posted
I have been thinking about this, and I am sure this has been talked about a lot, but I would welcome anyone's opinions on this.
I recently took Amtrak from New York Penn station to Saint Paul, MN for the holidays, and I really enjoyed it. I had an outlet at my seat, and was able to get a lot of work done and watch movies, and unlike traveling by bus the train was much smoother and I could read a book without getting a headache. Not to mention being able to stretch my legs and just generally not feeling claustrophobic.
Why is long distance passenger rail so expensive? Certainly it is cheaper to ship freight than to truck it, for long distances anyway, so how expensive would it be for someone to hire a freight shipping company to haul a dozen passenger cars?
I will admit I don't know very much about this industry, but, in my opinion, intercity passenger rail could really be streamlined, and maybe even made profitable.
I do know a bit about business administration, and I had a few thoughts for an intercity rail service for the 21st century.
Why not strip down most trains to the bare minimum, including train crew?
It could really appeal to college students and other people who would normally take a bus.
Do we really need a full food preparation staff? Perhaps they could lease out space on their train to a third party company to provide food service, think a "Mc Donalds" car. They could also encourage people to bring their own food.
For that matter, why do we have conductors? Why not just use an automated fare collection system like what is used in mass transit?
Outside of the crew to operate the locomotive, why have more than two passenger staff for the whole train?
There are other simple cheap things that could be done to attract riders.
Why not offer free, or at least very cheap wifi internet access for the whole train? I had to use my cellular modem the whole trip, but I would have gladly paid for a reliable connection, and it wouldn't be very expensive at all to implement.
It bothers me because I see fright trains everywhere I go, and this country clearly has a cheap and mature rail network, yet Amtrak requires government subsidies.
Posts: 3 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I would hardly know where to begin with you series of questions. I would suggest that you take your, "I don't know very much about this industry" more to heart and come back after you have spent some time developing more of an understanding of why things are done the way they are. For a few points:
A lot of people already bring their own food. For a lot of people, the food service is a strong plus. What we have now is already much "stripped down" from the standards of the past.
All railroad passenger systems everywhere, with the possible exception of Japan, require significant subsidies to operate.
Just a start. I leave it to others to add to this.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Enki, from one who has been observing railroad industry affairs for well over fifty years (including eleven years on the inside), I can't think of a more succinct, yet respectful, response to your dilemma, namely your admitted and quite evident lack of knowledge regarding the industry, than what Mr. Harris has posted.
The only specific comment to which I will respond is that, while it is evident you were traveling Coach, you thought such was expensive. While I have seen much adverse posted about traveling Coach (most here at this Forum travel Sleeper - and I guarantee you don't even WANT to know what that runs) but one comment I have not seen is any adverse regarding its cost.
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Norman, I only thought it was expensive relative to other means of travel.
My round trip fare was a little over $200, but a bus would have cost me about $120, and an airshuttle would have been about $300.
I did really like it though, I thought it was much nicer than taking a bus. And I was just observing that if it were a bit cheaper, it would be opening itself up to a whole new segment of the market.
Could someone point me in the right direction if I wanted to learn more about the internals of the rail industry?
Posts: 3 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
enki, there is a dichotomy between "the rail industry" and "intercity passenger rail" which I will leave to others on this forum (Gil?) to explain. Other than that, I second Mr. Harris' post.
-------------------- Ocala Mike Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
How about looking at it this way: airfare $300 train 200 bus 120
If time is a factor, as it seems to be with most travellers, the plane is what you need and is priced according to demand. The bus probably takes the longest time and gives you little individual space and comfort so it should be cheapest. The train is somewhere in the middle...not the fastest but probably the most comfortable and hassle free. It looks to me like the sample fares, on this route anyway, are a perfect supply/demand balance. What's to improve? Also, you're going all the way from NYC to St. Paul for $100? must be over 1000 miles; that's less than $.10/mile. Looks to me like you scored a heck of a victory!
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following Mr. Mike's lead, what segment of the industry has your interest? Freight, comprising 98% of the revenue and all of the profit but serving a base comprised solely of large industrial concerns, or passenger, comprising 2% of the revenue with "heap big wampum" deficits made up by public funding, yet having the possibility of serving UENI?
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Your suggestion of having freight companies haul passengers simply would not work (Amtrak was created because freight railroads were canceling their passenger trains). A freight railroad would probably not go to the trouble to run extra trains for passengers, and would instead couple the passenger cars to their freight trains. If they did this there would be more problems. They would not be too eager to stop there trains at every small town to let passengers on and off (the Auto Train is the only train that would not have this problem, because it does not make any station stops). Service would be much slower, because freight trains can rarely move as quickly Amtrak trains, and even if they can, speed limits for freight trains are often much lower than for passenger trains.
Amtrak has already cut it's dining services, and a typical dining car staff consists of only 3-5 people. Much of the food they now serve is pre-made, and is only heated in the dining car. As Mr. Harris said, many people already bring their own food, and passengers expect better than a McDonald's car (many people would not ride long distance trains if they had to live off of cheeseburgers and McNuggets for two days).
Conductors on Amtrak trains do much more than collect tickets. The conductor is in charge of the train. He tells the entire crew, including the engineer, what to do, and when to do it.
Having only two train employees would not work, either. An Amtrak Superliner train with three coaches and two sleepers (which is a common consist) can hold close to 300 people. That means 1 car attendant per 100-150 passengers.
Posts: 6 | From: Northern Virginia | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Enki, I appreciate your curiosity and eagerness to learn more. When I joined this forum in 2001 I knew little more than you do now. The people here will give you a great education.
The problems facing passenger rail are many and complex. I won't repeat the many good answers already given, but I will add that the biggest problem of all is political. The political players are:
1.Congress, which can't make up its mind about what a national passenger rail network should look like; which has neither the desire to adequately find a national system or to pull the plug entirely; and which loves to micromanage Amtrak's operations through legislation.
2. The White House, which through various administrations has been either uninterested or openly hostile towards Amtrak, but never relaly supportive.
3. The freight railroads, which own the tracks most Amtrak trains operate on. Each has a different attitude towards Amtrak. Some treat Amtrak as a nuisance while others are mildly supportive of it, though to a very limited degree. Most of these railroads treat any government involvement in their operations as a threat to their independence.
4. Amtrak which is the political football kicked around by groups 1, 2 & 3.
5. Passenger advocacy groups such as the National Association of Railroad Passengers, National Corridors Initiative and a host of regional groups trying to light a fire under groups 1, 2 & 3 so that something might someday actually get done. They've been at it for 37 years since Amtrak was formed with little effect.
The first person or group who can sort out this mess should win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite frankly, I don't want to see service stripped down to the bare minimum for lower fares. I want some comfort when I travel by train. If I want stripped down service I'll fly! I want to see a staffed train to accommodate the passengers and I want decent food service. Yes do take heed and listen to the well informed people on this board.
Posts: 498 | From: New Hope, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
