ClimbGuy

Maybe they can find way to automate more of the system, such as e-tickes and the like. The concept of the paper tickets that have to be mailed in is leaving in the past.

ClimbGuy

I am more or less exploring and learning about a different transportation option. Saving some money at the same time isn't a bad thing either. I have been on charted greyhound buses back in high school, which weren't bad. Then again i had two seats to myself and i knew everyone else on the bus.

AlanB

ClimbGuy, please do not take this the wrong way, but while you might not consider it practical, there are many who do consider it pratical. There are those who are afraid to fly, those for whom the nearest airport is 2 or more hours away, those who want the slower, more sedate pace of travel that a long distance train provides. In fact, during fiscal 2006 there were 3.7 million people who rode long distance trains.

While that number is just about a third of the total ridership on the NEC, which had 9.4 million riders, there are other factors to consider here. First, the NEC counts rides, not actual riders. I've no doubt that there are many people who rode multiple trains on the NEC, whereas most people don't take multiple rides on a long distance train. I myself know that I personally got added 20 to that NEC number during fiscal 2006. Whereas I only added 5 to the long distance number and that was because of the huge trip that I took in June.

Next, it should also be noted that there are trains that fall into the short distance corridor/State sponsered catagory. These trains account for more ridership than the NEC, coming in at 11.1 million. Yet they only account for $287.8 million in revenue, while those 3.7 million riders on the LD's generated $358.0 million in revenue. Combined those two generate almost as much revenue as the NEC does all by itself.

Yet the NEC's operational costs when added to its capitol costs, takes more of the annual federal contribution. While there continues to be some debate, since Amtrak doesn't disclose just how it allocates some of its overhead costs (things like reservation agents, office staff, and so on), generally accepted numbers come out like this.

Of the $1.2 billion that Amtrak got for fiscal year 2006, $278 million went to debt service. Some of that debt is thanks to buying new equipment over the years, including Acela. Some of that debt is thanks to poor management decisions and poor funding decisions by Congress and the White House.

Next $31M went to Efficiencey Incentive Grants, something controlled by the Sec Trans, which probably means that the White House will never allow that money to be used. Then there is aproximately $120 million that went to pay retirement monies for RR workers who never worked for Amtrak in their lives. So before even a single wheel has turned, already more than $400M of the funding allocation is gone.

At this point the debate really gets going as to where the remaining $771M goes. There are those that claim that around $500 million went to the LD's. Yet if Amtrak tomorrow cancelled all LD's by Amtrak's own admission, at best Congress would be able to reduce the annual contribution by about $300 million at the most, and it would probably be closer to $200M to $250M. The LD's are being hit with well over $200 million in allocated costs, that would have to be transfered to the NEC. The debate of course centers around those allocated costs.

Many believe that the LD's are being overcharged for their fair share of those costs. Unfortunately Amtrak doesn't share the formulas that show just how things get allocated.

Then we factor into this equation that $495M of the allocation is earmarked for Capital costs. The Capital monies spent on the LD's is far, far less than that needed to maintain the NEC. Back when they used to break out Capital expenses, the NEC averaged around $200M each year. They stopped doing that breakout in 2001. That would leave $295M in Capital funding for stations, short haul trains, and the LD's. So that almost guarantees that the LD's aren't getting $500M in funding.

At best the funding is split about evenly between the NEC and the LD's + the short hauls combined. So despite its impressive revenue and ridership numbers, the NEC is costing tax payers just as much as the LD's + short hauls. Yet the short hauls combined with the LD's carried 5.4 million passengers for the same Federal monies. Yes many of those short hauls did get State funding too.

So if we now factor in the original topic of this thread, how Amtrak is overcharging for a ride on the NEC, it quickly becomes quite clear that even though the market allows Amtrak to charge that much, if Amtrak couldn't charge that much, then the funding required to operate the NEC would skyrocket.

But on the Federal level the NEC isn't getting less funding than the rest of the system, or if it is then it is only slightly less. And without the rest of the system you loose two things. One, shared costs for overhead and nationwide Congressional support for Amtrak. The rest of the country simply isn't going to stand for handing Amtrak $1.2B annually if all Amtrak does is serve the NEC.

I live along the NEC and even I don't support that idea.

AlanB

Amtrak is working on this right now, initial steps are already being taken to update and automate the ticket system, such that e-ticketing can become reality.

We the riders probably won't start to see the first signs of this for at least a year, and the full system won't be implimented for at least 2 years.

ClimbGuy

AlanB,
I will never question your understanding of Amtrak or trains. The fact is the price is set and people are taking them, including me when i can expense it. I am a strong supporter of amtrak (or any biz) being able to set prices as high as they want. That said, I think NEC tickets for leisure travelers are too high for a lot of individuals and families. I am not advocating for more gov't money or charity. These people aren't traveling or just finding another mode of transportation. If amtrak could find a way to cut cost and restructure their model I think the debate for $75r/t WAS-NYP is high if booked in advance say 14 or 21 days.
All I am saying is that for better or for worse I see a large market that Amtrak is not servicing.

paytonc

I believe that while Acela makes an operating profit, Northeast regionals run a significant operating loss. The price-sensitive leisure market between most points in the Northeast is pretty well served by bus service.

However, it's interesting that intercity fares in the Midwest are lower than the Northeast, despite the longer distances. They're state subsidized trains, but still:
(Amtrak one month advance, discount bus one week advance, miles)
CHI-STL $22 $18 262 mi.
CHI-DET $27 $20 236 mi.
NYP-WAS $67 $20 203 mi.
NYP-BOS $58 $15 190 mi.

iahphx

In the Northeast, it seems like the college kids take the bus, business travellers and a few urbanites take the train (if the plane doesn't work better), and everyone else (which is the vast majority of travellers) drive.

You're never going to get "everyone else" on the bus. I think you could get some of them on the train, but it has to make economic sense.

ClimbGuy

I think thats the real answer

AlanB

Climbguy,

I would never want you to do that. I like anyone, can be wrong about things and or make errors as I write things and/or add up numbers. So don't ever hesitate to ask questions, it's only by doing so that we all learn. I'm a firm believer that "no question is ever too dumb if one doesn't know the answer."

The biggest problem, aside from the fact that the Fed continues to insist that Amtrak make a profit something that is impossible, is how do you really restrict a cheaper priced ticket for leisure travelers and lock out business travelers from buying those tickets. Yes many business travelers are last minute shoppers, but not all.

When I travel for business, I'm often able to setup my trip long before I actually leave. I once booked an Amtrak trip for business to Hollywood Florida, from NY 2 months in advance. So setting a limit of 14 or 21 days wouldn't have stopped me from getting a leisure priced ticket, assuming that one existed. Now granted that trip was off the NEC, but my point still stands. I and many other business travelers can often book way ahead, as opposed to last minute.

Heck even if Amtrak were to decree Saturday as leisure travel day and drop prices across the board, if I could save a hundred bucks, I'd leave on Saturday, rather than Sunday for a Monday business trip in say Boston or DC.
Mind you I'd do that because as a railfan, I'd use my time on Sunday to go ride the trains within that city.

ClimbGuy

I understand this problem of discriminating between biz and leisure. Now I don't know if the problem is that there aren't enough cars, but how much more expensive is it to put another car on a train. This would increase capacity and amtrak could have lower rates while still making money.

mlatuchie

I'm in a long-distance relationship (DC to PHL....ok, so maybe a somewhat long distance relationship...) but taking AMTRAK has totally drained the bank accounts of myself and my SO. It's really a shame - she has a friend in DC that dates a guy in Chicago and their flights are equal to if not less expensive then my train tickets to/from DC.

I'm shifting over to Greyhound and will be on the US shuttle between PHL-DCA instead of AMTRAK's crazy prices!

ClimbGuy

If your going with the bus try:
http://www.2000coach.com/dcphillyrt.html

$28 r/t

jackal

Currently, both of Amtrak's services in the NEC are aimed at the business market and are priced accordingly. Train loads seem to be such so that no one can say they're not pricing appropriately, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be much attention to the leisure market.

Perhaps the solution (for us leisure travelers, anyway) is to divide the services more clearly into business and leisure class.

Currently, you don't get a HUGE time savings by taking Acela instead of the Regionals. (You might get a slightly nicer seat with a bigger window--although one Amtrak conductor told me he prefers the Regionals' plusher seats and footrests--but there's currently no HUGE advantage of Acela over a Regional train.) Part of this is because the train speeds are limited to 135mph along the WAS-NYP segment due to the old non-high-tension catenary system. For me, and it appears for many business travelers, the very slight (half-hour?) time savings on Acela isn't worth the much higher ticket price, so many take the Regionals, keeping them full and causing Amtrak to not need to price the trains for the leisure market.

If the catenaries were retrofitted and the necessary capital improvements were done to allow Acela to reach 150mph all the way from WAS to NYP, the time savings might be come significant enough to drive business travelers to Acela even with the higher price--thereby leaving Regional trains more for the leisure market and, hopefully, with lower prices.

AlanB

You're right that it might help a little bit, but even if Amtrak did fix all that catenary and dealt with the other fixable issues along the way (like the 35MPH Baltimore tunnels, which I doubt could ever be upgraded to 150, but they might get them up to say 60 or 70MPH), I'd bet that at most they could pick up another 20 minutes in time savings. There simply isn't that much time to be gained running at 150 MPH for the bulk of the run vs. 135 MPH.

So I'd bet that the disparity between regionals and Acela would be still be less than 1 hour. I'm not suggesting that that's not significant, especially to a business person, but I'm not sure that it's enough to overcome many business people's desire to continue to save the money at the expense of the speed factor.

Acela running at 150 MPH will cover 150 miles in one hour's worth of time. And if I'm doing my math right here, a regional running at its top speed of 125 MPH would cover that same 150 miles in one hour and 12 minutes. That of course assumes no stops and all other things being equal. The entire run between NY and DC is only 226 miles, so there simply isn't much room to pick up time by increasing from 135 to 150.

But again, the catenary is only a small part of the picture. The bigger issues are things like the switches outside of Washington Union Station, Penn Station NY, Penn Station Newark, 30th St Station Philly, and the tunnels at Baltimore. These are the things that really hold down Acela from cutting down its run times to under 2 and 1/2 hours. And fixing those issues will also improve the running times for the regional trains negating any gains by Acela.

Then we're right back to the only difference being 125 MPH vs 150 MPH and a few extra stops on the regionals.

And I'm not suggesting that I wouldn't like to see Acela running at 150, just that Amtrak would be better off initially fixing the switches and things like that first, then worrying about the cat.

AlanB

I can't easily answer this question, since the NEC is all electric. IIRC adding one extra car to a diesel hauled train drives up the fuel costs by 4% over the duration of that train's run. That's before factoring in cleaning the car, watering the car, dealing with waste from the car at the end of the run, and general wear and tear on the car. And if adding the extra car goes over a certain limit, then Amtrak must add another conductor, which would also up costs.

Then there is the consideration that one now has that car in DC, so one must hope for a reverse surge in ridership to pay for hauling the car back to NY. If not, then one still needs to get that car back to keep the fleet balanced, so it runs empty causing the engine to pull more power and adding more wear & tear. And of course adding another car to an Acela train is out of the question.

Now if one can sell out the extra car or at least keep it at 70% of occupancy, then it probably starts to become worth while to add it. Otherwise Amtrak is just loosing money. And here's the big problem with that occupancy rate; they may sellout that car between NY and Philly, but probably not after that point. So in an effort to drive down prices, Amtrak has just increased capacity by hauling a car 226 miles, of which only 90 see passengers. The remaining 136 miles, the train is just pulling dead weight along and adding wear & tear to that extra car.

So Amtrak might make the leisure traveler happy by doing something like this, but I doubt that it would help the bottom line and that surely won't make Congress and especially the White House happy.