What small changes would increase ridership exponentially?

[A Voice]

I have sometimes wondered why Amtrak could never conceive a class of seating which you would consider as being underneath Amtrak's usual definition of coach class. If Amtrak could take a chair car from the Silver Meteor, for example, and reconfigure the seating in that car to have more of a motor coach feel- all the while charging substantially less fare per seat- this would certainly be a more efficient means of competing with carriers like Megabus between short distance markets. Of course this would not be a product that you would reasonably market to long distance travelers. But Amtrak should take note of the fact that companies like Megabus and Spirit Airlines are capturing a new breed of no-frills passenger. There should be some effort to play along on Amtrak's part, and of course the ridership would increase substantially.

This would actually work nicely in the NEC, where high NE Regional fares drive a lot of potential pax to the Bolt Bus.

Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.

While there is no doubt a market for low-priced intercity rail service in the Northeast, and I personally like the idea, offering such service would likely hurt revenue significantly as passengers formerly paying Regional coach fares defect to the cheaper option. It would not be just bus passengers attracted to low-cost "commuter-style" trains. There would be an increase in ridership certainly, but largely from just the increased capacity; There is a shortage of single-level cars and capacity constraints on Acela. Addressing the capacity issue would alone boost passenger counts, but that is hardly a small change.

So long as there is adequate demand to fill greater overall train capacity, the emphasis should likely be on selling more premium-priced seats. This gives you both the capacity to increase ridership and the greatest revenue. Better to sell 100 seats at $150 than to fill 250 seats for $50 or less.

 

[ainamkartma]

Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.

OK, but is it not the case that there is no significant additional capability available into NYP? So any new budget train capacity would displace some of the present premium cost capacity?

So here is an alternate scheme: instead of running the new budget trains to NYP, turn them around at Newark, and have the low cost passengers transfer to PATH to get into NYC. Is there track capacity available for this kind of service between WAS and Newark? Could it come close to recouping its cost, assuming you used commuter-style equipment? Would it be worth running even at a substantial subsidy, if it provided transport to lower income people for whom the present NEC costs are out of reach?

Edit to add: I am of course assuming that there is excess PATH capacity under the Hudson available outside of rush hour; is this in fact the case?

Ainamkartma

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Local service, say 4 hours WAS-NYP (current NE Regional is about 3.5 hours) using commuter style equipment at commuter style fares, say $20-$50 WAS-NYP instead of the current $50 - $150. Maybe code share with the commuter operators. It would allow more one seat service to intermediate stations, and capture some of the bus traffic.

OK, but is it not the case that there is no significant additional capability available into NYP? So any new budget train capacity would displace some of the present premium cost capacity?

So here is an alternate scheme: instead of running the new budget trains to NYP, turn them around at Newark, and have the low cost passengers transfer to PATH to get into NYC. Is there track capacity available for this kind of service between WAS and Newark? Could it come close to recouping its cost, assuming you used commuter-style equipment? Would it be worth running even at a substantial subsidy, if it provided transport to lower income people for whom the present NEC costs are out of reach?

Edit to add: I am of course assuming that there is excess PATH capacity under the Hudson available outside of rush hour; is this in fact the case?

Ainamkartma

You said the T word. I highly doubt out of towners will want to board a train stopping in Newark when they really want to go to New York. If you really want a cheap train, why not stop at New Carrolton south (tell them to T-word to Metro)? I can't even find a NJ Transit train that terminates in Newark (although I think a train from Newark to Philly makes sense the same way New York to Trenton does while New York to Philly wouldn't). Besides, why would Amtrak want to prop up PATH?

 

[jis]

There are no facilities in Newark to turn a train without causing huge disruption to the NEC flow beyond the hourly Raritan Valley trains that are turned there. So just forget about it unless you have a very significant budget handy to redo the track layout at the Hudson Yard. And trust me, there are a dozen other places where that money would be better spent with better return.

 

[Lonestar648]

Airline meals are less than acceptable unless in First Class. Have you seen what the airlines pay for the meals they service?? Its highway robbery! Delta pays over $100 for an average First Class meal. So, I do not see a savings financially or an improvement in food quality. I am a 2M flyer with Delta and 1M with United, so I have experience with airline food. To me, Amtrak has the kitchen on board, therefore the opportunity exists to improve the food quality and experience in a way the airlines can not. The Dining experience is a critical component to the LD rail system.

 

[jis]

'Tis the labor cost which kills in highly constrained financial environment, which often causes people to do penny wise - pound foolish things, optimizing the immediate while shortchanging the overall performance.

Even the airlines after all these years are suddenly starting to improve their offerings in the front cabin and restarting food service in the rear cabin on domestic flights, and improving the offering in the rear on international flights. I suspect Amtrak will be following them in five or so years if things stay on course.

 

[Ryan]

Meals do not need to be over the top

gourmet to be considered acceptable. There is a wide gap that can be filled by meals that are far cheaper than $100/plate.

The food in Acela First is "airline style" and is perfectly adequate and costs significantly less than $100 ea.

 

[neroden]

"What small changes would increase ridership exponentially?"

Caring enough to bother to put service disruption notices on the website. Amtrak doesn't care enough apparently.

 

[dlagrua]

IMO, good service and better OTP will in itself increase ridership. If the freight tracks get more congested in the future we may see alternative routes being reactivated. Look at the single track through the Moffat Tunnel. It's a huge bottleneck for the CZ . If freight traffic gets any heavier the UP could reopen the old Rio Grande Tennesee pass route that also goes through the Rockies... The track is still there but the route is currently mothballed and listed as out of service. UP has not abandoned the line. With a bit of maintenance, traffic through the Mofftat can be cut and Amtrak performance will increase.

 

[west point]

There are no facilities in Newark to turn a train without causing huge disruption to the NEC flow beyond the hourly Raritan Valley trains that are turned there. So just forget about it unless you have a very significant budget handy to redo the track layout at the Hudson Yard. And trust me, there are a dozen other places where that money would be better spent with better return.

This poster has long held the same idea. However With the shutdown yesterday Friday 24th due to the derailment at NYP both NJT and Amtrak seemed to reverse trains at NEWARK PENN the other way with too much confusion. May need to rethink ? Some one there yesterday could give us a thumbnail.

Been sometime since Newark Penn. For passengers inbound to NYC it has been relatively easy to board onto PATH. Now for the outbound unless changed the upper level discharge of PATH trains to get to a NJT or Amtrak trains always seemed awkward. Still the same ? The main item of PATH is how difficult for passengers getting NYP <> PATH 33rd street ?. Plus have to add in the few passengers from Empire trains to the NEC ?

 

[jis]

As long as there is no stream of through traffic to keep flowing, as happens when NYP is shut down you can turn all the trains in the world at Newark. But when you have to maintain close headway through stream of traffic through Newark you cannot turn trains there without severely disrupting the flow. So no, there is nothing to rethink. All this is already very well known, modeled and analyzed.

 

[Carolina Special]

How much capacity in terms of train slots is there currently to add traffic on the NEC? Assuming Amtrak could round up the engines and cars? Anything there slotwise or would it require substantially more infrastructure spending? Of course, Schumer is going to cut an infrastructure deal with Trump (ha!).

I recognize most of the board wants to increase LD trains, but from a business standpoint you'd want to reward what is supposed to be most rewarding part of the business-first the NEC and other corrider traffic as applicable, then state supported, then finally LD.

And for the LD, I think adding capacity to the existing trains first before taking the three day trains to weekly or adding additional lines makes more of a quick buck with minimal added costs up front. That is, if the new sleepers show up anytime soon.

Just my opinion.

 

[jis]

There is no single answer. The situation is different from segment to segment, with the New York area probably the most congested and yet carrying the highest capacity at present.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

How much capacity in terms of train slots is there currently to add traffic on the NEC?

... most of the board wants to increase LD trains, but from a business standpoint you'd want to reward what is supposed to be most rewarding part of the business-first the NEC and other corridor traffic as applicable, then state supported, then finally LD.

And for the LD, adding capacity to the existing trains first before taking the three-day trains to [daily] or adding additional lines makes more of a quick buck with minimal added costs up front. That is, if the new sleepers show up anytime soon.

Minimal capacity on the NEC, especially during rush hours when you need it most. But when/if the Avelia Liberty cars arrive to replace the Acelas, Amtrak does plan to squeeze in two (or three?) more frequencies each morning and late afternoon.

I can't think of another Amtrak corridor besides the NEC that's not state-supported.

The D.C.-Richmond corridor is built on Amtrak's Palmetto, Silver Meteor, Silver Star and the overnight train 66/67 to Newport News, as well as North Carolina's Carolinian. But Virginia has been supporting several Regionals extending to Richmond (and Newport News and Norfolk) to fill out the D.C.-Richmond corridor schedule.

Which reminds me that when the haters and cut-the-budget fanatics declare their desire to close the LD lines, they don't understand, or don't care, how many corridors are built on, or supplemented by, LD trains. Not just the Richmond corridor, but the Empire Service NYC-Albany-Buffalo-Niagara Falls overlapping the Lake Shore Ltd., the Cascades where four Talgo trains are supplemented by the Coast Starlight, the Lincoln service St Louis-Chicago where again four state-supported trains are supplemented by the Texas Eagle, the Lynchburger/Crescent route, Illinois' Carbondale and Quincy trains, and maybe others I'm forgetting. Chopping the LD trains would cost all these corridors a frequency, obviously, making them all less convenient with a consequent hit on ridership, and raising their costs as station operations and other shared expenses are not so much shared.

Anyway, is there a way to direct much Amtrak funds to add or improve the state-supported trains? A little Amtrak funding seems to go as matching money toward new or upgraded stations, along the Keystone Corridor for instance, but not much else. Congress dumped those trains on the states and there you are. Well, not that Amtrak has any funds to spare toward the corridors, but if it did, that's where the money should go. Otherwise, the best use of Amtrak's funds for the LD trains will be to replace (and expand) the single-level and bi-level fleets.

Clearly Amtrak's current overall policy or strategy is to add capacity to existing trains. The Viewliner IIs will add another sleeper to each of the New York-based LD trains. Maybe another 2 or 3 can add a sleeper to the overnight 66/67 that runs Boston-Newport news. And maybe 1 or 2 can supply the third (or fourth) consist to take the Cardinal daily.

You may underestimate how good the bang for the buck will be for taking the 3-per-week Cardinal to a daily schedule, and making the Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle daily between San Antonio and L.A. In both cases, the PRIIA studies forecast that ridership would more than double. You can't double ridership by adding another car to existing trains. So two trains going from 3/7 to 7/7 schedules is probably the best single change possible to gain disproportionate benefits.

Now Amtrak is working toward restoring service New Orleans-Florida. We haven't heard how much it will cost to upgrade the signaling etc to get CSX to agree to carry this Gulf Coast train. But Amtrak's study showed that operating losses could be a very modest $10 million or less each year for an important addition and link to the national system, bringing 140,000 new riders on board Amtrak.

Hereabouts, member Philly Amtrak Fan has made a strong case to restore a Broadway Ltd NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Chicago, and most members here support the idea.



Otherwise, while we have post after post, and thread after thread, of fantasy expansions of service, none are likely to happen in a 10-year horizon, and we know it.



Remember that it's not really "either/or" for corridor trains and LD, it's "both/and". What Amtrak needs most is Stimulus-level funding for upgrades to the corridors, and almost any corridor improvement will benefit an LD train. So, a high(er) speed 110-mph Cincinatti-Indianapolis-Chicago corridor would transform the Cardinal. A high(er) speed Cleveland-Toledo-CHI route would transform the Lake Shore and Capitol Ltd. High(er) speed on St Paul-Milwaukee-CHI would transform the Empire Builder. Even 79-mph top speed Carbondale-CHI could make a huge improvement to the City of New Orleans' performance. And so forth. If we could invest a lousy $10 Billion in half a dozen corridors it could transform Amtrak's national system. Then we'd really need more cars on every LD train.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Well, dayum. My apologies.

Apparently the AU system will not allow an edit to [ i ] or [ /i ]. So once you've posted half in italics, live with it. LOL.