Quote:
|
Quote:
As the excerpt states, Amtrak is improving the cost recovery for food and beverage sales. But very difficult to get to break even across all the trains. According to multiple posts I've seen, back in the hey day of passenger service on private railroads, food and diner service almost always lost money. I suspect the airlines don't make any money, even today with all the fees they charge, on food & beverage sales on the airplanes. Just the reality of suppling food and beverage options in transportation. |
Amtrak Shifts Strategy From Begging for Money to Thinking Big
Jul 31, 2012 By Jeff Plungis Read More: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...nking-big.html Quote:
|
Frustrations of Air Travel Push Passengers to Amtrak
August 15, 2012 By RON NIXON Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/bu...to-amtrak.html Quote:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg |
Quote:
|
After 35-year hiatus, passenger rail returns to Norfolk
August 30, 2012 By Ashley Halsey III Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...3a7_story.html Quote:
Rendering of the design for the Amtrak station at Harbor Park. http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/ima...512%2006.1.jpg |
So the new Norfolk station isn't in downtown Norfolk? This looks like a park&ride.
|
I think the intention is to have a transfer to The Tide light rail system. It's tough to get Amtrak into downtown Norfolk when there aren't any rail lines that run near the downtown. Most of the parking around the transfer point belongs to the stadium, although some parking is reserved for transit riders.
|
Amtrak on track to set rider record
9/10/12 By KATHRYN A. WOLFE Read More: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...15.html?hp=r11 Quote:
http://images.politico.com/global/ne...ans_ap_605.jpg |
Loss of Southwest Chief would be blow to seniors
Read More: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/loc...traksidebar-hh Quote:
|
Downeaster arrives in Brunswick
Read More: http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/d...brunswick.html Quote:
|
Now we need an Extension and Electrification up to Augusta and Bangor along with a better station in Portland.
|
Quote:
Downeaster service should increase to the point that double tracking is required throughout the entire corridor before anyone should consider electrifying that rail line. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe 12 round trips a day isn't, by a third, enough traffic to warrant electrifying the corridor. |
Quote:
|
PennDOT, Amtrak to Partner on ‘PA Trips By Train’ Initiative
Read More: http://norristown.patch.com/articles...ain-initiative Quote:
|
As late as 1959, per the World Almanac, the US ran over 450,000,000 rail passenger riders per year. Since the US had about 165 million people at the time- about half what the US has in 2013, adjusting that figure to the current population of the US, gives a population adjusted figure of 900,000,000.
This puts Amtrak's 35 million passenger riders per year into that perspective. Consider first available rail cars: Amtrak has only 130 long distance train cars ordered. Assumming each of these new cars carried 100 people per day (and that no older cars were retired), 365 days per year, these cars would add about 4.75 million riders per YEAR, Consider, too, what Amtrak has been saying the last 3 or 4 years ago how much government money would be needed to develope additional lines. Figures in the multiple 10s of millions per mile. So what is the smarteset short term solution? Do not add significant new routes to the system, but double the density of coverage per existing route I live in metro Denver. Here, we have lost the future opportunity to connect via existing freight lines south of Lodo due to terrible long term planning. Fixing the issue, caused by recent, near sighted greed, would take billions of dollars. So, we should forget south bound connections, and, run 2 Amtrak Zephyrs through Denver per day. Run them 6 to 12 hours apart. No track improvements needed. The convenience of Amtrak in Denver would increase as the square of the number of trains. As running 2 trains per day along a 3 day route (averaged upward) would double the number of cars, we might be dealing with an adddition 35 - 40 cars, and, 4-5 locomotives (spares) for a cost of perhaps $100 million on passenger cars and $30 million for locomotives. So, for long distance trains, we might be able to ball park this figure at $130 million or so per route (not including hiring and training of personnel). On the 4 east/west routes that run from New Orleans-LA, Chicago-LA, Chicago-Oakland, Chicago-Seattle/Portland we are talking about capitol expenses on equipment of about $550 million. There are other advantages in 'doubling' up. A huge advantage as that each train does not have to follow the same route over the entire distance. A second Empire Builder might always go to Portland via Spokane. A second Cresent might extend to LA along the route of the Southest limited or a portion thereof. A second Southwest Chief might connect through KC to St. Louis, This could be done WITHOUT TRAINS HAVING TO WAIT TO BE RE-ASSEMBLED MID-ROUTE, a problem that doomed splitting trains in early Amtrak days. There is a huge political benefit to this, too. Seeing multiple frequencies on long distance runs would stimulate, IMO, local political interest. For example, two trains per day between San Antonio and Oklahoma City might encourage one the trains extending to Newton, KS, where the extended train might meet- with smaller delays- one of two Southwest Limiteds. So, IMO, the best way to get Amtrak to keep growing would be to order 1000 or so passenger cars and 150 locomotives on top of existing orders, and, double longer distance frequencies. This would be 3.5 to 4 billion capital expense spread over 3 to 4 years, possibly financed- in this era of low interest rates- via federally backed bonds. Then, the network expansion, IMO, would follow rapidly. |
Although I don’t have time at the moment to look up anything exact, in the 1970s Amtrak did try the whole multiple-trains-per-day strategy on existing long distance lines it got them nowhere—costs grew quicker than ridership. The travel times for rail along those corridors is simply not competitive, and increased frequency does not make up for the fact that a plane will be quicker. Any Amtrak reorganization will mean either getting rid of long-distance trains or having passengers pay luxury cruise prices for them (there might be a niche for a few overnight services for passengers who prefer sleeping in transit to plane + hotel, but overnight trains are still fairly expensive to run).
There’s also an opportunity cost with running more trains along existing Amtrak long-distance routes—a fast train takes up line capacity that can be used by slower, more profitable freights. |
Quote:
I think other notable trains are the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief, which take you through the Moffat Tunnel and through Loveland Pass, which also can be quite scenic... But yeah, pax traffic might be increasing along these corridors, but they surely as heck do not warrant multiple trains. I think the overnight trains out east need to be revamped somewhat. I believe those are the big money losers for Amtrak, especially the Silver Meteor IMO. You have that running along with the NE Regional and Acela service. Altho, in other parts of the region, you do have the long-distance trains serving some sort of connection purpose between smaller towns to the larger cities (altho, how many people actually board those trains?)... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.