Ryan]

That's a stupid metric.

You want more people to ride Amtrak, but you don't want longer consists? Where exactly are you going to put these more people at?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That's a stupid metric.

You want more people to ride Amtrak, but you don't want longer consists? Where exactly are you going to put these more people at?

Maybe i wrote something wrong, or maybe you jusst misunderstood. I mean that I want more demand for Amtrak even though we can't make longer consists yet. Besides, the AT may only lose so little money because it does not servce any intermediate stops, thus, if sold out, it get 100% capacity full. In contrast, I heard that the Adirondack get only 86% capacity full even though it is sold out or very crowded a lot. That is because some passengers got on/off at intermediate stops.

You are apparently totally ignoring the fact that the At has no connectivity. It's not required but it would be good to have if not "overdone", as with the Louisville extension.

 

[Ryan]

]I mean that I want more demand for Amtrak even though we can't make longer consists yet.

What good will that demand do, when there isn't any capacity available?

You are apparently totally ignoring the fact that the At has no connectivity.

I'm not ignoring it, it just doesn't matter. It would provide no benefits whatsoever.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

]I mean that I want more demand for Amtrak even though we can't make longer consists yet.

What good will that demand do, when there isn't any capacity available?
We can add more trains if we get more demand. We don't have the equipment yet so take it off the AT.

You are apparently totally ignoring the fact that the At has no connectivity.

I'm not ignoring it, it just doesn't matter. It would provide no benefits whatsoever.

Benifits? Serve more people! Start more trains if you have to. Even start more Auto Trains but they should carry regular pax as well. No equipment? Take off AT! Less people taking AT, more people taking trains nationwide, overall better for Amtrak.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

What good will that demand do, when there isn't any capacity available?

I mean that making the demand even higher will not do bad for Amtrak, while increasing the pressure to increase services, buy more cars, and increase services further.