Amtrak Funding in 2018

[Taunton]

The notable thing to someone from the UK about US Commuter Railroads is that they are just what it says on the tin - commuter only. Flows inward morning peak, out evening peak, big car parks/kiss-and-ride at the suburban stations - but next to no traffic the rest of the day or at weekends. Some have an hourly service with minimalist 2-car formations, but very little uptake. Others have nothing outside commuter runs There are commonly duplicated sidings out at the far end for overnight, and close in to the city for daytime. The sort of all day, every day flows you get in London etc must astound US operators.

US union/legal agreements favour this in one way, because as long as it's within 12 hours and within 100 miles, it's one day's pay, so both peaks can be covered by one set of crews.

 

[MarcVD]

I remember to have looked into the schedules of the Boston T some years ago and it sure was more than just peak traffic ! If I'm not mistaken, at least half of the lines had week-end traffic. Was quite disappointed that the proposed north - south artery was never built, though.

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[edwin_m]

I remember to have looked into the schedules of the Boston T some years ago and it sure was more than just peak traffic ! If I'm not mistaken, at least half of the lines had week-end traffic. Was quite disappointed that the proposed north - south artery was never built, though.

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

Many of the better-established and more successful commuter railways do have service outside the peaks. I think commuter service in Boston has operated continuously since the railway first arrived, whereas many cities have established or re-established commuter rail in the last few years and those tend to be the ones with peak-only service.

 

[glbotu]

So, yes, the commuter rail operations in and around many large cities are more successful, with some of them having regular services. Metro-North and LIRR in New York do run pretty regular services off-peak (about half hourly per line, which adds up as you approach Penn/Grand Central), certainly along the trunk routes towards town, which become more sparse as the service gets further from downtown. As does NJ Transit, and my understanding is Caltrain (San Francisco) is also looking at doing this in the near future.

But this is certainly not replicated everywhere. LA's commuter system runs about 9 trains in total between 9:00 and 16:00. As is shown quite well in Europe, ridership goes up when service become convenient, which could be part of the solution.

I also think that this discussion is very much about Intercity rail, rather than local rail. The Commuter railways are very much somewhere between Suburban and Regional Express railways, but without the hourly/half-hourly/quarter-hourly base that largely defines European rail operations.

The thing is, currently, intercity railways in the US are seen as unreliable and slow, which is largely due to the fact that they run unbelievably infrequently, along track that is severely speed limited and plays second fiddle to the very successful US freight network. The point I'm making is that more effective infrastructure expenditure by the Federal Government (and possibly the states involved) would be in medium distance intercity flows, rather than continuing to subsidise the current very long distance, but ultimately very slow flows.

 

[duncanp]

The state of Illinois id upgrading the line between Chicago and St Louis for "high speed" running, which in this case means 110mph.

The distance between the two cities is 300 miles, and currently there are 5 trains per day, taking about 5 hours 30 minutes, so an average speed of just under 55mph.

Compare that with London to Carlisle (317 miles) where there is an hourly service taking about 3 hours 15 minutes, so an average speed of 97.5 miles per hour.

Another issue with the Chicago to St Louis line is that it is single track for long distances, so any delays can easily multiply.

So if there is investment in certain medium distance passenger flows, I think it would produce results, but it depends on whether there is the political will to do so.

There is potential for the longer distance trains to be taken over by private companies and marketed at tourists, as happens with The Ghan and The Indian Pacific in Australia, especially if the train travel happens as part of a package.

 

[AY1975]

Amtrak is already run on a shoestring. Take it across America and see how many people it conveys who cannot normally fly. (I'm talking very large people, the Amish, hobos, and other minority groups)

I'm saddened to hear of this purely from an enthusiast perspective. Amtrak is a 100% all-American experience.

Trump likely doesn't care because he has no financial interest in it.

I expect some hardcore Amish folk wouldn't even travel by train or Greyhound coach - they would refuse to use any form of transport other than walking or horse-drawn vehicles.

 

[Groningen]

That only the Washington DC - Boston is Amtrak property. All other lines are owned by freight companies.

 

[philabos]

The state of Illinois id upgrading the line between Chicago and St Louis for "high speed" running, which in this case means 110mph.

The distance between the two cities is 300 miles, and currently there are 5 trains per day, taking about 5 hours 30 minutes, so an average speed of just under 55mph.

Yes, quite a bit of money expended on this route lately.
Only 20 minutes slower as compared to 1956!

 

[181]

The discussion at http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/67172-trump-and-amtrakbudget-cutting-funding/page-6 (scroll down a bit) and on subsequent pages may be of interest (the first 5 and a half pages date from 2016 and are presumably past history now). I haven't read the whole thread by any means, but the general mood of what I have read seems to be along the lines of 'we've been here before -- time to start writing to your Congressional representatives'. I think Amtrak has indeed survived similar threats in the past, although that's not a guarantee of it happening again.

It seems that the proposed budget contains many other controversial cuts; I don't know much about the American budget process, but I can envisage Amtrak either getting forgotten or being used as a bargaining chip (which could be either good or bad for it).

It seems to me that there's something wrong if the largest economy in the world isn't prepared to pay for at least a basic passenger train service between the main parts of the country -- it can't cost much as a proportion of the whole national budget. Let's hope some kind of national network survives the budget process. I very much doubt if killing off the long-distance services would make any more money available for medium-distance ones -- I presume it will be spent on tax cuts or defence or something like that.

According to this page the figure of 94% coverage of costs (see the first post of this thread) includes funding from states and refers only to operating costs, but it suggests that Amtrak isn't as much of a financial basket case as you might expect -- hasn't the UK rail network recently reached 100% coverage of operating costs from fares income for the first time in decades? Possibly the fact that Amtrak mostly doesn't run commuter services might help its finances. Some of the other information on that page may be of interest, and there's a full financial statement here if anyone has the patience to read it all.

The bar chart on page 5 of this document is also interesting -- apparently even on the long-distance routes 9% of passengers are travelling on business.

 

[Groningen]

Just the headline says enough!

220 Cities Could Lose Train Service Under Trump Budget Proposal

Source: http://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/bus-train/long-distance-train-amtrak-trump-budget

 

[philabos]

Not to get too excited.
Obama's proposed budgets went nowhere in Congress and doubt this one will be any different.
The real question is how long 15% of the traffic can continue to sustain 60 plus % of the losses. The cars cannot last forever without a high investment total rehabilitation and the private railroads are already furnishing their own power on all too frequently failed Amtrak trains. "Thunderbirds" on call if you like, at a hefty chargeback.

 

[Taunton]

There's no real reason why the Amtrak locomotives should be unreliable. Largest fleet is the GE P42, dating from the mid-1990s. They are the third generation of locos to have been delivered to Amtrak. I suspect the principal issue is having very few maintenance bases around the country, to look after the lengthy journeys.

There are normally only one or two per train. Things are of course different to the days of the streamlined F-units, with four per train. If one of them failed, you pretty much just carried on.

Bear in mind that Amtrak are doing the freight railroads a very large favour. Legally they are required to provide a passenger service on these routes, never having gone through the tortuous abandonment process, it was part of the Amtrak initial setup that they took this responsibility on. If Amtrak were to fail they would have to go right back and restart the service themselves.

 

[Groningen]

Even if possible i would not see an Amtrak train with just 1 locomotive going over the Rocky Mountains.

 

[gsnedders]

Even if possible i would not see an Amtrak train with just 1 locomotive going over the Rocky Mountains.

As far as I'm aware, policy is that no Amtrak train should continue with a single locomotive beyond the first point it is possible to add another (hired in or otherwise). This obviously doesn't apply in the north-east, so I presume it's only long-distance it applies to?

 

[philabos]

Bear in mind that Amtrak are doing the freight railroads a very large favour. Legally they are required to provide a passenger service on these routes, never having gone through the tortuous abandonment process, it was part of the Amtrak initial setup that they took this responsibility on. If Amtrak were to fail they would have to go right back and restart the service themselves.

That is simply not the case.

The private common carrier responsibility ended in 1971. If Amtrak disappears tomorrow, the private railroads have no responsibility to provide passenger service. In fact, the railroads assumed Amtrak long distance would be gone by 1975. Had they known Amtrak would be here all these years, I assure you they would have opted for the discontinuance process. Sure, it took a year or longer but in the long run would have been better for them financially . So too bad for them they made the wrong assumption. That's business.

 

[Monarch010]

Portillo's programmes which are being repeated by the BBC were very interesting, but most of the trains he travelled on seemed to be almost empty of passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

That only the Washington DC - Boston is Amtrak property. All other lines are owned by freight companies.

Amtrak also now owns significant sections of the alibnent used by the Wolverine out of Detroit

 

[b0b]

Portillo's programmes which are being repeated by the BBC were very interesting, but most of the trains he travelled on seemed to be almost empty of passengers.

Not surprising. Amtrak, other than the NE corridor is pretty much a long distance heritage railway which is not particularly cheap and still loses a boatload of money. Apparently they even lose money selling booze!

There is hope though - especially in Chicago most people either ride the L (inner suburban service) or the Metra (outer suburban service), due to the terrible traffic and cost of parking downtown. I believe NYC is similar.

 

[33Hz]

My experience on regional trains around New York and New Jersey was that it was pretty full - not just on the NE corridor services.

Same on Caltrain, although that was also disappointingly slow.

 

[AY1975]

Amtrak (and North American operation generally) is grindingly inefficient. Never mind DOO, they have things like staffed stations for a train every couple of days, large numbers of traincrew (doing things like manually operating each door) etc.

They could learn a lot from European operations about how to run the services more cheaply and therefore profitably. But like 1960s BR, do they have the guts to look at that?

I couldn't agree more. At many of their stations, including Washington Union and Richmond (Virginia), you have to wait in a waiting room or departure lounge until your train has arrived and is ready for boarding, and you are then invited to board the train one or two coaches at a time - I suppose a bit like Eurostar.

This obviously leads to longer station dwell times (and therefore to longer journey times). They would do well to learn from British and mainland European practice and have the passengers already waiting on the platform when the train comes in, but unfortunately a lot of their stations have very narrow island platforms which weren't designed for that.

 

[MarcVD]

With the current "It's not m'y fault" spirit going on over there, they are probably afraid to have any people walking on the platform while there is a train moving on the adjacent track.

Envoyé de mon GT-I9505 en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[gsnedders]

With the current "It's not m'y fault" spirit going on over there, they are probably afraid to have any people walking on the platform while there is a train moving on the adjacent track.

Yeah, that was my thought. Especially given the average speeds of most services from station-to-station, it probably doesn't make that much difference to overall journey time.

 

[Shinkansenfan]

My experience on regional trains around New York and New Jersey was that it was pretty full - not just on the NE corridor services.

Same on Caltrain, although that was also disappointingly slow.

Commuter trains in the New York area are well used, and during Summer Friday afternoons, Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) trains to the Hamptons can be overcrowded.

Travel times (speeds) on Caltrain can range from slow (all stops local) to rapid (if taking one of the few Baby Bullet express trains).

 

[philabos]

Indeed New York transit is well used, in fact it represents 90 plus percent of all transit rides in the US.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I've heard good things about New Jersey Transit as well. Incredible how many of America's passenger railways are still directly state-operated.

 

[Taunton]

I've heard good things about New Jersey Transit as well. Incredible how many of America's passenger railways are still directly state-operated.

They typically have not been state operated for that long. Just about all were run by railroad companies, slowly decaying from profitability to loss-making in the 1950s-60s, then progressively passing to first public subsidy and then outright ownership.

Caltrain, discussed here, was long a Southern Pacific railroad operation.

It's also notable how many of the lines, despite no end of recent public investment into track and rolling stock, were faster in the 1950s than today.

 

[47802]

I couldn't agree more. At many of their stations, including Washington Union and Richmond (Virginia), you have to wait in a waiting room or departure lounge until your train has arrived and is ready for boarding, and you are then invited to board the train one or two coaches at a time - I suppose a bit like Eurostar.

This obviously leads to longer station dwell times (and therefore to longer journey times). They would do well to learn from British and mainland European practice and have the passengers already waiting on the platform when the train comes in, but unfortunately a lot of their stations have very narrow island platforms which weren't designed for that.

Well of course most of Amtrak coaches except the NE corridor and West Coast services have manual operated doors operated by staff to help you up and down the steps so until they change that it probably doesn't make much difference whether wait on the platforms or not, loading and unloading will still be slow. On some routes its a bit tricky as they have to use both High and Low platforms.

 

[Muzer]

In the new compromise spending bill agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats:

Amtrak
The nation’s passenger rail service, a quasi-government organization, gets $1.5 billion, a $105 million increase from the last budget year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-so-you-dont-have-to/?utm_term=.de7dbbe94270

Let's hope it passes!

 

[AlterEgo]

Let's hope. Good news at least.

 

[Muzer]

Well, turns out that compromise bill was just for the interim until the new budget this autumn. Trump is still planning on cutting Amtrak long distance services after then, it looks like.