Trying to discourage short hauls on CZ, SWC

[rtabern]

Ever since I moved back to Wisconsin in 2003, I have enjoyed doing day round-trips between Chicago and Galesburg... it's a very nice and very affordable to way to get your "train fix" on between long distance trips. My usual route has been to go CHI-GBB on #381 and come back GBB-CHI on #4. What I liked about that routing is that if #4 is running on-time you can usually get lunch in the diner and spend time in the Sightseer Lounge (almost feeling like you are on a LD trip on the return)... plus you avoid having to deal with a round-trip in the nasty Horizon equipment which I can't stand.

(You can do the same turn on #3/#5 and taking #382 back to CHI, except you don't have the option for a meal in the diner)

Anyway, for the last 9 years atleast, a Chicago to Galesburg trip has always started out at the same low bucket price... regardless of whether you are talking about taking the Illinois corridor trains or the long-haul trains --- the "low bucket" is now $20.00 one way before any discount.

HOWEVER, now in the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that the "low bucket" or atleast what the price the fares are starting at, have jumped on the long distance trains between Chicago and Galesburg. They appear to be starting at $27.00 versus remaining steady at $20.00 for short haul trains.

I'm wondering if Amtrak is doing this to discourage people from taking the long-haul trains to/from Galesburg? or is this just a fluke?

And no, I book these trips several months out... so it's not just the fact they have been bumped up to a higher bucket. I tried numerous dates CHI-GBB in 2013 already and this appears to be the case with every day I have tried.

I will probably still pay the extra $7 to ride on #4 because I like the SSL and diner, but I hope this trend doesn't continue too much and gets even higher... or else I will have to scale back the number of daytrips.

 

[amamba]

Lots of LD trains are just no longer offering low bucket fares.

 

[dart330]

I would say yes they are. In my experience trying to get to CHI from KCY is always more expensive on the SWC than the MORR & IL Service (7hr 32min vs 12hr 25min). It was $50 vs $49 but has moved up to $80 vs $53. Unfortunately this keeps a lot of people I know from taking the train since the quick route is becoming so much more expensive.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

In the perspective of someone looking for a seat for the "long haul", I'd be mad if I couldn't get a seat because a rail fan wants a seat for the short haul when s/he could take another train.

 

[rtabern]

I would say yes they are. In my experience trying to get to CHI from KCY is always more expensive on the SWC than the MORR & IL Service (7hr 32min vs 12hr 25min). It was $50 vs $49 but has moved up to $80 vs $53. Unfortunately this keeps a lot of people I know from taking the train since the quick route is becoming so much more expensive.

Yeah, for whatever reason, prices on the Southwest Chief, especially between Chicago and Kansas City, seem a little too high sometimes, in my opinion.

I have some of my railroad photography on display at the Silver Rails Art Gallery in La Plata, MO. If you haven't been out there, please visit! It's one of the few railroad-themed art galleries in the country. (BTW, my prints are available for purchase there or on their website, http://www.silverrailsshop.com/robert-tabern.html). Anyway, needless to say, I like to head out between Chicago and La Plata several times a year to swap out photos or meet with the gallery owner.

The "low bucket coach fare" (YD) is $128.00 round-trip... not too bad in my opinion for nearly 10 hours on the train. I will only go to La Plata if I can get the low bucket round-trip.

The "high bucket coach fare" (Y) is $250.00 round-trip... Ummm... no, thanks, I'll pass.

Now, what is interesting about the fares on the Southwest Chief, atleast from Chicago to La Plata, is that you can actually save a lot of money sometimes by booking two separate segments. For example, instead of buying a through ticket from CHI-LAP, you book a CHI-GBB and then a GBB-LAP ticket for the same train. If you do this round-trip at the "low bucket coach fare" (YD) you can get the price of the Chicago to La Plata round-trip down to just $102.00. Low bucket YD from CHI-GBB is $20.00 and from GBB-LAP is $31.00... that's $51.00... and giving you a round-trip of $102.00 as stated.

Sometimes you can also actually SAVE money by going in a roomette.

For example, this coming weekend, June 23-24 (2012), my fiancee and I are going out to La Plata, MO together on the train... as the art gallery owner is also going to be our wedding photographer is October. For a change of scenery, and because I have never rode the whole length of the Carl Sandberg, we are going out on #381 CHI-QCY (and then will be picked up in QCY and driven to LAP by our friend) -- but we are going back home on the Southwest Chief #4 on Sunday 6/24.

One way for both of us at the "high bucket coach" (Y) fare from La Plata, MO to Chicago would have been $250.00 even. Yikes! For 5 hours in coach??

But, there was, for whatever reason, a "low bucket" roomette still open... so we jumped on that... as it was $247.00

So, always check ROOMETTE FARES!!! For 2 people, a "low bucket" roomette is actually $3.00 cheaper than high bucket coach!!!

These are just some of the tricks I learned when booking on the Southwest Chief. :blink:

 

[rtabern]

In the perspective of someone looking for a seat for the "long haul", I'd be mad if I couldn't get a seat because a rail fan wants a seat for the short haul when s/he could take another train.

True, you have a point. However, I'll counter that to a degree... and point out about all of the LOST REVENUE Amtrak gets from putting up "R" (receive only) and "D" (drop only) stops on some of its long distance trains to try and block "short haul" passengers from riding the long distance trains, especially in the Midwest and the East Coast.

What am I talking about??? We'll, here is an example:

Let's say 50 people get on the westbound Empire Builder (Train #7/27) in Milwaukee. If you have ever taken that train, you will notice that is not an unreasonable figure as usually several dozen of my fellow 'cheese heads' get on the westbound train in MKE. However, since Milwaukee is an "R" (receive only) stop for #7/27, and one can not buy a ticket on the Empire Builder from CHI-MKE, those 50 seats are actually going totally empty between Chicago and Milwaukee.

It's the same thing for the eastbound Empire Builder (Train #8/28). Let's say 50 people get off in Milwaukee... maybe you didn't realize it... but their seats are actually going to be empty all the way into Chicago. Being a "D" (drop only) stop... no one can get on #8/28 in Milwaukee and ride to Chicago for the "short haul".

I totally understand the logic of the "D" and "R" stops... as Amtrak wants the "short haul" passengers going from Chicago to Milwaukee to take the Hiawatha Service trains -- instead of tying up a seat for someone possibly going all the way from Chicago to Portland or Seattle on the long distance Empire Builder route. (sorta what the previous posted said)

HOWEVER, what I argue is... why make Milwaukee a "D" or an "R" stop for the Empire Builder? That is very old-fashioned in thinking.

In my opinion... what ARROW (the booking system) should do is block all CHI-MKE sales on #7 right out of the gate. HOWEVER -- for each passenger who books from Milwaukee westbound -- open up a seat for sale from CHI-MKE if someone wants to ride the Empire Builder instead of the Hiawatha. OR, open up a MKE-CHI seat on #8 for each passenger who is getting off in Milwaukee.

This would be per diem -- for each ticket sold from MKE west on #7, one seat would open up in the reservation system from CHI-MKE for someone to purchase.

So, if 50 passengers are getting on #7 in Milwaukee and going west... there should be 50 seats for sale on #7 from CHI-MKE... since those seats are going to be empty anyway, right???

It might not seem like a huge deal, but it adds up over the course of the year. Considering the Chicago to Milwaukee fare is $23.00... letting 50 seats just sit there and go vacant every day from CHI-MKE on #7... and 50 more seats go vacant on #8 from MKE-CHI... adds *up to* $2,300 in additional revenue for Amtrak. Over the course of the year -- that is a staggering $839,500. Of course, Amtrak is not going to sell a MKE-CHI ticket on #8 for every single person who gets off -- but even if they sold 25 tickets a day -- that is still well over $400,000 in additional revenue -- for not having to do anything (no additional cost) except changing the settings in ARROW.

Plus, sometimes on the Hiawatha recently, it's been "standing room only"... why not add some extra capacity??

 

[amamba]

Eh $125 doesn't sound too bad to me for a 5 hour ride but maybe I am nEC jaded. I am on the 162 right now and it was $133 NYP - BOS for regional coach.

 

[rtabern]

Eh $125 doesn't sound too bad to me for a 5 hour ride but maybe I am nEC jaded. I am on the 162 right now and it was $133 NYP - BOS for regional coach.

Egh, I think we're just spoiled with cheap fares here in the Midwest, esp on the Illinois-service trains.

You can actually get 5-6 hours on the train here (CHI-STL) for $23.00 (YD fare)... with a NARP discount it's $21.60.

But yes, the east coast fares do sometimes give me a heart attack... LOL... as I go to NYC for about 10 days every July and stay at my sister's condo there when she is traveling on business. It's hard to pay $145.00+ for 3 hours on the train (Acela) when you can get 3 hours on the train here in the Midwest (Lincoln Service CHI-LCN) for like $13.00. I just justify it as I only really get to ride Acela for a week or so out of the year, so it's a treat, and I splurge... plus with the Select Plus upgrade coupon and the 750 points special city pairs it's not bad.

 

[jebr]

In the perspective of someone looking for a seat for the "long haul", I'd be mad if I couldn't get a seat because a rail fan wants a seat for the short haul when s/he could take another train.

True, you have a point. However, I'll counter that to a degree... and point out about all of the LOST REVENUE Amtrak gets from putting up "R" (receive only) and "D" (drop only) stops on some of its long distance trains to try and block "short haul" passengers from riding the long distance trains, especially in the Midwest and the East Coast.

In my opinion... what ARROW (the booking system) should do is block all CHI-MKE sales on #7 right out of the gate. HOWEVER -- for each passenger who books from Milwaukee westbound -- open up a seat for sale from CHI-MKE if someone wants to ride the Empire Builder instead of the Hiawatha. OR, open up a MKE-CHI seat on #8 for each passenger who is getting off in Milwaukee.

Is there a time savings in not having to board or discharge people? I would imagine that there's a couple minutes (at least) of time saved there. If a train is late, those couple of minutes are not able to be spared, imo.

 

[PaulM]

Is there a time savings in not having to board or discharge people? I would imagine that there's a couple minutes (at least) of time saved there. If a train is late, those couple of minutes are not able to be spared, imo.

I doubt the extra couple of minutes is what's stopping Rtabern's excellent, not to mention obvious, suggestion. More likely it's a computer system problem. I can picture someone manually moving seats from one bucket to another on a one by one basis. I've often thought of the same thing. Starting out, a bedroom from CHI to GBB is valuable to Amtrak. But once someone books GBB to anywhere west (CB&Q?), it becomes almost worthless.

Just curious, how far would you take the concept of not picking up passengers to save time?

 

[willyvee]

While I don't see the logic in running "receive only" ® stops, I do see a slight advantage in running "discharge only" (D) stops. By running with (D) stops, the train is allowed to depart as early as it wants since all passengers using the station will be on the train.

One example I can think of is Fullerton, CA with the SWC. In the mornings when #3 arrives LAX there is probably considerable rail traffic that could slow it down. If #3 happens to be running early, then the crew can save time and be ready for delays by leaving FUL early. This also could allow LD trains to run ahead of schedule for the last few stops of their run and arrive their destination early, meaning that eager passengers could get off early as well.

While it still isn't logical enough of a practice to face up to rtabern's suggestions, there are at least a couple advantages.

 

[winterskigirl]

I sometimes get my "train fix" riding the Coast Starlight roundtrip from SEA-KFS. There are some really great deals in Hotels at Klamath Falls OR also. Maybe the higher rate is due to summer rates? Higher traffic = goal to increase revenue I'd suspect.

 

[Rail Freak]

I sometimes get my "train fix" riding the Coast Starlight roundtrip from SEA-KFS. There are some really great deals in Hotels at Klamath Falls OR also. Maybe the higher rate is due to summer rates? Higher traffic = goal to increase revenue I'd suspect.

Is KFS the stop closest to Crater Lake?

Thanx

 

[Montanan]

In addition to a "discharge only" stop allowing a train near the end of its run to depart a station early, one other issue is that of train connections at the endpoint. If a long-distance train is more likely than a short-distance train to be late, it makes sense to put local passengers on the short-haul train, since there'll be less likelihood of that passenger enduring a missed connection ... and Amtrak having to absorb the costs of that.

While I'd certainly rather ride a Superliner train than a Horizon coach, too, I think this is one of those scheduling decisions where I'm going to assume that Amtrak knows what its doing. They have a lot more data to analyze than we do, and overall I think they've been doing a very good job of maximizing train ridership/revenue, given all the constraints they're stuck with.

 

[rtabern]

In addition to a "discharge only" stop allowing a train near the end of its run to depart a station early, one other issue is that of train connections at the endpoint. If a long-distance train is more likely than a short-distance train to be late, it makes sense to put local passengers on the short-haul train, since there'll be less likelihood of that passenger enduring a missed connection ... and Amtrak having to absorb the costs of that.

While I'd certainly rather ride a Superliner train than a Horizon coach, too, I think this is one of those scheduling decisions where I'm going to assume that Amtrak knows what its doing. They have a lot more data to analyze than we do, and overall I think they've been doing a very good job of maximizing train ridership/revenue, given all the constraints they're stuck with.

I don't think dwell time (mentioned by an earlier poster) would really be a problem with what I mentioned with the Empire Builder. #7 usually arrives in Milwaukee early and sits there for 15-20 minutes waiting for its 3:55PM departure time. The Hiawatha often boards its 200-300+ passengers at Milwaukee in 5-10 minutes. #8 makes a quicker stop at Milwaukee, however, they swap out engineers at MKE on #8, and usually sit there for 5-10 minutes anyway, plenty of time to board 25-50 passengers... or however many would be riding down to Chicago on #8.

Unlike the example mentioned with #3 at FUL, there really isn't that much rail traffic to "tie up" at MKE either. #7 and #8 are the only passenger trains to run west of Milwaukee... and there is some CP freight traffic, but there are 4 tracks through the depot and a freight bypass around the station via Musekego Yards located south of the Intermodal Station.

#8 can be late and that could be a problem, but there is also an unreserved 3:00PM Hiawatha, that Amtrak could put passengers on to Chicago if #8 were more than 45 minutes late on a given day. And #7 is often on time into MKE (unless it leaves CHI late which is rare) so this wouldn't really be an issue with the westbound train. (BTW, the "late thing" is why Amtrak made Galesburg a "D" stop for #6 but not for #4 per the station manager in GBB)

My guess is that it's a computer problem freeing up 1 seat on #7 for every person who boards MKE-points west, but it should be looked into more seriously if it can make Amtrak extra money (We're talking possibly several hundreds of thousands of dollars) and not purposely let seats run empty from CHI-MKE

 

[Donctor]

OR, open up a MKE-CHI seat on #8 for each passenger who is getting off in Milwaukee.

But then 8 would have to be somewhat on-time. (Even worse, it might have to wait for time.)

I understand that this concern has been addressed. I do believe that the problems it would cause would not be consistently avoidable. Given what else has to be dealt with, I believe Amtrak shouldn't be worrying about this. It really isn't a big deal. (Whether it is symptomatic of a larger problem at Amtrak, like lack of effort/planning, etc., I haven't a clue.)

 

[Montanan]

#8 can be late and that could be a problem, but there is also an unreserved 3:00PM Hiawatha, that Amtrak could put passengers on to Chicago if #8 were more than 45 minutes late on a given day. And #7 is often on time into MKE (unless it leaves CHI late which is rare) so this wouldn't really be an issue with the westbound train. (BTW, the "late thing" is why Amtrak made Galesburg a "D" stop for #6 but not for #4 per the station manager in GBB)

My guess is that it's a computer problem freeing up 1 seat on #7 for every person who boards MKE-points west, but it should be looked into more seriously if it can make Amtrak extra money (We're talking possibly several hundreds of thousands of dollars) and not purposely let seats run empty from CHI-MKE

Except that your scenario is based on the premise that you're increasing overall capacity, and if you plan to move #8's short-haul passengers to a Hiawatha whenever #8 is late, then there'd need to reliably be extra unsold capacity on the Hiawathas available to accommodate that.

An additional issue would be that the Empire Builders are reserved trains, where the Hiawathas are not. That creates a confusion to novice passengers, some of whom would inevitably want to try to use the Empire Builder without a seat reservation.

Anyhow, I'm not just being devil's advocate, here ... I'm just confident that Amtrak made this change for a reason, and they ran the numbers before doing so.

 

[Dan O]

I sometimes get my "train fix" riding the Coast Starlight roundtrip from SEA-KFS. There are some really great deals in Hotels at Klamath Falls OR also. Maybe the higher rate is due to summer rates? Higher traffic = goal to increase revenue I'd suspect.

Is KFS the stop closest to Crater Lake?

Thanx

Looks like Chemult is a bit closer but I'd think Klamath Falls would have way more services as it is an actual town. Never been on the Coast Starlight but have been to Crater Lake. Last time we were there in late June and the road around the lake was not open until July 1. Took some pics of the kids in front of 20 foot snow drifts. It was a bit chilly there and quite a few bugs that we noticed when we were camping. Gorgeous place to visit though.

Just looked at East Rim drive is still closed due to snow.

Dano

 

[AlanB]

In addition to the issue of a late inbound #8 & the complications of only selling a seat MKE-CHI when the seat has been sold further west but not east, I suspect that the bigger issue is that Wisconsin doesn't want Amtrak stealing revenue from the Hiawatha's that WIS has to pick up the tab for. If Amtrak sells such a ticket on the EB, that revenue goes to the EB & not the Hiawatha. That makes the bill to WIS bigger.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The issue is not only with short-haul on LDs, the CZ and LSL fares long-haul are never at low bucket even if I search everything I can on Amsnag.

edit: error

 

[Karl1459]

Re K Falls vs Chemult.

You might be able to rent a car in K Falls, its a nice small city. Chemult has just a couple of motels and day only cafes, pretty lonely.

 

[cirdan]

Just curious, how far would you take the concept of not picking up passengers to save time?

Sometimes it's more than "just" saving time.

For example if you ride on the Crescent or the Silvers (I think?) and maybe some of the other trains that start outside the NEC but feed in at some point, quite often once they're on the NEC proper, they no longer pick up passengers but just stop to set down.

That means that if they're early they don't need to wait for time but can continue to run early if conditions allow. The minutes saved are probably insignificant but if a train can move on early it is potentially avoiding congestion. Also, as these LD trains are more delay-prone than NEC internal trains, Amtrak is shielding passengers from that by not even offering them in the booking system for short runs.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The minutes saved are probably insignificant

Actually, on the NEC, LD trains can save up to 45 minutes.