posted
Does anyone know what it costs to put a Superliner sleeping car on the road compared to its revenue? To simplify the question, I'm just wondering about the daily operational costs, not things such as maintenence when it's not in service.
As I have observed sleepers over the years, I don't see too many direct operational costs involved. These are: 1. One attendant 2. Linens 3. Paper products (toilet tissue, kleenex, paper cups, etc.) 4. Beverage station (coffee, water and juice) 5. Dining car service (included in the fare) 5. En route servicing (water, holding tanks) 6. A portion of the cost of fuel. 7. Cleaning.
There are other costs of course, that are shared with the entire train, such as conductors, engineeers, etc, which somewhat cloud the final tally.
Then there's reservation systems, stations, management, maintenence facilities, etc. Those are costs that become more efficient when more trains are involved - economies of scale. I don't want to count shared costs for the sake of this discussion.
Now, one night in a Roomette costs somewhere between $200-$300. I would think that to be sufficient to cover the labor of one attendant for 24 hours. That leaves 12 more Roomettes, plus 5 Bedrooms (at $400-$600 a night), one family bedroom, and one Handicapped room (priced the same as a Roomette) to cover the remaining expenses. Thus a Superliner sleeper that is full during the night should bring in at least $5,100 every 24 hours.
Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a Superliner sleeper should easily cover its daily costs and then some.
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
Amtrak has gone after the labor costs of their long distance trains - to try and cut them. However, it ended up in the dining car with the launch of Simplified Dining Service, which net/net reduced staff and other supply cost to operate the diner. But the root of profitability still may reside in labor costs of an Amtrak diner.
I have a different approach. I think long distance trains are a breed and service unto their own that require not only different types of services being offered, than perhaps a corridor train, but also a unique approach to staffing the train. Would labor costs be reduced if you had a combination of the following, for long distance trains:
1) The engineers are the only crew switched out after hours of service expire.
2) Onboard service crew travel from terminus to terminus over the entire route of the train (thus eliminating change out of conductors and hotel costs etc.).
3) Conductor(s) transformed into a Chief of Onboard Service, with service attendants (again, labor travelling end-point to end-point). Major change would be replacing conductor(s) with a Chief of Onboard Services and other onboard service staff as needed. The Chief of Onboard Service would be in charge of the train, would also also assist, as needed with passengers etc.
4) Sleeping car attendants sharing responsibilities between the Trans Dorm/Sleeper and regular sleepers. For example, having 2 sleeper attendants handle 3 regular Superliner Sleepers or 2 regular sleepers AND the Trans Dorm/Sleeper (provided this car is opened up to revenue space). Then on trains operating 3 Viewliners, could 2 sleeping car attendants handle the load?
I make these suggestions after seeing this being in practice on VIA Rail's flagship train - the Canadian. And this is a train where sleepers outnumber coaches, and sleeping car attendants handle multiple sleepers. Monitors in a set of three sleeping cars can tell an attendant where a passenger may be pushing the call button from. I've been on trips aboard the Canadian or the Ocean (when it was operated with the Budd Stainless Steel Equipment) where sleeping car attendants were handling more rooms than an Amtrak sleeping car attendant - and having a great attitude about it.
Amtrak has former Chief of Onboard Services now working as sleeping car attendants - and they likely didn't take any pay cut if that was applicable. Who was paid more - the Chief of Onboard Service or a Sleeping Car attendant? So you have that to considerin labor costs.
Are Amtrak contracts flexible enough - and are they matched accordingly to a train's services etc.
On the same token, Amtrak employees deserve equitable contracts. It would also help morale if employees knew they didn't have to worry about what trains may be cut or alterered with the next round of annual Amtrak funding.
Amtrak should also be matching supply to demand better. I feel Amtrak is stuck on fixed consists.
1) Are more sleepers or coaches needed on certain routes?
2) Are the Superliner Trans Dorm/Sleepers getting enough revenue mileage when needed?
3) With the rollout of the combo diner/lounges, could Sightseer Lounges be re-deployed to offer "Parlor Car" service - at an extra fare etc.
I think Amtrak misses out on revenue opportunities be it operating premium class cars or not having schedules that allow for same-day turn of equipments to increase a car's utilization (there-by freeing up trainsets that could provide extra cars to other trainsets), where demand is warranted.
That's my two cents.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Conductors are covered under the hours of service law, so to switch them off to other duties is not possible legally.
I tend to agree on the fixed consist obsession. It would be logical to do such things as cut the Crescent in half at Atlanta, as the loading is always higher north of there. Same would seem to apply for the Eagle south of Ft. Worth. Hoiw about the California Zephyr west of Denver? In hte early days of Amtrak the train east of Denver was about double the train west of Denver. Should there be a couple of extra coaches on the Southwest Chief Chicago to KC? Extra sleepers on teh Florida trains north of Jacksonville would also seem to be a good idea. Is there still an extra coach on the Builder between Chi and MSP? There ought to be. Why wear the wheels off cars running them around empty?
Even in the northeast, there is a lot of empty space hauled around that is only used between NY and Philly.
I owuld hope that someone is doing or has done a detailed analysis of extra switching costs versus cost of dragging cars around on parts of their route where they are not needed, but I doubt it.
And, why do they do this silly stuff of giving the extra Chi to SL coach on the Eagle a different train number? All this does is confuse the public.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
Mr. Harris: (CHI-MSP coach on EB)
I used to see a CHI coach parked in the MSP station overnight occassionaly, but I haven't for a while. The station, built in '78, has a few tracks and platforms and hookups usually used by private cars. (To be more technical, doohickeys and whatchamacallits with rubber hoses). I imagine something has to be connected to keep things from freezing in the coach. It would be interesting to know if passengers between MSP and CHI are turned away due to lack of capacity.
By the way, there are always 3-10 private cars parked in full view at MSP for those who are interested.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Judging upon what I've witnessed on the EB on more than a few occasions, passengers are turned away by the lack of capacity on several Amtrak trains.
That was one of the reasons why I suggested that intercity routes could use a second frequency of service, say, scheduled 8 - 12 hours opposite the current departures.
DeeCT Member # 3241
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a Superliner sleeper should easily cover its daily costs and then some.
Mr Toy -
I have long questioned the accounting methods that show the Sleepers to be "money losers". Even if you subtract $50 per person per day for the food cost you are still left with $100 - $200 for each roomette. Bear in mind that this is the accomodations fee only. This is an additional charge that is added to the basic rail fare (same as a coach passenger). That basic rail fare should cover much of the #1 - #7 costs you list. Now for that money I can stay at a nice hotel where I have a much larger room, my own bathroom, cable tv, various other ammenities and a housekeeping staff that makes the bed and cleans the room every day. The hotel with its overhead (lights, heat/ac, labor and property taxes etc.) makes a PROFIT !!! I too wonder what I am missing ---------- Dee
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
I appreciate the insights given thus far, but they are tangental to my point. For purposes of this discussion I'm not interested in Amtrak's overall labor costs or car switching practices. I want to focus on sleeper specific costs in relation to revenue.
Dee makes an important observation that a hotel can make money having many similar costs.
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
There are lots of inescapable costs that Amtrak probably puts into the accounting system for the seeper costs. The train crew, except for a dedicated car attendant, would be the same with or without the sleeper. Reservation system costs and station costs would be the same. I suppose you could calculate how much more fuel the locomotives burn when they pull a sleeper, including hotel power, but it can't be that much. Unfortunately, everyone wants to charge part of the cost of everything into every little operation on the train. For example, how much of the cost of the rails can you charge to the sleepers? Or the ties? You could do a calculation, but it would be nonsense. When you're trying to decide to continue a service, you should consider the COSTS, and exclude the inescapable costs and the costs you've already paid.
I agree with Dee. The fee should cover most of the costs on the list. I sometimes think that Amtrak takes advantage of the excess demand for sleepers and tries tries to make as much as they can. That is what you do in capitalism, but if they had more sleepers they would probably end up making more money and having happier customers.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Kierman,
Except for the northeast corridor, there is no honest charge for rail and ties into the operation of any Amtrak train. There is a specific fee paid to each railroad company for the operation of the train, and so far as I know it is neither increased nor decreased based on how moch or how little the host railroad spends on track.
I say "honest" because the overhead for the Northeast corridor has been proven in the past to be spread over all trains running regardless of whether or not they run on it or even get near it.
While you can't price everything on an avoidable cost basis - something has to cover the overhead - cutting those things that make any form of contribution to overhead makes you worse off, not better off.
Like others, at the fares charged it would appear that the superliner sleepers ought to be cash cows, I do not know what the real direct costs and directly attributable overhead costs are for these cars.
George
Beacon Hill Member # 4431
posted
I have a question about sleeper revenue accounting. When I book a sleeper, I pay both a seat charge and an accommodation fee. Does Amtrak credit both the seat charge and accommodation fee as sleeping car revenue or does Amtrak credit my seat charge to coach revenue and my accommodation fee as sleeper revenue?
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr Toy,
Critical items in your listing of direct costs which you omitted:
Manadatory inspections and testing. Fair wear and tear maintenance of the car, to include replacement of wheelsets and trucks.
These costs are legitimate direct costs because it takes a craftsman or team of craftsmen N man-hours to inspect a car, no matter how many cars are in the fleet. Equally, the actual labor involved in FWT maintenance should be a direct charge, since it represents an opportunity cost: While working on car A, mechanics cannot work on car B.
Beacon Hill Member # 4431
posted
NARP has its analysis of the GAO's infamous study of dining car and sleeper costs. NARP's position is that sleepers are quite profitable as a stand alone operation. The problems arise when the dining car comes under analysis.
TwinStarRocket Member # 2142
posted
But inspections and testing should be essentially the same for sleeper and coach.
If one were to compare revenue from a coach vs. revenue from a sleeper on an LD run, would they be similar? I am too lazy to do the math, but if you assumed end to end constant load factors, then sampled fares, and figured in the capacity of each type of car, you might be able to come up with some ballpark apples-to-apples comparative revenue figure. Even if they are relatively close, you might consider that some people would not ride trains without sleepers.
My guess would be that sleepers produce more revenue for their cost than coach. Diners and lounges probably produce much less revenue by themselves than coach or sleeper, so inspections and testing WOULD enter into that debate. But without them, fewer might ride.
With all the money spent in the administrative and management end of running Amtrak, you would think they have some competent number crunchers who could estimate how adding equipment/capacity might affect cost vs. revenue. We all believe there is a demand. With more and better equiupment, subsidies might even be reduced.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr TSR,
Mr Toy wrote: As I have observed sleepers over the years, I don't see too many direct operational costs involved. These are:
I didn't say those costs were any different than any other car. I said they were not accounted for in his listing of factors.
Routine maintenance and inspection, imo, is a direct cost of operation, and must be accounted for in the revenue stream.
SouthernServesTheSouth Member # 2284
posted
Another expense unless I missed it in the thread, is the annual deprectiation allocated to the sleeper. Also, probably a fixed major upkeep expense factored in even if nothing is actually done.
Same old, Same old...... liers figure and figures lie.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Pullman, I wasn't sure if inspections, maintenence and overhauls should or should not be counted in the costs vs revenue of a sleeper on a given day. I don't know how often such things are done, or how much they cost.
I imagine, as with an automobile or airplane, that there is a schedule for such things. Smaller inspections are done more frequently, maybe even daily, while other things may be done on a weekly, monthly, semi-annual or annual basis. Thus we should figure in 1/365th of an annual maintenence job, 1/30th of a monthly job, etc, to the daily cost of a sleeper. Anyone have any idea what that would be?
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
Inspections and maintenance are just like putting gas in your car; if you don't do it you're not going to get where you want to go. Inspections and maintenance are certainly direct costs and should go into the calculations. Depreciation is a little more difficult to deal with. Depreciation is normally an accounting trick to charge the cost of something over its useful life so that your accounting system accurately reflects income. In this case, though, I think we mean "setting aside money to replace the sleeper." We'd have to do that at the end of the useful life, or at least completely rebuild it. I believe that's a legitimate cost, because the sleeper is not going to last forever and if you want to stay in operation you'll need to replace it.
I'd be willing to bet that per mile, a coach brings in more money than a sleeper does, but I'll do the arithmetic tonight and see what the answer is.
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
The question becomes, how many people can ride in a coach between Chicago and Los Angeles? When yo do the math, if the coach carries more than 114 people, the coach brings in more money than the sleeper. If the coach carries fewer than 114 people, the sleeper brings in more money on the same trip. That assumes full-occupancy all the way around.
It makes sense, though, that each car, excluding the dining cars, would bring in about the same amount of revenue, because the costs of hauling each car are about the same. Then substitutions of different car types wouldn't make much difference.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
A superliner coach has 74 seats. How much money those seats generate depends on the fare which will vary depending on how far each passenger actually rides.
posted