Precisely! At present, the pax. capacity is often filled even when the auto capacity is not, due to the number of "families with children," biker groups and others. I have seen occasions when the AT has accepted 3rd party "auto ferry" services on a contractual basis to fill up the auto capacity. That is, if someone wants their car transported to/from Fl. without having to take it themselves, they'll contract with this 3rd party service that, in turn, contracts with the AT to have it brought on without an accompanying pax. The contractor then turns it over to their rep. (or the recipient) waiting at the destination. I asked the AT people about this, and was told that you cannot do that directly with the AT, but you arrange it through that 3rd party contractor.
If you had to eliminate one Amtrak route...
- Thread starter johnny.menhennet
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Ispolkom
Engineer
Great minds think alike, my friend.Hear hear!! Thinking the same thing upon seeing the topic title, even as I clicked on the thread, and there it was, right off the bat.
Actually, it's not very hard at all to get to the Auto Train's Lorton Station. Just ride the Metro Blue line to the last stop at Franconia/Springfield and board Fairfax County Connector Bus #371 to the Lorton Park & Ride station. It's basically right across the street from the AT station.
It's on the other end in Sanford that things get more interesting.
None of them.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Rocking good news.
I hadn't heard this. That bodes more optimistically for the Cardinal.You would be correct!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/WV
This is actually interesting: it shows potential for expanded service on the MARC Brunswick line and the Capitol Limited Route!
Meanwhile, Charleston's population has dropped.
This would be interesting. Given Vermont's very strong support for passenger rail, perhaps they'll be extended all the way to Vermont as a second Vermonter frequency. Incidentally, the rules for section 209 apparently require a uniform standard for the percentage of "state subsidy" but do *not* require the states to share the subsidy between themselves in any particular way, so that Michigan can continue providing all the state support for trains which run through Indiana. Theoretically I suppose Nevada could provide all the state subsidy for a train in Iowa, if it wanted to. So it's anyone's guess what the 'state subsidy' arrangement would be be.
I believe that if it must happen combining the Silvers into one train might make the most sense. As for the Autotrain;during fiscal year 2011, the Auto Train carried over 250,000 passengers. The train had a total revenue of $68,618,768 in FY2011, which represented an increase of 12.5% over FY2010.
The Auto Train is one of th most successful routes and provides the highest revenue of any long-distance train in the Amtrak system. The gibberish can continue on this route but its not going away anytime soon. Quite frankly I'd like to see more routes added and none deleted.
The Auto Train is one of th most successful routes and provides the highest revenue of any long-distance train in the Amtrak system. The gibberish can continue on this route but its not going away anytime soon. Quite frankly I'd like to see more routes added and none deleted.
N
Nathanael
Guest
But it wouldn't save a penny. Silver Meteor is 12 cars, Silver Star is 9, they both run full most of the time, so you'd have to have the same on-board staff (no economies of scale from combining the two), you'd have to have approximately the same number of engines to haul that many cars, same amount of fuel use, worse acceleration and deceleration, you'd lose time doing double stops at almost every station to handle the 21 car consist, etc. Saving on conductors and engineers would be minimal. You'd lose more than that through the dropped stops, reduced freqencies at the shared stops, etc.; either you'd have a slower NYC-Florida run or you'd miss out on Raleigh.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,659
I understood the suggestion to be more along the lines of adding extra cars and making those available for extra pax rathe rthan taking seats from passengers with cars.
But I don't think there would be many takers due to the lack of intermediate stops. Adding stops would mess up the schedule. I guess the AT just is and will remain a standalone service that doesn't connect to the rest of the system and doesn't operate in the same way.
Ryan
Court Jester
Nobody said it would save money. The idea is to kill a train while doing as little damage as possible.
You'd even be slightly over the limit at TPA, whose wye is (or at least was until relatively recently) limited to 2 units/20 cars. That's assuming you'd serve TPA at all.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
The problem is, those are not the only options. None of your options actually make a PROFIT. You should have included these as well:
C. Cancel the Auto Train entirely and start a new express LD on upgraded tracks. It would cost a lot to upgrade and maintain but if advertised properly then it could even make a PROFIT in the long run.
D. Cancel Auto Train entirely and switch cars to CL, and other existing trains. This will not earn much money but it is definately an option.
E. If you do not want to lose money AT ALL, then you could also just calcel the Auto Train along with all the LD trains because none of them turn a PROFIT anyway!
I'll answer your question after you have thought about these options.
And yes, please let Texan Eagle think about these without interrupting.
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
If that is going to be your sole criteria of operating a train, or any means of transport, it would mean cutting ALL Amtrak trains, and cancelling ALL American Airlines, United, Delta and US Airways flights since none of them are actually making a NET profit. Now please wait while I go out and buy a horse for future travels...
There seems to be no way you will try to understand the point being made. I'd give up but since you so insisted, here's a reply nevertheless
C. Not gonna happen because unfortunately as of today scientists have not found a way to grow money on trees that can be plucked as required.
D. If we use the same numbers I gave you for earlier example- assuming we transfer passenger cars to CL, it means you will make $10,000 on a trip, and the investment that went into buying auto-racks goes down the drain. You want to close a service that earns $20,000 a trip and replace it with a service that would earn, at its best, $10,000 per trip.
E. As I said earlier, please wait while I go buy a horse.
It is interesting to read their comments why this xxx should eliminate. It reminds me that US is a very large area and we have different areas of populations/cultures, etc. It is how the politics work- I want that, not the other one on other end of US which I don't use, etc.
On AutoTrain, despite I live in middle of "nowhere", it should stay because it brings a wonderful positive news to politicians on how the Amtrak runs, including with Acela.
On AutoTrain, despite I live in middle of "nowhere", it should stay because it brings a wonderful positive news to politicians on how the Amtrak runs, including with Acela.
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
1. Not all of those companies make a loss. It is not impossiple to make a profit with transport.
2. If you don't want to make money anyway, then you might as well lose money doing something good. I think that opening up the AT to more pax will make it useful to more people. I know it will lose money,but then they are losing money anyway for less people's good.
3. Amtrak is supposed to provide a service. It would be great if it could earn money, but it's gonna be really hard. If you want to provide a service not for money, then you should provide the service to a wider range of people, not trying to squeeze as much money as you can out of them while losing money anyway.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
1. Not all of those companies make a loss. It is not impossible to make a profit with transport.
2. If you want to lose money anyway, then you might as well lose money doing something good. Opening up the AT to more passengers will not bring as much money, but it will definately sereve a wider range of customers. I think that is important for Amtrak since they are supposed to provide a service, not to earn money, which they are not. Squeezing more money out of passengers while making a loss anyway, serving a smaller range of customers, and carrying cars on passengers trains seem to me a very poor idea for a non-profit company. This is quite similar to Warringon's mail trains, except that they at least did not lock the train to certain pax.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Thus, my answer to Texan Eagle's question will be:
1. If you want to make a profit, then you can try out Option C but if it dosen't work then you might as well shut down Amtrak.
2. If you do not want to make a profit anyway, then you should go for Option B because it opens the train to more passengers, providing better service coverage and providing a backup to the SS/SM.
If you do not want to make a profit anyway, then money is just not an issue.
1. If you want to make a profit, then you can try out Option C but if it dosen't work then you might as well shut down Amtrak.
2. If you do not want to make a profit anyway, then you should go for Option B because it opens the train to more passengers, providing better service coverage and providing a backup to the SS/SM.
If you do not want to make a profit anyway, then money is just not an issue.
Ispolkom
Engineer
Ah, so there's no political opposition to Amtrak's government subsidy. Good to know.
I'm confused, though. If money doesn't matter, why did Fox News in their recent hatchet job on Amtrak focus on the Sunset Limited, which has the highest per-passenger subsidy, and not the Auto Train, which has the lowest?
From what do you derive your idea that Amtrak isn't supposed to earn money? If they aren't, why do they charge fares?
Hmm, Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, PL 91-518, section 301: "There is authorized to be created a National Railroad Passenger Corporation. The Corporation shall be a for profit corporation. . ."
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Actually the right answer is add some more cars to the Silvers. Things are just fine as they are with the Auto Train is maxed out as it is. The Silvers are doing fine in their roles. They could do with some more cars. If you must do something then extend the Palmetto to at least JAX providing a day train along the eastern seaboard all the way to Florida.
If you must cancel something pick on something else, like say two very early morning Regionals on the NE, and a single LAX - San Diego service of your choice. :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
It was supposed to earn money, but it is not.
Well, let's raise the point I brought up earlier (and while I consider that discussion settled, it makes sense here): During the spring and fall, the Auto Train does a lot of one-way traffic (to FL in the fall, from FL in the spring). This means that you're hauling a full train one way, and a half-empty one the other way that has to carry the same crew, consist, etc. I would suggest running an Ambus to/from WAS-LOR and to/from ORL-SFA at those times (make it a seasonal operation and/or an off-season operation and pitch it as such) and using that to fill space. Likewise, there are going to be times that the Auto Train is going to sell out of autorack space when it doesn't sell out of on-board space. Again, if this is a common occurrence, it wouldn't be hard to allocate a limited number of seats (say, 20-30) to such a service and pitch it.
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
Your ideas defy common sense. Let's see a simple example-
You have $1000 with you every month and you want to do a business with it. You open a hot dog stand and start selling hot dogs for $5 each. You work alone and have a capacity of making 100 hot dogs a month. You sell all those 100 hot dogs and earn $500, but you had put in $1000 to make those hot dogs so now you are at a loss of $500 at the end of one month because you put in $1000 and got only $500 in sales.
Next month you decide to increase the price of hot dogs to $6. Again 100 people come and buy your 100 hot dogs. You are sold out and you spent $1000 but made $600. Loss for the month $400.
Next month you decide to increase the price of hot dogs to $8. Again 100 people come and buy your 100 hot dogs. You are sold out and you spent $1000 but now you made $800. Loss for the month only $200.
You are the only hot dog stand in your city and you are not allowed to shut down because the city wants hot dogs and nobody else makes hot dogs. You take advantage of this and start selling hot dogs at $20 but guess what... now only 10 people want to buy hot dogs at this high cost so you are spending $1000 on maintaining the hot dog stand but earning only $200.
So what would you do?
Continue selling hot dogs at $8 thereby making $800 a month and let the government support your business by providing the remaining $200
OR
Separate the sausage and the bread and sell them both for $1 each thereby giving food, though not the same as hot dog, but it is still some food, to 200 people instead of 100 but making only $200 and ask the government to pay remaining $800?
What do you think is the better option? Serve good hot dogs to 100 people and ask government for $200 help
OR
Serve incomplete food to 200 people and ask government for $800 help?
johnny.menhennet
Conductor
But by moving the equip form a different train where it is being utilized well you are hurting those trains bringing down their CR, because so much of the demand on the Silvers is like NYP-TPA, TPA-MIA, NYP-ORL, WAS-MIA, RGH-ORL, NYP-SAV and other markets like that. First is that not all Florida traffic wants to go to 30 miles above Orlando. Second is that lots of the people boarding on the NEC north of WAS are not going to want to drive to Lorton to board. Third and most important, the lack of any intermediate markets hurts the prospective passengers and if try to stop somewhere it will only slow the train down and hurt reliabilty. THE AUTO TRAIN IS FINE THE WAY IT IS, SO WE SHOULD NOT CHANGE IT NOR DIVERT SOME OF ITS EQUIPMENT TO ANOTHER SERVICE.
Caesar La Rock
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 693
I have an idea. How about eliminate zero routes? Eliminating a route usually has negative after effects, especially for other forms of transportation that made money off the route that is eliminated.
johnny.menhennet
Conductor
The horror!!! If cutting any Surfliner service, the obvious choice is definitely what used to be 798, 799, whatever their new numbers are now. They have by far the lowest farebox recovery of all Pacific Surfliner runs and are genuinely not important. When they are extended to SFO, I'll be all for them, but until then, keep your hands off my south-of-LA service.
If there was a RT that HAD to be eliminated south of LA, I'd argue for either the 8:30pm southbound or the 11:10am southbound, The 11:10 train is SOOO popular during the racing season, but the rest of the year it's not that great. Northbound, I'd have to go for the train that leaves SAN in between the 12:00 and 2:40, because that train is not AS well used. That would be my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
