In Destination: Freedom - April 14, 2008 James Coston provides a detailed history of Amtrak, how the Penn-Central bankruptcy altered Amtrak's original mission, and more. Interesting reading.
A teaser excerpt:
quote: Pre-1971, when Americans saw the railroads eliminating trains, they got the message and stayed away. Post-1971, when they saw the federal government committing itself to saving trains and growing the service, they started coming back.
I call the Amtrak we knew at that time “Amtrak I.” This is the period when Amtrak looked the way Congress originally designed it, as a pure Train Operating Company—a single nationwide carrier that owned trains but no tracks and had to rent track space from the privately owned railroads. .
Shortly after startup, however, on May 17, 1971, the seeds of what I call “Amtrak II” were planted. That’s when a new player, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, entered the picture.
I will note that his comments about the need for a planning agency not directly tied to Amtrak is something I, too, have been advocating for years.
Posted by Doc Brown (Member # 4724) on :
Interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
This quote of his experience in 1974 is also quite significant:
"You would not know it from what happened subsequently, but Amtrak was popular in those days.
Passenger loads were large, and Operations was struggling to find extra cars for the trains during peak periods.
Every night we put out an 18-car Broadway Limited. The Zephyr and Empire Builder? Same thing. Each train had the longest consists the Union Station platforms could hold."
Posted by Konstantin (Member # 18) on :
This is quite interesting.
George Harris's comments are interesting too. In 1972, I rode Amtrak's Super Chief/El Capitan. It was a long train that seemed filled to capacity. At the time, it looked as though Amtrak was prospering.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It should be noted that it was not until 1999 that Amtrak again exceeded the passengers boarded count of 1974.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Train length should not be a measure of success, particularly on the LDs.
In 1974, an 18 car LD would have
3 E units 1 baggage 1 baggage-dorm or dorm lounge 7 44 seat coaches 1 full lounge 1 diner 4 sleepers
The coaches had 308 seats at 7 cars, the sleepers ~88 berths at 22/car (10-6, 11DBR, or 8BR-2DR). That's 396 salable spaces.
Today, a SL equipped car... 3 sleepers 5BR, 14 "roomettes," 1 family room (4), 1 handicap room (2)... 44 per car or 132 for 3 cars. 4 coaches at 80 seats Diner/Lounge or Diner and SS Lounge
So those 7 revenue cars have 132+320 or 452 salable seats, which is a full coach + over the standard cars. Even if the train has 2 sleepers and 3 coaches, we're talking 88+240=322, which is 76 seats less than the 11 revenue units of old.
The measure of success should be profit (loss) per passenger mile, in constant dollars (be they 1971 or 2008, or any year in between).
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Back in 1973, before I got a "real job" (not to say that there aren't any decent, well-paying jobs with AMTRAK!), I actually also worked at the AMTRAK Chicago Reservations Center (top floor of the old Santa Fe bldg at Michigan Ave & Jackson Blvd, across from the Art Institute). I may have actually worked with Mr. Coston then, but I do not remember that name.
Coston is right, though -- AMTRAK was doing quite well back then, and I too had to turn away many people for reservations. What happened since 1973?????
In those early AMTRAK days, before modern computers, at night, all the down-line agents would call the Chicago res. office to book the reservations they had made at their stations on that day, but which could not be put into the system since they didn't have computer terminals at all the stations. I particularly enjoyed working the late evening shift when those guys would call in, since they were a lot easier to work with than some of the individual passengers who would call in, who were absolutely clueless about service, accomodations, fares, etc.!!!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
There are two factors at play here, Mr. Rich. First is what Mr. Pullman has noted in that Amtrak equipment today is far more productive than such used by the railroads, i.e. two Superliner Sleepers darn near have as many berths as did four railroad (and Amtrak Heritage) 10-6; one Superliner Coach almost equals two UP 55XX 44 seat Coaches.
The second and likely even more important is Amtrak yield management. It is a safe assumption that smarter heads than mine armed with factual contemporary data (as distinct from Internet speculation) have determined "best pricing points' - and those points are not likely "the more the merrier' mindset prevalent when both you and Mr. Coston were on the Amtrak payroll.
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
quote:Coston is right, though -- AMTRAK was doing quite well back then, and I too had to turn away many people for reservations. What happened since 1973?????
R³,
Wasn’t it around the mid-70’s that the airlines were completely deregulated, bringing in cheap abundant fares?
Tom Black
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
If we want to do anything seriously about getting people out of cars and into trains, then the "more the merrier" mindset needs to come back. Yeah, it might in some minds as least make less economic sense, but long haul it makes a whole lot more sense in every other way.
When it comes to oil and a lot of other assets we consume the way we live reminds me a lot of one family I knew that inherited a bundle and lived off it like there was no tomorrow until one day it was all gone and they were broke and both unemployed and virtually unemployable.
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
In the Address, Coston said:
quote:The real villain is Congress, and a succession of presidential administrations, both of which, then as now, refused to consider the idea of transportation planning and transportation policy as a national responsibility.
. . .
Until passenger rail enjoys an intermediary at the federal level to run interference between the budget-builders and the train operators, there is little likelihood that Amtrak itself will be able to advocate successfully and impartially for all classes of train service, all regions of the country, all types of routes and all types of communities. These are distinctions and interests that can be reconciled only at the federal policy level--and there is no policy level when it comes to rail.
Costen's recognition of the need for national planning contrasts with the Washington model today of state planning. The second most populated rail corridor in the country, [Note: I recognize controversy over how you count people for purposes of ranking corridors], the Pennsy route Pittsburgh, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, and St. Louis, see "The National Limited, National Passenger Rail Planning, and NARP" http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/5108.html ,
remains ignored because in none of the states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, does the state segment rank as a local priority.
Thus we see Ross Capon holding a map on the first page of the February 2008 NARP News that doesn't include this route. Likewise the map he held doesn't include Southern Montana, a critical national need, doesn't include Kansas City and Denver, an essential bridge route, and contains an absurd gap between Knoxville and Bristol, the route of the Tennessean and the New York/Washington part of the RI/SP Golden State transcontinental route.
Ross didn't smile when he held the map.
Part of the "intermediary" referred to by Coston properly includes rail passenger consumer advocacy groups, calling for service for all classes, all regions, etc. While having done a good job organizing opposition to cuts, NARP hasn't succeeded in directing that energy into channels for progress. As legislation has moved supporting state control, it hasn't said that the country has national problems calling for national planning and hasn't provided the leadership needed now.
The time has come for the NARP board to catch up with the political sentiment in the population for rail expansion and provide national leadership and political action involving not just board members to modernize our transportation infrastructure.