Fine. But what about the alternative of a reduced schedule such as with the Sunset Limited? Concentrate what riders there are in fewer weekly trains. Most riders already know it is a more casual form of travel (many being retired or schoolage) so I would think a day one way or another would make little difference.

During busy periods, such as summer and holidays, additional service could be added. I'm sure the operating roads would be quite willing to work in such an environment.

The only negative I can see is with labor (the union loss of jobs thing, crew scheduling, adequate numbers to cover the extras, etc.)

I'll admit these plans probably looked really good on paper (especially to the "bean-counters"), but in practice it predictably didn't work. Trains such as the Empire Builder went to quad-weekly operation, the City of New Orleans was five days a week, and (I believe) the California Zephyr was tri-weekly. On the east coast, the Mercer plan would have ran the Silver Meteor four days a week, the Silver Star tri-weekly, and the Silver Palm (Palmetto) daily. You can imagine the confusion among the average passenger, and mercifully Amtrak never implemented this exact schedule.

Apparently both revenue and ridership both began to fall off sharply after a few months, not exactly what the "model" predicted. Hence, not too long therafter Amtrak changed course again, restoring most trains to daily service, but discontinuing the Pioneer and Desert Wind.

It's important to keep in mind how small the cash loss is for a long-distance train route (indeed, some people still debate whethor LD trains - overhead costs removed - don't come close to actually covering their own operating costs). Even using Amtrak's numbers, the entire network consumes just 1/6 of the annual appropriation. It has also been reported than cutting a single LD route, such as the Sunset Limited, would actually save very little or nothing (though Amtrak lacks the equipment to make the Sunset or Cardinal daily right now). A tri-weekly Southwest Chief wouldn't save any real expenses either, but would cost Amtrak passengers and - in this case - "profitable" mail traffic.

Fewer trains means fewer opportunities to make sales. Add to that the inconvenience for the public (who have fewer opportunities to choose travel dates that suit their schedules) and you have a recipe for even greater losses.

No business can make money by NOT selling its main product or service. Cutting revenue-generating services is not the way to eliminate losses. You reduce or eliminate losses by increasing revenue (making more sales) AND by improving efficiency in the organization to keep costs down.

That is why Amtrak will never be able to cut its way to profitability. As DC2001 pointed out it has been tried and has failed every time. The one thing that hasn't been tried is expansion of services to increase sales.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
The one thing that hasn't been tried is expansion of services to increase sales.

[/B]

---

Actually, California is one of the few rare exceptions to this, at least in years past with medium-distance trains.

The Bakersfield-Oakland San Joaquin service started out with 1 or 2 round trips daily back around '75. Over the years they added additional round trips, and each time the passenger counts grew. The multiple round trips in existence today make using the train much more convenient. I don't know how much of this is in jeopardy due to the current budget crunch, though.

As for true LD interstate services, that is correct, although briefly the Sunset had more service out west when the Texas Eagle continued on the Sunset route on a couple of the Sunset's "off days" between Texas and California. This did not last.

MP

Strictly speaking, the Amtrak California services were not established by Amtrak, but by the state. California owns the equipment and established the routes. Amtrak is just the operator, so I don't think Amtrak initiated any expansion there, either.

I haven't followed the San Joaquins as closely as the Capitol Corridor, but the latter has expanded rapidly in recent years, and losses have decreased as trains (trips, not trainsets) have been added, which illustrates my original point. They paid for these additional trips by trimming some fat in the overall budget, such as eliminating some underperforming Thruway bus services.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car