More Frequencies

[Guest_Jerry]

Can Amtrak add trains to run between, lets say Chicago-Cleveland, or would that be a "new train"? If it can, I say there should be 5-car Amfleet trains running from Chi to Cleve and Cincinnati. I bet there can be a few sets taken from the NE and be put there. Currently there are no day trains between those cities.

 

[battalion51]

That would be considered a new route. If it's not on the current slate it's a new train. The only way Amtrak is able to get away with adding frequencies right now is when it's on a route that has state support for funding. If the state's of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are willing to put up the cash I believe it can be done.

 

[Guest_Jerry]

So lets say if that bill that gives Amtrak 1.9 bill a year over the next 6 years comes to pass, would that allow Amtrak to start new routes?

 

[AlanB]

So lets say if that bill that gives Amtrak 1.9 bill a year over the next 6 years comes to pass, would that allow Amtrak to start new routes?

No.

Amtrak is under a moratorium that prevents any new routes, unless some other entity guarentees that Amtrak will not loose money on that route.

That entity can be a city, a state, probably even a private investor, but Amtrak can not start a new service without someone promissing that they won't loose any money.

 

[Trogdor]

So lets say if that bill that gives Amtrak 1.9 bill a year over the next 6 years comes to pass, would that allow Amtrak to start new routes?

No.

Amtrak is under a moratorium that prevents any new routes, unless some other entity guarentees that Amtrak will not loose money on that route.

That entity can be a city, a state, probably even a private investor, but Amtrak can not start a new service without someone promissing that they won't loose any money.

Well, the "no expansion unless someone else pays for it" rule is actually a condition of the $100 million DOT loan to Amtrak in 2002. Once Amtrak pays that off (which they certainly would, if they received the money they were asking for), those restrictions would no longer apply.

On the other hand, even if Amtrak *could* add new routes (meaning, there was no rule/restriction/law prohibiting it), it wouldn't be a good idea to do so until they get the rest of the system running well.

 

[saxman]

it wouldn't be a good idea to do so until they get the rest of the system running well.

Define running well. Besides bad timeliness, I believe Amtrak is running well. They are not is a crisis, as David Gunn says. The service is no better than the airlines. It's better than Greyhound. I think adding routes goes hand in hand with improving current trains.

 

[AlanB]

Well, the "no expansion unless someone else pays for it" rule is actually a condition of the $100 million DOT loan to Amtrak in 2002. Once Amtrak pays that off (which they certainly would, if they received the money they were asking for), those restrictions would no longer apply.

It's true that originally the "no expansion" bit was part of the $100 M DOT loan.

However, with last year's funding bill Congress put in a few provisions that require the DOT to release the money to Amtrak, instead of getting it directly. Additionally they included a clause that just like that loan above, prevents future expansion for the time being, unless Amtrak is guarenteed not to loose money on the route by a third party.

As far as I know there was also a clause that required Amtrak to use $100 M of the total appropriation to pay off that loan.

 

[Trogdor]

While things are improving, the equipment situation, for example, is still one or two steps away from "desperate." There was a time earlier this year when Amtrak was short of Horizon cars, and couldn't run a full complement of cars on its Midwest trains. There's still a shortage of equipment. Trains are running too short right now, and expanding routes won't improve the equipment situation. If Amtrak placed an order for new cars today, it would be several years before the first one would see revenue service.

A few days ago (or maybe it was a couple weeks ago, I forget), Amtrak didn't have enough serviceable locomotives in Chicago to get trains out on time. Trains had to leave late while the engines were turned off of inbound trains, after they had to get serviced, fueled, etc.

On top of that, timeliness is still a factor. It's not all the freight railroads' fault. Amtrak still has a problem with trains leaving their initial terminals late. It's not always a huge problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. As noted earlier, the engine problems delayed trains out of Chicago a while ago. Bad-ordered equipment also delays trains from their initial terminals.

If congress voted tomorrow on (and Bush signed) a bill to provide Amtrak with $1.9 billion for FY06, they still wouldn't be able to add any routes.

 

[Superliner Diner]

It's no more than a fantasy, but I have always advocated multiple frequencies on long distance routes. Look at any timetable and visualize it with the AM's and PM's reversed. That would be a 12-hour "flip".

Stations served only by trains in the wee hours of the morning would get a daytime train that operates on a "flip" schedule. Of course that would mean less attractive times in the train's endpoint cities, but then the endpoint cities' stations are probably easier to get to at night than those in smaller towns along the route.

Such a train would probably cater more to the intermediate station stops anyhow. When the PENNSYLVANIAN ran Philadelphia to Chicago, it departed and arrived at both endpoints at inconvenient times, thus ridership was not all that great. But it provided daytime service to places between Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, and it did rather well in these shorter markets.

 

[superchief]

amtrak can add additional frequency if they want ona existing route without state funds or with state funds.

 

[AlanB]

amtrak can add additional frequency if they want ona existing route without state funds or with state funds.

Yes, that they can do. They just can't start any new routes.

 

[MrFSS]

They just can't start any new routes.

At what time in the history of Amtrak did that become effective? Day one, or some time down the road.

They have taken routes away in the past, but are they able to take away routes now?

Just curious.

 

[AmtrakFan]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

 

[AlanB]

They just can't start any new routes.

At what time in the history of Amtrak did that become effective? Day one, or some time down the road.

That happened right after David Gunn took over from Warrington in 2003 and discovered that Amtrak was broke. The DOT loaned Amtrak $100 Million to cover payroll, with the condition that Amtrak could not add any new routes unless an interested third party guarenteed that Amtrak would not loose money.

They have taken routes away in the past, but are they able to take away routes now?

Yes, Amtrak can still cancel routes, recent examples are the Palmetto and the 3 Rivers.

 

[AlanB]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

Again, as I mentioned above, even with the loan paid off and assuming that Amtrak can find the equipment, neither the Pioneer nor any other train can be started.

With the budget last year, Congress added it's own language to the funding package that in effect continues the moratorium from the original loan.

At present, without a change from Congress, Amtrak cannot add any new routes, even once the loan paid off. The only exception remains if some third party covers the losses, if any.

 

[Trogdor]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

Again, as I mentioned above, even with the loan paid off and assuming that Amtrak can find the equipment, neither the Pioneer nor any other train can be started.

With the budget last year, Congress added it's own language to the funding package that in effect continues the moratorium from the original loan.

At present, without a change from Congress, Amtrak cannot add any new routes, even once the loan paid off. The only exception remains if some third party covers the losses, if any.

But that was last year's budget. Presumably, said language would have to be inserted in each budget for it to remain in effect.

 

[PRR 60]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

Again, as I mentioned above, even with the loan paid off and assuming that Amtrak can find the equipment, neither the Pioneer nor any other train can be started.

With the budget last year, Congress added it's own language to the funding package that in effect continues the moratorium from the original loan.

At present, without a change from Congress, Amtrak cannot add any new routes, even once the loan paid off. The only exception remains if some third party covers the losses, if any.

But that was last year's budget. Presumably, said language would have to be inserted in each budget for it to remain in effect.

Prior to last year, Amtrak funding was provided directly to Amtrak. Starting last year, grants pass through the DOT and must be approved by the DOT prior to payment. Any new routes or increased service on existing routes require that Amtrak prove to the DOT that such actions will not increase the need for additional subsidy. In other words, new routes must be self sustaining. That pretty much kills any new routes.

 

[Trogdor]

Prior to last year, Amtrak funding was provided directly to Amtrak. Starting last year, grants pass through the DOT and must be approved by the DOT prior to payment. Any new routes or increased service on existing routes require that Amtrak prove to the DOT that such actions will not increase the need for additional subsidy. In other words, new routes must be self sustaining. That pretty much kills any new routes.

I guess my point is, exactly who gets the funds (i.e. Amtrak directly, or through the DOT) is an issue that is dependent on the specific budget. Just because they decided to do it last year doesn't mean they'll do it again for next year. Likewise the restriction on adding new services. If certain language was placed in the budget last year, it doesn't apply forever. It only applies until the next budget gets passed.

 

[AmtrakFan]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

Again, as I mentioned above, even with the loan paid off and assuming that Amtrak can find the equipment, neither the Pioneer nor any other train can be started.

With the budget last year, Congress added it's own language to the funding package that in effect continues the moratorium from the original loan.

At present, without a change from Congress, Amtrak cannot add any new routes, even once the loan paid off. The only exception remains if some third party covers the losses, if any.

Alan,

Actually with the Pioneer Route in the new 5 Year Bill it is in there that says Amtrak needs to do a study about restoring the Pioneer.

 

[AlanB]

When the loan is payed off and everything is fixed up I would expect to see a return of the Pioneer.

Again, as I mentioned above, even with the loan paid off and assuming that Amtrak can find the equipment, neither the Pioneer nor any other train can be started.

With the budget last year, Congress added it's own language to the funding package that in effect continues the moratorium from the original loan.

At present, without a change from Congress, Amtrak cannot add any new routes, even once the loan paid off. The only exception remains if some third party covers the losses, if any.

Alan,

Actually with the Pioneer Route in the new 5 Year Bill it is in there that says Amtrak needs to do a study about restoring the Pioneer.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to see the Pioneer resurected, heck I'd love to see many routes return and a doubling of current services to 2 trains per day, but a study is a long ways from actuality.

And then there remains the issue for the present time, there isn't enough equipment to go around.

 

[WICT106]

While on the topic, I think one issue that needs to be addressed is the quality of service. While many Amtrak employees do their best out on the "front lines," as it were, I have run into several passengers who felt that the advertizing created expectations that the service at some point didn't deliver upon. People have come to expect many more amenities than what may be offered aboard.

As for frequencies, I would also like to see on the western and midwestern routes a second frequency. A second train that operates 12 hours earlier (or later) than than the existant trains, on each of the routes. The market for these services would most certainly be the middle stops - not the end points of the routes. It would certainly help ridership along the Empire Builder's route, as the train would be going through places like Glacier National park during the daytime, and hitting places like Saint Cloud and Saint Paul during more reasonable hours as well.

 

[Trogdor]

I disagree with the need for a 12-hour different (flipped) schedule. Such changes are almost guaranteed to result in poor times at the endpoints. Thus, these routes would be limited from the beginning because they wouldn't be able to enjoy much (if any) connecting traffic. Let's face it, nobody really wants to connect between trains at 2 am.

On the other hand, however, a schedule shifted by 6-8 hours is still likely to give decent times to the cities that currently get service at bad hours. Plus, it would still preserve decent times at the endpoints.

As an example, if the second Empire Builder left Chicago at 10 pm (still a decent time, as it enables connections from every other route into Chicago, plus allows people to spend the night on the town and still catch the train), it would pass through St. Paul at 7 am (conflict with the eastbound Empire Builder on the current schedule, but those details can be worked out with other adjustments). The rest of Minnesota would get decent times, as would western Montana and eastern Washington. The train would arrive in Seattle or Portland at 6 pm. If the return train departed the west coast at 8 or 9 am (8-9 hours earlier), it would hit the current overnight stops at a decent hour, and would reach St. Paul around 10 pm. The train would then get to Chicago around 7 am, in plenty of time to make practically all connections in Chicago (except for the earliest departures, which are on routes that have multiple frequencies anyway).

The side benefit, in this case, is you now have a convenient overnight train between Chicago and St. Paul, which would allow someone from Minnesota to spend the day at home, travel to Chicago without the need for a hotel, spend a full day in the Windy City, then return home in time for a full day back at home (or work). It also opens up connections between the Empire Builder and the Texas Eagle, Southwest Chief, and California Zephyr, which do not exist at present.