Inside Amtrak’s Dying Long-Distance Trains from the WSJ

I have been a long time advocate for better long and short distance services.   I also use the trains and help others to use Amtrak as well.  Amtrak provides a regular alternative to airline passengers stranded due to weather cancellations etc.  

One point that is incorrect, the Northeast corridor is only profitable if you separate out the costs of maintaining and paying for right of way, etc.  If you take all true costs, the long distance trains lose less money.  The true profits are the benefits to our communities, populations, and economic growth.

The benefits to our country outweigh the subsidy and are shown to return more in economic benefit to the communities served.  

If the Government is going to subsidize Amtrak, then consider the feasibility of using abandoned or embargoed rail lines in the rural areas. Have a totally dedicated Amtrak line, or perhaps start a Trails to Rails campaign. Yes I know that the lines will have to be totally rebuilt, but at least Amtrak won't have to share the lines with freight.

My last long distance trip was on the California Zephyr from Oakland, CA to Chicago in 2006.  The train was about 6 hours late arriving in Chicago mostly due to freight train delays.  I know this because one of the passenger had a scanner and could listen to the dispatcher talking to train engineers.  We sat on many siding waiting for a freight to clear.  

I was amazed at how many people traveled between rural towns or boarded at small towns to go to Chicago.  The train definitely provided service to places that had no airline connections.  The train also carried many passengers who did not like to fly.  I met one Amtrak junky who seemed to spend his life traveling by train.  He had some 50,000 Amtrak miles and seemed to have been on every long distance train several times.  

The food on this trip was very good and the cheese cake was the best that I have ever had anywhere.  

I will be taking the Coast Starlight from Portland to Oakland in about a month.  I am looking forward to the trip and seeing how Amtrak long distance has changed since 2006.

I hope that Amtrak can find a balance between long distance trains and its corridors.  

NH Joe

Clarence Siman posted:

If the Government is going to subsidize Amtrak, then consider the feasibility of using abandoned or embargoed rail lines in the rural areas. Have a totally dedicated Amtrak line, or perhaps start a Trails to Rails campaign. Yes I know that the lines will have to be totally rebuilt, but at least Amtrak won't have to share the lines with freight.

That idea is great if we had truly adequate funding.  But  even with the current historic situation with bipartisan support for Amtrak, its such an annual political battle to win just keeping what we have.  I think the New York, Michigan, and Illinois model of adding track and upgrading tracks so that both Amtrak and the freight railroads benefit is our best hope.  

We took a cross-country trip on Amtrak twenty years ago and it was a bargain with their All Aboard America fares, about $1600 for family of four.  But that was a long time ago.

Since then my wife & I have taken several trips to Montreal, to Atlanta, to Savannah.  Fares have risen and service has diminished but it's still preferable herding cattle on a metal tube (air transport).

Northeast Corridor has been described as profitable but the NEC needs $42B (with a big B) in infrastructure updates.  So is it really profitable or are they stealing from the "money losing" long-distance trains? 

The gentleman in the video (sorry I forgot his name) suggests "value" to smaller cities and towns is paramount to "profit" for the lesser traveled lines.  I tend to agree. 

Scott has already addressed the “lie” that the Northeast Corridor is profitable so; enough said in that regard.

The hurdle to expanding service on Amtrak’s new regional corridors will be the Class 1’s.  Will they be receptive to hosting additional trains and at what cost for upgrading their infrastructure to accommodate the additional frequencies.

The video notes Atlanta - Macon; Atlanta - Charlotte; Atlanta - Birmingham; and Atlanta - Chattanooga.  NS is already hosting the Crescent over the Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham corridor and rarely can operate that one train on time.  What is the likelihood that adding trains in this corridor would experience any better handling?  With the advent of  PSR induced 12,000 - 14,000 foot trains operating through single track territory where sidings generally are 10-12,000 feet; it isn’t difficult to guess which train will take siding so a “land barge” can slog by.  (Still not sure; check what happens with Via’s Canadian on its CN route between Toronto and Vancouver.)

While additional frequencies would be ideal; I suspect the cost to make that happen would far exceed the cost to simply continue operating the existing long distance trains.

Curt

I think that it is unfair to lump infrastructure updates as a reason why a route is "unprofitable."  Considering that the infrastructure that needs updating is over 100 years old, any route that has such old infrastructure would be expensive to update.  If the infrastructure on the NEC is not going to be updated then you might as well shut the operation down, since not being able to access Manhattan directly will kill the NEC.  Nobody is going to go on Amtrak to Newark, transfer to PATH, transfer to the subway, to transfer to Amtrak at Grand Central to continue to Boston.

Stuart

When the railroads operated their own passenger trains, and sometimes other railroads' passenger trains, sharing the rails with freight trains did not seem to be that big of an issue--passenger trains usually operated on time and freight trains still made it to their destinations.  Some differences now are that their are far fewer passenger trains and Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) and the freight railroads are different "companies."  The issue seems to be lack of cooperation between Amtrak and the host railroads.  If it could be done then, surely it can be done now.  I think incentivizing on-time performance worked better in the past than litigation. 

The trains just have to be a priority as a mode of transportation like they are in Europe and the Far East.  Somehow they manage to run trains on time in those locations.

Stuart, do you think it's fair to split up the $42B NEC costs and allocate on per mile basis across the long distance routes?   That's my understanding of their current accounting practice.  

gunrunnerjohn posted:

The trains just have to be a priority as a mode of transportation like they are in Europe and the Far East.  Somehow they manage to run trains on time in those locations.

Ya, funny that: they were/are able to reach consensus on a national policy wrt efficient (may we say GREEN) transportation. Whodathunkit? 

Lew

In the last 4 years I have traveled Amtrak first class across the country 7 times, the SW chief, The empire builder, the Zephyr, The lake Shore Boston to Chicago, & every winter on the Meteor NY to Miami. I have spent a lot of money taking Amtrak. I love the trains, & hope they never get discontinued. Just my 2 cents. That story in the WS Journal is old news.

New Haven Joe posted:

 I met one Amtrak junky who seemed to spend his life traveling by train.  He had some 50,000 Amtrak miles and seemed to have been on every long distance train several times.  

 

Reminds me of the Railroad Lady:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7iUVaHMFYI   

Kent in SD

Farmer_Bill posted:

Stuart, do you think it's fair to split up the $42B NEC costs and allocate on per mile basis across the long distance routes?   That's my understanding of their current accounting practice.  

Do the freight railroads allocate their infrastructure costs over their entire systems?  As far as I'm concerned infrastructure costs should be born by the entire system, not just the part of the system that needs it at the time. Right now it's the NEC, next time Raton Pass. 

Stuart

gunrunnerjohn posted:

The trains just have to be a priority as a mode of transportation like they are in Europe and the Far East.  Somehow they manage to run trains on time in those locations.

 

 

Might be because they have the population density?  The Empire Builder runs through North Dakota, with a population of 760,00.  Montana barely has a million. 

Kent in SD

Very sad state of affairs.  After watching this video, I'm convinced Amtrak mismanagement will eliminate some long distance service.  Rural America be dammed will be their board of directors policy moving forward.

Stuart (don't mean to pick on you by the way), when there were financial concerns over the SW Chief route those costs were not spread across the system, rather they were used to "justify" bus transfers instead of through trains which would have effectively crippled the line.  Fortunately saner heads prevailed, at least for a time. 

Farmer_Bill posted:

Stuart (don't mean to pick on you by the way), when there were financial concerns over the SW Chief route those costs were not spread across the system, rather they were used to "justify" bus transfers instead of through trains which would have effectively crippled the line.  Fortunately saner heads prevailed, at least for a time. 

Framer Bill,

No problem.  Friendly debate is good for everyone.  I don't claim that what I say is correct, just my opinion.  If I'm wrong I like to know about it.

Stuart

I'm not a big fan of government subsidies for any industry.  However, passenger trains have historically been treated completely different from our other modes of transportation -- specifically interstate highways and airlines.  It's time we level the playing field and allow Amtrak to soar like our airports and highways, heavily funded by big brother.  If you don't agree, then we ought to cut back on government support for roads and airways and privatize it all and let the best modes of transportation survive.  Perhaps this latter environment would make a hop on a long distance train a much better experience than the alternatives.