#41 Three Rivers Trip Report PHL-CHI 5/27/04-5/28/04

I want them to succeed and have great LD service.

No, the correspondent wants "them" to offer CHEAP long-distance service. It's just the same old falsehood: Amtrak is "too expensive." How do we know this is false? The sleepers that day were sold out.

If we want Amtrak to price its sleepers below market demand and below cost, then we want Amtrak run as a entitlement program for whiny so-called railfans. But we said we wanted Amtrak run "like a business." That means, among other things, market pricing for sleepers. We asked for it, we got it--and we've had SEVEN YEARS to get used to it. So what exactly is the complaint?

Now for this bit of doubletalk:

[T]he railsale was a good value, the bad value was the quality of the coaches (are electric outlets for NEC riders only?), number of delays.

The Rail Sale was a low price. Did that make it a good value? Not necessarily. That depends on the purchaser--specifically whether the purchaser was willing to adjust expectations to match. And clearly in this case he wasn't.

forget . . . that I am a railfan

Good idea.

mattfels wrote:If we want Amtrak to price its sleepers below market demand and below cost, then we want Amtrak run as a entitlement program for whiny so-called railfans. But we said we wanted Amtrak run "like a business." That means, among other things, market pricing for sleepers. We asked for it, we got it--and we've had SEVEN YEARS to get used to it. So what exactly is the complaint?

Well, I can tell you my complaint! 50 Viewliner sleepers is nowhere near adequate for all of Amtrak's single level long distance routes. Perhaps if they had a decent supply of sleeper capacity, the prices wouldn't be so outrageous.

Without quoting specific fares, I would be interested in comparing Amtrak's sleeper fares with those on VIA Rail, and with sleeper fares in Europe on comparable length routes.

If we want lower sleeper fares, the market-based approach is the best. That means increasing the supply of sleeper space. hsr_fan has this exactly right. I suggest taking up this particular complaint with the people who make sleeping-car orders possible:

http://www.house.gov/writerep
http://www.senate.gov

But let's be clear right up front: Not even a full-out sleeper glut wll reduce sleeper fares for Memorial Day weekend travel to "Comfort Inn" levels.

I've got to go with Matt Fels on this one. The reality is that sleeper cars are expensive because the demand is outstripping the paltry supply. But the paltry supply of sleeper cars is mostly due to the lack of any leadership at the national level on actually funding a national rail system. That sleeper routinely sell out - or get very close - means there is demand. This despite not-so-great on-time performance, lack of dining cars, etc. etc. Imagine the demand if one could actually depend on regular ontime service between NYP and CHI (or choose your city set).

I have a business trip from Lancaster, PA to Chicago in September that I had been planning on taking via Amtrak sleeper on the Three Rivers. Given that I could save 2 nights in a hotel by traveling a sleeper the trip would have been cheaper by rail than plane. However, I waited too long and now the RT sleeper cost is much higher than it was a month or so ago. Demand is upping the sleeper price - as it should, IMO.

But I looked at the flights from Philly roundtrip and it turns out that since Train #40 leaves CHI at 10:30 PM, I can leave the same day my meeting ends and still save a hotel that night in Chicago. So where things stand now, it's cheaper for me to fly out (because I can't depend on Amtrak actually getting me to CHI at the published 7:45 am time and I can't miss my meetings for an entire morning), but it is less expensive for me to get a sleeper home.

Given that I live a mile from the Lancaster station, I can drive my car there, pay $4/day in parking, take Amtrak to 30th Street, SEPTA to the airport, fly to Chicago, take CTA downtown from Midway, and then take Amtrak back to Lancaster two days later. I find that to be an incredibly convenient connection of transportation systems. A little bit of online searching and I get an inexpensive RT trip to Chicago and get to take my first sleeper trip on Amtrak to boot.

I guess where I'm going with this is to say that it takes a bit of work to get all of the logistics down, but it can be done and Amtrak LD CAN be less expensive and more convenient on some trips - and not on others. The key is to making sure that our elected officials understand the need for transportation CHOICES so that we can each decide which mode of travel bet fits our needs on any given trip. And since we all know that every single mode of motorized transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, the tired old line about Amtrak not being a money maker is laughable at best.

Even though I believe a posting on this page made at 828A could have been presented in a more respectful manner, good points have been made here.

There are off corridor markets in which Amtrak's "printed timetable' and sleeping car fares make overnight point to point business travel competitive both with price and utility. Markets coming to mind are of course CHI-PGH, CHI-MEM, Tuscon-LAX (on paper! reality HAHAHAHA). the only problem is for corporate travel desks (be they in-house or outsourced) to recognize them.

Although not exactly business in nature and scope, a trip I made last August Chi to Memphis on #59 was simply one way point to point transportation (return was auto), which wasmade on two days notice. Any non-stop on UA, AA, or NW had a one way walk-up fare of roundly double the Amtrak fare. A "low fare" ("Critter") would have been a "change at ATL" and with the fare still notably higher than Amtrak.

A problem beyond a travel desk employee saying "what's Amtrak" is of course breaking down the "fly/drive mentality". That to me would appear to be a barrier. Mr. Keystone made the effort to investigate the alternatives, but it appears to be an effort in order to JUSTIFY the use of Amtrak to a no doubt skeptical boss. He will make the effort to use Amtrak/Septa to get to PHL for his outward flight; how many others from Lancaster would simply call up the limo for a pickup?

In closing, with the limited availability of Sleepers, Amtrak cannot expect to participate in the off-corridor business travel market. It will simply be there for the "niche" use such as Mr. Keystone plans. I guess one can turn on a Classic movie channel and hear a line of script saying "I'll be on The Century tonight". Real life today is something else.

With all due respect, this claim is just plain false.

Amtrak cannot expect to participate in the off-corridor business travel market.

"Cannot expect"? Amtrak does. Washington to Atlanta is just one example, as reported a while back in that notorious railfan rag The Wall Street Journal.

Every time we go through this exercise, we uncover nearly a dozen major-city pairs where Amtrak offers credible overnight business travel options in both directions. Wishful thinking and willful denial don't change that.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:A problem beyond a travel desk employee saying "what's Amtrak" is of course breaking down the "fly/drive mentality". That to me would appear to be a barrier. Mr. Keystone made the effort to investigate the alternatives, but it appears to be an effort in order to JUSTIFY the use of Amtrak to a no doubt skeptical boss. He will make the effort to use Amtrak/Septa to get to PHL for his outward flight; how many others from Lancaster would simply call up the limo for a pickup?

Well, I am the boss (of not much, but I do make the travel decisions for myself). I am also a cheapskate, so I investigate the most cost-effective modes of travel when I have to get somewhere and back. I can get to PHL International Aiport for under $35 including RT Amtrak and SEPTA fares from Lancaster. It is a no-brainer way of getting to the Philly airport. It's not only less expensive than driving, it is far, far more convenient and less-stressful than driving.

But I do agree that the trick is in actually getting people to even think about this option. The majority of people who could easily take the train the the Philly airport don't even know it's an option. And with Amtrak's budgetary inability to really advertise it is an option that's likely going to only grow in popularity if more and more people talk about it to other travelers. I do this, and have gotten a few to make the change and they've liked it. I just wish Amtrak had the ability to do more advertising about these kinds of travel options because getting someone on even one train who's never riden before gets them to start thinking about Amtrak as a travel option for other trips. That could only benefit Amtrak.

Paid ad messages have their uses, of course, but nothing's more effective at any price than word of mouth. Positive or negative. Spending more dollars is one way to increase the effectiveness of Amtrak's marketing efforts, but it's by no means the only way. Fans have a role to play, and I'm delighted to see that KeystoneRider "gets it."

Mr. Fels--
Once again you said

"... we said we wanted Amtrak run "like a business."

Who is the "we" referred to? Hardly any members of Railroad.net want Amtrak run like a business. Some people, such as members of Congress and of various Administrations, may say they want Amtrak run like a business, but what they really mean is, they want Amtrak to go out of business.
Everyone of good faith, who has studied railroad passenger service, knows it can't be "run like a business" in the sense of run to make a profit. It is conceivable that special-purpose, limited-audience passenger service could make a profit--maybe the AOE makes a profit, maybe the Alaska cruise line trains make a profit--but no serious businessman or student of transportation has believed, at least since the fifties, that general-purpose, common-carrier rail passenger service could make a profit. And, in fact, if you include all applicable costs, it may be that railroad passenger service hasn't made a profit for the last 90 or 100 years, if ever.
So, Mr. Fels, please stop baiting us with the expression that "we" wanted Amtrak run "like a business."

JoeG wrote:Who is the "we" referred to?

That's easy. All of us collectively--majority rules. Back in 1997, most of the so-called railfans at the USENET groups rec.railroad and misc.transport.rail.americas thought that "run like a business" was a dandy way to give Amtrak a taste of the lash. All advocates were pushing for reauthorization. If there were serious misgivings about the "run like a business" element expressed by a vocal minority, let alone a majority, I saw no evidence of it. Not online. Not in letters to the editor. Not on the floors of the House and Senate, where the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act passed on voice votes.

The problem, of course, came later, when it became apparent that "run like a business" didn't necessarily match the assumptions of the railfan proponents. Some are still trying to work through this cognitive disconnect. But make no mistake: As a community, as a society, as a nation, we said we wanted Amtrak run "like a business." Regardless of how individuals felt about this collective decision, we all get to deal with it. Denial is not an option.

Mr. Fels--As someone who often clamors for facts, you might appreciate my wish for facts in this case. Why do you, who sneers at Usenet, now use it as evidence for a majority (!) view? Congress passes lots of horrible bills, that do not reflect majority views (sugar subsidies, oil tax loopholes, etc) --mostly by voice vote, to reduce the accountability of individual legislators.
We certainly have lots of apathy in this country, and many people do not bother to vote, or to write letters to legislators or editors.
I am sure that many Americans want Amtrak abolished; they may believe that it does them no good and costs them tax money, etc. Maybe there are people who had bad trips on Amtrak and hope it dies. Certainly the Congressmen who vote for inadequate Amtrak appropriations continue to get elected.
But, Mr. Fels, I would like you to provide one example of a significant group whose majority wants Amtrak run as a business.

I find both Messrs Fels and Grossman's comments to be interesting and made to the Forum in good faith.

In the case of Amtrak I believe "run like a business" translates to "run in an economic and efficient manner"

That's not how Congress saw (or sees) it, of course. Run like a business meant exactly that—have more revenue coming in that going out (translating into a net profit). IOW they wish(ed) it to be unique among transportation modes in the whole country...

mattfuels wrote:

the correspondent wants "them" to offer CHEAP long-distance service

Of course I do, you want to pay more? Go look up the fares for a one way trip. For that kind of money I could drive there in a lesser amount of time and a lot cheaper too, even with gas at these prices. Multiply that by 2 for the roundtrip and its alot of money for a long, slow train ride. And when I say slow, I am referring to the poor track conditions, the waiting for the freight train game, and the track out of service game.

Go look up the price for flying from Philly to Chicago and compare that to the Amtrak sleeper option. Its a HUGE difference My point being, Amtrak does offer a different service, and in terms of time it is inferior. Therefore if they want to attract more riders they should be priced accordingly.

If we want Amtrak to price its sleepers below market demand and below cost, then we want Amtrak run as a entitlement program for whiny so-called railfans

The demand of sleepers exceeding supply is not my problem, and if it costs them that much to run them they might as well not bother, I'll stick to coach, and please don't belittle yourself by insulting others. I'm not whiny, I simply expect good service.

mattfuels wrote:

The Rail Sale was a low price. Did that make it a good value? Not necessarily. That depends on the purchaser--specifically whether the purchaser was willing to adjust expectations to match. And clearly in this case he wasn't.

Ok Matt, so lets say I bought regular tickets and the sleeper for all that money. The train was still late, it was slow---Regardless of what tickets I bought, I expected the train to depart on schedule and arrive on scheudle and be able to make my connections. Yes, delays do happen to all modes of transportation, but in the case of the train its really inexcuseable. The fact that humans take a back seat to oil and other commodities is pathetic. I rode 4 trains on that trip and they were all late. 0/4 is very bad performance. So regardless of if I traveled Business Class or Coach has no bearing on my expectations. I expected on time performance.[/b]

Hardly any members of Railroad.net want Amtrak run like a business

They should run like a business. I don't mean turn a profit, I know that won't happen. Running like a business also means being customer oriented. It means running on time, and performing to customers expectations. What happened to the PRR days when everything was analyzed to maximize performance and minimize cost? Thats what running like a business means. When you will perform well, your customers will stay loyal.

I should note, although I can't quote a specific number, that I heard countless times on our trip "This is my last Amtrak trip" because of the excessive lateness, and outside of the NEC they all seem to do just that. If the LD trains have no practical purpose outside of railfanning and tourism, Amtrak might as well fold them up and let a private tourist operation run them. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Go look up the price for flying from Philly to Chicago and compare that to the Amtrak sleeper option. Its a HUGE difference My point being, Amtrak does offer a different service, and in terms of time it is inferior. Therefore if they want to attract more riders they should be priced accordingly.

First, time isn't always everything. Second, where are they going to put these additional riders? If the car sells out at such high prices, then why should Amtrak lower them?

The demand of sleepers exceeding supply is not my problem, and if it costs them that much to run them they might as well not bother...

So, because they're priced more than you care to pay, Amtrak shouldn't bother offering them? That's what I'm getting out of that statement.

If the LD trains have no practical purpose outside of railfanning and tourism, Amtrak might as well fold them up.

Too bad they do have a practical purpose, as evidenced by the fact that they're constantly running full, and have experienced the largest ridership gains (percentage wise) in the last year or two of any trains on Amtrak's system, so unfortunately Amtrak won't be folding them up.*

*Note: slight sarcasm in last sentence