Why not "Economy Minus" on Amtrak to draw bus passengers?

Jeff Smith wrote:

Suburban Station wrote:I think you're wrong on every point here. The middle class is cost conscious. Unless youre a snob i cant see why anyone would opt for the slower, more expensive commuter rail option over the bus. Commuter rail is an inadequate substitute.

That's non-sensical. Commuter rail is MORE expensive? I've not analyzed how much it costs to ride NJT vs. Amtrak from NYP to Trenton, for example, Having ridden Amtrak from Hartford into the city, and priced it against MNRR for the New Haven segment, I can tell you for a fact MNRR is cheaper.

I am 100% certain that the comparison being made was between commuter rail and bus, not commuter rail and Amtrak. And Suburban Station is completely correct that the bus is, in fact, both cheaper and faster than commuter rail, where the direct comparison exists, i.e. primarily PHL-NYP.

That said, when I travel to New York, I do tend to take the slower, more expensive commuter rail, for a few reasons that are only loosely connected with snobbery. One is comfort; the bus was fine up until very recently, but I'm starting to need that extra bit of room (yes, even a MLV is less cramped than a Megabus). Another is flexibility; walk-up fares are often not available on the discount bus carriers, or they're expensive. I can keep a SEPTA ticket in my wallet and buy my NJT ticket on my smartphone from somewhere in Bucks County, not having to worry much at all about the schedule. I can also take the train from the nearest station, which for me is North Philadelphia, not Suburban or 30th Street. And that last is the last thing that encourages the train; I'm not paying full price. The PHN-TRE ticket is $3.50 while the ticket from 30th is $9.00; if I'm traveling on the weekend (very likely, in at least one direction), I'm riding for free on my SEPTA Transpass.

Thanks; I clearly misread that.

Greg Moore wrote:I'll point out that the Federal name has already been used for the successor to the Twilight Shoreliner. I think it better to keep it for that again in the future.

That thought did cross my mind when writing the post and I didn't address it in part to be as succinct as possible.

In general I think rebranding like this works given the fact that only a few experts on rail passenger service history, such as many of those who post here, would be aware of the previous usage.

Given that the name has been out of use for several years now (almost two decades at this point ... ?) I think its worth reusing. It's an especially apt branding word for any service that originates or terminates in Washington, D.C. and it does not have the more luxe implications of something like the Congressional, Senator or anything with Limited or Express.

I want something that makes people think of things like the Postal Service, "slow, reliable but efficient". Of course the fact of the matter is that the Postal Service is in fact quite rapid compared to the distant past and it is very much still a "full service" operation with universal service. That in many ways is a good analogue to what we are talking about here.

As much as it would be preferable for Amtrak to just run an unnamed train or solely focus on the sale of cheap fares I think running a separate named train service is the right way to go about this. People who pay attention to travel and are budget conscious are going to be sensitive to marketing for this kind of train (the same way they're sensitive to the discount bus operators). They'll figure out the deal: "We'll give you fares you can afford but the train is going to be slow." The "hidden" benefit is that because the train will stop at every Amtrak station the train will allow some unusual city pairs that otherwise don't receive service and therefore is exceptionally convenient to the price sensitive traveler.

That is going to be a very attractive proposition to a lot of people who will be willing to jump up from $1 to $30+ simply because they'll be able to connect and travel in a far more comfortable fashion and it may end up being faster anyways.

This is some ways might be the "Southwest Airlines" version of passenger rail travel. And the inversion of this principle (universal service to small points as opposed to SWA's selective service to population centers) actually makes a lot of sense for train travel.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:
Volks, really; for 45 hours, say CHI-LAX; or even 24 NYP-ORL?

You know, I could have selected a photo from, say, India, but chose instead this of China HSR.

OK, someone will be quick to say that how much different is this than the "back of that bus with wings"? Answer, not much, but at least after six hours anywhere US domestic it is an "over and done".

And? It sounds like a service that you'd not like to use rather than an argument against such service

Not that end-to-end discount LD trains where what people were suggesting either

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Volks, really; for 45 hours, say CHI-LAX; or even 24 NYP-ORL?

You know, I could have selected a photo from, say, India, but chose instead this of China HSR.

Look at the photo more closely, except for the first row, only two of the three seats are occupied as far as you can see. Then look at the first row again, can you determine which one of them is the odd one out? I can! Obviously even the Chinese don't like the third seat too.

CComMack wrote: I am 100% certain that the comparison being made was between commuter rail and bus, not commuter rail and Amtrak. And Suburban Station is completely correct that the bus is, in fact, both cheaper and faster than commuter rail, where the direct comparison exists, i.e. primarily PHL-NYP.

This is completely correct. I think where this thread is off base is in assuming the bus market is the target. The target should be the majority who drive..even in the philly ny market the majority drive. Why? They dont want to ride a bus or the bus is too slow, commuter rail is a two seat completely noncompetitive trip and the only deairable option..amtrak, ia prohibitively expensive. The buses are getting some of the market share but most goes to the car. Clearly if you think amtrak should only cater to the rich in the nec as they currently do then theree should at least be one seat commuter rides. The problem is amtrak is much more capable of serving the market even at lower price points. Amtrak does not have to worry about as many crew changes, theyre set up in all the markets, etc. Take a cue from sncf, lower fares come from shorter turn times (frontier operates this way as does southwest). Use airline seating which is thinner, utilize keystone seating arrangements (half the car faces each direction reducing turn times), and use cab cars to eliminate equipment moves in dc and allow for station turns anywhere

I think previous experience shows that Amtrak cannot cover their expenses, let alone capital costs, when the Northeast Regionals were being run on a discounted basis. Cab cars have their own issues related to safety but I think there's a lot of room for debate on operational details there.

I do think Amtrak is served very well by the current system that they are running. Acela is almost perpetually sold out at this point and the Northeast Regional service continues to grow even despite the downturn in gas prices. The additional service extensions in Virginia over the next few years are going to have a significant impact on ridership as will the speed improvements in New Jersey and of course the deployment of the new high speed trainsets.

Overall I think the all-stop train, running once or twice a day (or perhaps even overnight) is the real answer. That kind of operation would allow Amtrak to promote itself as providing access to "value" travelers without having to compromise an extraordinarily successful operating model on the Northeast Corridor.

Suburban Station wrote: This is completely correct. I think where this thread is off base is in assuming the bus market is the target. The target should be the majority who drive..even in the philly ny market the majority drive. Why? They dont want to ride a bus or the bus is too slow, commuter rail is a two seat completely noncompetitive trip and the only deairable option..amtrak, ia prohibitively expensive. The buses are getting some of the market share but most goes to the car. Clearly if you think amtrak should only cater to the rich in the nec as they currently do then theree should at least be one seat commuter rides. The problem is amtrak is much more capable of serving the market even at lower price points. Amtrak does not have to worry about as many crew changes, theyre set up in all the markets, etc. Take a cue from sncf, lower fares come from shorter turn times (frontier operates this way as does southwest). Use airline seating which is thinner, utilize keystone seating arrangements (half the car faces each direction reducing turn times), and use cab cars to eliminate equipment moves in dc and allow for station turns anywhere

I'll agree all NEC trains, even better all regional trains, should be configured like the Acela trains with cabs on both ends of the train. Although the cars in the trains could use regular type couplers making it easier to add or subtract cars, instead of what Acela uses. Even better, instead of having a single large 4,000 HP locomotive on one end of the train, have one smaller 2,000 to 2,500 HP locomotive on both ends of the train. It works well for Acela, it should work just as satisfactory for regional trains. Then having turning loop or wye tracks will not be necessary to turn trains. Instead of having four axles pulling the train, you'll have eight axles doing so - should result in far less wheel slip during leaf season.

Quicker turn-arounds should be a goal for all modes of public transportation, but let's not compromise on any standard on the trains - cleanliness, operations, maintenance, and food stocks.

Back to the threads main topic, as I wrote earlier, I don't object for Amtrak to add a lower class of service using lower fares- as long as this new lower class service is revenue neutral. I'm not sure a revenue neutral lower service class can be done.

As for competition, at the IRS approved deductible rate of 54 cents cost per mile for business use to operate an auto, it should cost $50.76 to operate a car the 94 miles between Philadelphia and New York City. I believe Amtrak fares are competitive with that! Additionally, I don't know how much one would have to pay in tolls to use the Turnpike?

The Next Generation Corridor Equipment includes a cab car in the standards. That should help on the turn around issues significantly. At present Amtrak has no real source of new cab cars and the ones that they have do not meet their present needs for crash worthiness.

Suburban Station wrote: This is completely correct. I think where this thread is off base is in assuming the bus market is the target. The target should be the majority who drive..even in the philly ny market the majority drive. Why? They dont want to ride a bus or the bus is too slow, commuter rail is a two seat completely noncompetitive trip and the only deairable option..amtrak, ia prohibitively expensive.

What exactly do you mean by the Philly-NY travel market?

Do you mean Center City to Manhattan? City of Philadelphia to any of the five boroughs? Inside of the Blue Route to inside of 287?

For at least the last market, even free NEC travel would not be that competitive with driving, because at least one end would require a car rental or multiple likely-to-be-inconvenient public transit transfers.

electricron wrote:

Suburban Station wrote: This is completely correct. I think where this thread is off base is in assuming the bus market is the target. The target should be the majority who drive..even in the philly ny market the majority drive. Why? They dont want to ride a bus or the bus is too slow, commuter rail is a two seat completely noncompetitive trip and the only deairable option..amtrak, ia prohibitively expensive. The buses are getting some of the market share but most goes to the car. Clearly if you think amtrak should only cater to the rich in the nec as they currently do then theree should at least be one seat commuter rides. The problem is amtrak is much more capable of serving the market even at lower price points. Amtrak does not have to worry about as many crew changes, theyre set up in all the markets, etc. Take a cue from sncf, lower fares come from shorter turn times (frontier operates this way as does southwest). Use airline seating which is thinner, utilize keystone seating arrangements (half the car faces each direction reducing turn times), and use cab cars to eliminate equipment moves in dc and allow for station turns anywhere

I'll agree all NEC trains, even better all regional trains, should be configured like the Acela trains with cabs on both ends of the train. Although the cars in the trains could use regular type couplers making it easier to add or subtract cars, instead of what Acela uses. Even better, instead of having a single large 4,000 HP locomotive on one end of the train, have one smaller 2,000 to 2,500 HP locomotive on both ends of the train. It works well for Acela, it should work just as satisfactory for regional trains. Then having turning loop or wye tracks will not be necessary to turn trains. Instead of having four axles pulling the train, you'll have eight axles doing so - should result in far less wheel slip during leaf season.

Quicker turn-arounds should be a goal for all modes of public transportation, but let's not compromise on any standard on the trains - cleanliness, operations, maintenance, and food stocks.

Back to the threads main topic, as I wrote earlier, I don't object for Amtrak to add a lower class of service using lower fares- as long as this new lower class service is revenue neutral. I'm not sure a revenue neutral lower service class can be done.

As for competition, at the IRS approved deductible rate of 54 cents cost per mile for business use to operate an auto, it should cost $50.76 to operate a car the 94 miles between Philadelphia and New York City. I believe Amtrak fares are competitive with that! Additionally, I don't know how much one would have to pay in tolls to use the Turnpike?

The NJ Turnpike is about $10 and the bridge and tunnel to NYC is about $15 (to NYC; no charge back to NJ) so aggregate of $25 in tolls one way and $10 return. Parking for the day in NYC will run somewhere around $40. So a business meeting without considering gasoline and wear and tear on the car is about $75 round trip. Add to that the ability to get work done on the train, and Amtrak is extremely attractive.

I prefer Amtrak but often, because of limited money for traveling, ride Bolt Bus or Megabus. I'm not sure Amtrak can compete with the discount buses on fares. A lower-fare, all-stops train would actually be preferable to me because when I travel from Virginia to NJ I usually get onto NJ Transit's North Jersey Coast Line. The Metropolitan service proposed in the Northeast Corridor Future proposals would be ideal for me, because it would not only be cheaper than regular Amtrak fares, it would actually be a faster trip if I could get on a train in Virginia or Washington and get off at Rahway, NJ, rather than transfer to NJ Transit at Trenton and again at Rahway, or ride to Newark and head back out again. Whether Amtrak could get a good return on such a local, cheaper service, I don't know. Most of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains I've ridden in the past few years have been full. Maybe Amtrak is better off using any expanded capacity to sell more regular coach seats.

gokeefe wrote:The Next Generation Corridor Equipment includes a cab car in the standards. That should help on the turn around issues significantly. At present Amtrak has no real source of new cab cars and the ones that they have do not meet their present needs for crash worthiness.

This is very good news, combined with twice an hour acela should enable amtrak to offer more reaaonably priced regional service by making more efficient use of equipment and more premium seats. In the short term they should increase discounts for children, groups, and eliminate the 14 day advance on the nec.
As to the naysayers, to travel to ny from philadelphia this thuradays is 55 northbound, 88 southbound..thats 143 dollars per person...so lets say 75 is fair, amtrak is well above that...now lets say theres two of us, were up to 286 while the cost of driving is fixed. Then many people are actually going to brooklyn, downtown, uptown, etc so the value declines for them. Otoh the cost of serving more people is much cheaper for amtrak since most of the costs are fixed.
Philly ny is the largest market in the nec, is it amtraks largest market by volume?

And thats just ny where amtrak has the largest advantage not the other city pairs lile nhv or baltimore where parking is much less expensive and demand weaker.

Suburban Station wrote: As to the naysayers, to travel to ny from philadelphia this thuradays is 55 northbound, 88 southbound..thats 143 dollars per person...so lets say 75 is fair, amtrak is well above that...now lets say theres two of us, were up to 286 while the cost of driving is fixed.

Are those NJT or bus fares if Amtrak is well above that?