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

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.

Then go do it. It's that simple. Just don't expect Amtrak to feel injured.

This little rant nicely illustrates what's wrong with the so-called railfan. He thinks himself indispensable to Amtrak, and that therefore Amtrak should indulge his every desire. Including, in this case, the "right" to cut ahead of a customer willing to pay $300 for a sleeper he wants to pay $70 for.

There's just one little problem: Railfans aren't indispensable. Not to Amtrak. If this forum is anything to go by, most so-called railfans have been in semi-boycott mode for years, yet the ridership and revenue keep rising. With every new fiscal year, the so-called railfans become more and more irrelevant.

If any further proof of rant is needed, consider the goofy lunge from fares to timekeeping--clear example of picking up whatever's loose and hurling it. Enough. The road is calling. So is a nice soft bed at a cozy Comfort Inn. Answer them. Bon voyage.

Mr. Frey--
You are clearly unhappy with Amtrak and with your experiences on your recent trip, but I'm not sure who or what you're mad at, and what, if any, remedies you propose.
There are two meanings to "like a business." There is Mr. Norman's meaning, that Amtrak should be run efficiently and economically, and presumably should provide good customer service. There is the meaning the Amtrak Reform Council uses, and Mr Fels frequently refers to, which is that Amtrak should be run so as to make a profit, or at least not require subsidies. This second meaning can't be satisfied--running Amtrak to require no subsidies means Amtrak goes away.
But then, Mr. Frey, you say that Amtrak sleepers are too expensive, but they are full so you can't get a sleeper. Since Amtrak is behaving as Congress mandates, and maximizing its income while utilizing as fully as possible its limited rolling stock, it seems your beef is really with Congress and the President. It seems that you are asking for a bigger subsidy for Amtrak so it can buy more cars charge lower rates. But instead of blaming Congress and the President, you blame Amtrak. How can you justify blaming Amtrak for the government shortchanging them?
Finally, you complain about lateness caused by freight railroad dispatching practices, which often give Amtrak lower priority than freight trains. But again, this problem is caused by lack of money. There is no money provided to expand railroad rights of way, and no money provided to increase incentive payments to freight railroads for ontime Amtrak performance. In all the things you complain about, Amtrak is much more the victim than the cause.
Obviously, if you find Amtrak trips unpleasant, you will drive or take a plane or the Hound. And, if Amtrak frustrates you, you can get short-term relief by venting on this forum. On the other hand, were you to write an angry letter complaining about the bad effects of shortchanging Amtrak to your congressman and senators, you might actually accomplish something.

jfrey40535 wrote: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.

Describe "accordingly". Then consider all of the factors. If all fares were to be priced as low as you want, then how much does the government have to throw in to make up the loss in revenue? Perhaps you want a train that's (literally) almost falling apart.

Not to mention that in your apples/oranges comparison with the airlines (who are subsidized at an almost infinitely higher rate than Amtrak), you neglected to note that there is no such thing as sleeper service on an airliner.

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

If you expect good service, then perhaps you have not neglected writing your congressmen and senators? Those are the people responsible for the shortage of sleepers that is not "your problem". Those are the people that can provide cheaper sleeper service.

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

But is it? I suppose you have never heard of "circumstances beyond control". Did you complain to Norfolk Southern or Conrail Shared Assets over the lateness of the train you were on?

The fact that humans take a back seat to oil and other commodities is pathetic

No, that's business. The humans weren't paying the bills on NS or CSX as much as the commodity shipments. The federal government hasn't learned to subsidize the railroads like the EU has (and the EU is a larger trading bloc than the US is right now—perhaps the USA needs to take some lessons, if it isn't already too late).

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

Are you this demanding with airlines? They are often late and don't receive this level of complaint. Complain to who is truly responsible, not to and about an underfunded corporation with tied hands.

They should run like a business. I don't mean turn a profit

But when you say "run like a business", that's exactly what one means. When businesses don't make money, they go out of business.

Running like a business also means being customer oriented. It means running on time, and performing to customers expectations

No, that's actually running like a service. Other public transportation agencies run buses and trains on time and perform to the expectations of their users, often exceeding them. Does that make them businesses? No. So what are those aforementioned qualities characteristic of?

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

You are about 54 years behind the times. When you ask questions like that, you also have to ask "what happened to the days when you could run trains at 100+ mph without needing an expensive combination of CTC, cab-signal and one to two forms of ATC on your main line"? The answer to that is, "the ICC did away with that in 1950, slowing the vast majority of trains down to 79 mph, and that was the beginning of the decline of rail passenger travel in the USA, because that killed passenger rail's competitive edge". Consider exactly what the PRR and other roads did following that ICC edict of 1950—all of which led up to the creation of Amtrak. Not even ten years after the ICC edict, it was necessary to subsidize train service.

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

"Outside of the NEC". Says a lot, right? If you can demonstrate how Amtrak can "call the shots" on roads that aren't theirs, then explain it to us. These aren't the days of government non-interference in passenger rail service, when trains could run at competitive speeds and even take priority over freights because they could run fast enough to keep out of their way.

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

"Private tourist operations" already exist, and believe me, you can't afford their prices (e.g. AOE). Now they are most definitely "run like businesses" and their aim is to turn a profit. Are you sure you want that? If "private tourist operators" could do what Amtrak does for cheaper, then guess what—Amtrak would not exist. Nor would the private railroads have given up their own passenger service to Amtrak in the first place. So is it "wasting our tax dollars" or not spending enough of them to get the service you are looking for? Think about that before you reply.

Of course, the growth of ridership on Amtrak has demonstrated that LD trains indeed do have a practical purpose. Amtrak would have died out a long time ago if there was no "practicality" to it.

I think it is significant that there are a number of knowledgable railfans who think that much of Amtrak's operations are impractical (ie, long distance trains) and "critical" only to a very small number of potential users (ie, those seeking an adventure, those who are afraid to fly or those who live in small rural towns that are miles from an airport).

Living in New England and traveling for business and pleasure a fair amount, I rarely see Amtrak as an attractive alternative to either driving or flying. I use the NEC perhaps once a year generally for business to NYC and long distance trains less frequently and only for railfan fun. For personal travel from the suburbs of Boston to the suburbs of NYC (eg, LI), Amtrak can't compete with personal car for time or $ for a family of four. And for long distance travel, Amtrak can't compete with Jet Blue or SWA based on time and $ (eg, Denver to Boston: Jet Blue $100 each way/4 hours v. Amtrak $166/45 hours) even when you throw in the security time/aggravation. So my opinion as a railfan is you can't throw enough taxpayer $ at long distance passenger rail to overcome its inherent disadvantages compared to the plane, even if you could make every toilet work and every train would be on-time and frequent, etc. So even if long distance trains become perfect, I don't think there will be nearly as much demand for these services as there is for interstate highways and commercial airline service.

Having said this, however, I am a big believer in public funding (regional and federal) of corridor and commuter/suburban passenger rail operations where there is much more demand and fewer viable alternatives.

johnpbarlow wrote:I think it is significant that [there] are a number of knowledgable railfans who think that much of Amtrak's operations are impractical (ie, long distance trains) and "critical" only to a very small number of potential users

Disgraceful is the word I would use. But I say you can make NO conclusions about what's "significant" from namby-pamby phrases like "a number."

Living in New England and traveling for business and pleasure a fair amount, I rarely see Amtrak as an attractive alternative to either driving or flying.

"New England" is not the United States in microcosm.

For personal travel from the suburbs of Boston to the suburbs of NYC (eg, LI), Amtrak can't compete with personal car for time or $ for a family of four.

Nor, of course, can any airline.

And for long distance travel, Amtrak can't compete with Jet Blue or SWA based on time and $ (eg, Denver to Boston: Jet Blue $100 each way/4 hours v. Amtrak $166/45 hours)

Assuming that you're going where JetBlue or Southwest flies. If you're traveling to/from, say, Jacksonville or Richmond, the picture changes. And neither of these is a small rural town.

Further, 45 hours is not a typical train trip. Average is more like half a day in coach, a full day in sleeper. It's more than foolish to try to make broad generalizations using samples way out on the edge of the bell curve, cherry-picked to put the object of derision at a clear disadvantage. That's a Wendell Cox ploy.

So even if long distance trains become perfect, I don't think there will be nearly as much demand for these services as there is for interstate highways and commercial airline service.

Oh, come now. A highway and a train are not the same thing. (Wendell Cox uses that ploy, too.) In order to use a highway, you must acquire and operate a VEHICLE. Besides, just a few sentences back the same correspondent compared Amtrak with a personal car. So what do we make of this? Just another example of picking up anything that's loose and hurling it. In other words, a rant.

"Knowledgeable railfans"--the real ones--keep making the point that it's important to fund passenger trains in order to give travelers choices. The fact is, more travelers choose Amtrak year after year. As Irish Chieftain pointed out, the greatest ridership gains last year were on the long-distance trains. A knowledgeable railfan knows that, too, of course.

Let's not pretend that there is no railfan agenda. One element of it is very clear: Keep bashing Amtrak in order to drive customers away, so that Amtrak will have no choice but to cut the price of sleepers to what railfans want to pay. Well, here's a late bulletin from the newsroom: The demand-side approach isn't working. And won't. Time to switch tactics. Move over the supply side. And quit bashing.

I have to disagree with most but not all of Mr. Barlow's point.

Starting with my area of agreement, I certainly agree that long distance rail service in the United States (as it is currently constituted) will never be overly competitive with the automobile or the airlines. If we got serious about investing in the infrastructure, however, long distance rail could be much more viable, but in light of recent plunderings of our national treasure, I think the likelihood of any serious investment in rail infrastructure in the next two to three decades is extremely small.

With all of that said, I still think Amtrak's long distance services are extremely important resources that must be fully maintained. Ideally, the system should be supplemented to some extent to take better advantage of economies of scale.

Finally, as for Mr. Barlow's interest in developing new shorter distance services, I am extremely skeptical about such endevours. The transportation patterns in most of America's population centers that are not already relying on rail service are extremely diffused. In addition, Americans in these cities are not the least bit culturally acclimated towards public transportation. To my mind, developing new corridor services is mostly a waste of money. At a minimum, I think it should be funded locally.

Mr. Fels - what can I say? I think your comments on my opinions are a bit over the top. I don't think your most recent rant offers any new insight for this discussion, and generally, I no longer read much of your incoherent stuff.

A vast railfan conspiracy (right wing, no doubt) intended on lowering the price of rail travel? That is pretty humorous!

I say that when so-called railfans channel Wendell Cox, that's "over the top." When I read the claim that Amtrak and highways are the same thing, I say that's "incoherent stuff." And "vast railfan conspiracy," of course, is not my phrase, though I do find "humorous" the lame attempt to put words in my mouth.

jfrey40535 wrote: 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.

This simply is not true - at least not in all cases.

Yesterday I posted information that directly refutes the above. But I'll repeat it since it seems appropriate here. I have meetings in Chicago on September 14th and 15th. Had I reserved a sleeper a month ago I could have saved money vs. the costs of getting to the airport (Philly), flight cost and the extra hotel stays (night of 13th and 15th) necessary to fit with reasonable flight times and when my meetings start and end.

Granted, if could reasonably depend on arriving at the scheduled 7:45 AM for train #41 on the day my meetings start the price advantage would have been even better because I could eliminate a hotel stay on the night of 9/13 from all of my calculations. But even with a hotel stay that night so I could arrive on Amtrak a day early and not worry about being late for my meetings, a month ago Amtrak sleeper was still the less expensive option - even vs. Southwest's $99 fares now that they're flying out of Philly.

Unfortunately for me, I waited too long to reserve a sleeper and the price has gone up because demand for the lone sleeper car on #40/41 has risen. That's how business works right? As demand rises on an item in limited supply, prices rise accordingly. Makes sense to me.

Now I am looking at flying out to Chicago on the 13th because that is the less expensive option. However, it is still less expensive for me to take the sleeper home because I can leave the night of the 15th (when my meetings end) and be at the train station a mile from my home the next afternoon/evening. I'm more flexible in my arrival time coming home so some lateness on Amtrak's part isn't as much of an issue as it would be in the opposite direction.

If I were flying home, I'd have to wait until the 16th and incur an extra night in the hotel - not an inexpensive prospect in downtown Chicago, plus have the additional expense of getting from the Philly airport to my house (albeit by SEPTA and Amtrak since that's how I'm getting to Philly for my flight to Chicago).

And beside the price benefit, I get a sleeper to myself where I can watch the scenery go by, watch a movie on my laptop, have dinner with some fellow travelers, etc. etc. - all of the "intangibles" of travel by rail.

The major flaw I often see in the "cars or planes are cheaper than Amtrak" arguments are that those price comparisons don't take into account ALL of the costs. Sure, Southwest and some other airlines offer some great fares, but you still have to get to the airport, park, deal with security, crappy in flight food, etc. etc. When you drive you can't read a book, sleep or watch a movie. You also have to deal with accidents, highway construction, traffic jams, etc.

As I said in my earlier post, Amtrak is not always the best choice for time or money comparisons, but sometimes it is. It certainly is for me on my daily commute - even when gas was at $1.20/gallon. Amtrak should be supported - and expanded for LD service - precisely because it should be a travel choice that more of America can take advantage of.

Gee, I think I'll write my members of Congress - again.

Two points here:
One, no public transportation can compete on price with a car if 4 people are traveling together. There are, however, other values than price,such as not going stir-crazy on a long car trip with cranky kids. Americans should have the option of train service wherever possible.
Two, Amtrak has to have long distance trains. They provide important services, especially in the West where distances are long and many towns are not served by bus or plane. Most long distance train passengers do not travel the whole length of the route. But the most compelling reason for keeping long distance trains is that they get support from congresspersons and voters across the country. People like trains, and like having Amtrak trains serve their communities, even if they ride infrequently or not at all. Montana voters and congresscritters might be willing to support Amtrak and its NEC infrastructure expenses if they have the Empire Builder. If they lose the train, why should they be willing to pay for my daily trips through the Hudson tunnels to NYP? If you look at it that way, the subsidies to long distance trains are a cheap price to pay for national support for NEC and other densely populated corridors, which gobble much more resources than the LD trains.

Wow, this thread is fun to read. Time to throw in my $0.02.

The truest observations made here are the ones about demand for sleeper space far outstripping supply --- and even at the present high prices!!!

The solution to this of course involves a huge capital investment in a lot more sleeping cars. I haven't tried to work any numbers on this but it intuitively seems to me that availability of enough sleeper space to meet demand could enormously increase revenue and might just drastically alter Amtrak's finances. Think about it. Revenue per sleeping car is probably far more than revenue per coach on an overnight train; and when once considers the fixed-cost nature of this business, a lot of that revenue flows through to the bottom line.

If I'm totally misguided about that I'll shut up.

The problem, of course, is in getting the capital to invest in all those sleepers. I don't have any ideas on how to get that.

Bit of housekeeping:

JoeG wrote:[P]rovide one example of a significant group whose majority wants Amtrak run as a business.

Better yet, let's turn the clock back to 1997, when the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act and Amtrak's future were being debated: Who was pushing for Amtrak to be run "like a business" then?

Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, both extensively cited by railfans, come immediately to mind. And then there's Joe Vranich--former Amtrak spokesman, later member of the Amtrak Reform Council. In fall 1997, Mr. Vranich was one busy guy.

• Recall that the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was passed in November 1997. Here's a paper published in October by the Reason Foundation, under his byline.
• 1997 was also the year that St. Martin's Press published Mr. Vranich's book Derailed, which made the case for Amtrak's privatization and if necessary liquidation. This book was topic A on the USENET forums I frequented, and I recall that most of the comments were in favor of Mr. Vranich's conclusions. (More on this in a bit.)
• On Nov. 5, with the final vote only days away, The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Mr. Vranich, summarized here. by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Now back to Mr. Grossman's challenge: Identify a "significant group" in favor of the "run like a business" goal. Assuming that means "within the railfan community," there were at least two. Both state organizations. Both firmly on the record.

• Scroll down the Amazon page for Derailed and you'll find a favorable review by one Kenneth Bird. In October 1997 Mr. Bird was president of the Illinois Association of Rail Passengers. "It is time," he wrote in the association's newsletter, "to start over with a clean sheet of paper and plan a market-based system of high speed rail corridors financed by public-private partnerships.
• And in a September 1997 letter, the president of the Arizona Rail Passenger Association wrote Sen. John McCain, "It is time to think what not long ago would have been unthinkable – give the long distance trains back to the railroads." Note also that ARPA lists Derailed as as a book "we especially recommend." and offers this comment: "Libraries are always looking for suggestions... and as rail advocates it is our duty to ensure that the library stacks include serious railroad books like these." Duty. I like that.

I must say I'm taken aback by Mr Fels' citation of the Illinois ARP--I don't know what they were thinking. As for the other examples he cites:
Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are ultra-right think tanks. They want the government to get out of everything except defense and big subsidies for business and billionaires.
John McCain has generally been an enemy of passenger rail and Amtrak. Arizona doesn't come to mind as a pro-rail state. I don't know anything about Arizona ARP.
So, I still don't see any evidence of a groundswell of popular support for the notion that Amtrak should be "run like a business" in the sense of run to make a profit or at least not require subsidies. And if some, frustrated by Amtrak's limitations, fed up with some of Amtrak management's silliness and stupidity in some years past, blurted out in 1997, "Amtrak should be run like a business!" -- I'm sure may of those
people have seen the error of that position in the 7 years since, especially since the arrival of the very businesslike, no-nonsense, no-BS Mr. Gunn.

I agree with Mr. Grossman about the shift in the conventional wisdom over the years that "run like a business" wasn't all it was cracked up to be. But it had to be tried; Congress wouldn't have had it any other way. Was it worth it? Despite the damage, I think so--as I do about what's popularly known as the Mercer strategy of the mid-90s, where all western long-distance trains except the Chief were cut back to less-than-daily service. Had to be done in order to dispel the myth that Amtrak could cut its way to profitability. [shrug] They call it "trial and error" for a reason. We've all learned something, even Sen. McCain.

Last, I want to thank Mr. Grossman for his thoughtful challenge. I was glad for the opportunity to look that stuff up!