This Week at Amtrak 2006-02-06
Volume 3 Number 7
- Can you feel the tingling in the air? Yes, it’s that time of year again, when all of the wards of the federal government line up and begin the annual begfest and budget requests for the 2007 fiscal year which begins October 31st.Reuters news service has already reported that the White House Office of Management and Budget is requesting $900 million for Amtrak next year, what inexplicitly in the past has been wrongly called a “shutdown” budget by those who don’t understand the true nature of Amtrak’s budget needs. Let’s understand the simple statement and fact of Amtrak life that repairs and upgrades on the Northeast Corridor have nothing to do with running the national system, and the capital needs are separate from operating needs. A figure of $900 million more than adequately covers all operating assistance needs nationwide and on the NEC and leaves plenty of room for reasonable capital improvements.
Here is what one Midwestern wag had to say about Amtrak’s business plan, budget priorities and the ongoing Northeast Corridor needs:
“The non-realists and unknowing don’t really get it at all: Cancel every sleeper, every diner, every lounge; cancel every overnight train; cancel every train that runs more than 425 miles; cancel every amenity and fire half the employees … and they won’t avoid a red cent of federal subsidy, because the Black Hole’s [Northeast Corridor] “capital” needs will suck in every dollar that is available, right up to double the current subsidy (the $1.3 billion). It’s track maintenance, Wondertrain [Acela] repairs and security and mid-level management and graft today, and Connecticut drawbridges tomorrow, but after that it will be the Baltimore tunnels and the Hudson River tubes, and after that a rehab of New York’s Penn Station and a third East River tube, and then the power supply system and catenary supports and replacements of the Amfleet, and then we’ll be back to deferred maintenance on the track and the Perry viaduct, ad infinitum. The OMB and the DOT have identified and classified more than a billion a year in “capital” subsidy needs in the NEC going out every year into the foreseeable future. Nothing has changed any of that.”
The interesting question at this point, with Amtrak functioning with an Acting President, is who will lead the budget request this year? We were witness to greatly overblown dramatics of brinkmanship for the past three years, complete with bloated casts and elaborate scenery. Will this year be different? Most likely. Here’s a guess: Amtrak Chairman of the Board David Laney, along with Acting President and CEO David Hughes will quietly, and with professional dignity, make their case for Amtrak’s legitimate budget needs to the budget writing and authorizing committees on Capitol Hill. They will be met overall by Congressional open minds, with emphasis on a national system, as we have seen in past years from Republicans in Congress. And, they will arrive at a working number, probably similar to that of this year, give or take a few million dollars. And, that will be the end of it. Amtrak will continue to have free federal monies, without all of the histrionics and fatuousness of past budget negotiations. The Republic will stand. Amtrak will continue to operate. There will be a lot less cheesy theater, and more reality. The only loose cannons in the bunch will belong to Amtrak’s traditional sycophant alcoholic-like enabling organizations, which will wail and cry about not enough money. But, with their greatest benefactor now compassionately in retirement in Canada, who will give them stage directions for their part in the drama? Film at 11.
- Here is what President Bush said about energy policy in last week’s State of the Union speech:
“Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources - and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.
“So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative - a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research - at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.
“We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years
“Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”
Speaking on behalf of United Rail Passenger Alliance, Vice President Andrew Selden offers these thoughts on President Bush’s energy policy:
“President Bush’s call in the State of the Union address last week for America to wean itself of its dependency on oil imported from unstable foreign sources was anchored in the president’s firm belief that American ingenuity and innovation would find technological solutions that would diminish our need for and reliance on petroleum based fuels. Technology - whether bio-mass fuels such as ethanol, or battery-based motors, or even hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles (UPS and others are testing hydrogen-powered vehicles right now, so that is less futuristic than it may sound) - will no doubt make a major contribution to reducing our dependency upon, hence vulnerability to, energy from the Middle East.
“But, the president’s vision overlooked a major tool available right now to eliminate the need for large quantities of refined petroleum in the United States: Passenger railways, both in urban and regional transit applications and in intercity markets. We know from abundant empirical evidence and decades of consistent experience, that Americans in very large numbers LIKE rail service, whether an urban light rail transit line or an Amtrak transcontinental passenger train. People who have cars will voluntarily leave them in the garage to take the train, to work or on summer vacation, when decent rail service is available. As a nation, we can avoid consumption of a LOT of gasoline by offering drivers a reasonable choice of a rail alternative. These programs work, they take a capital commitment from the public sector, they can be partnered with private sector developers and operators, and they employ lots of American skilled labor.
“URPA commends the president’s initiative to reduce our dependency on foreign oil from unstable sources - but we call on the president in turn to invest federal capital into more, not less, Amtrak service, especially in the long distance markets that, by a factor of as much as 700%, offer the greatest return on investment in terms of incremental and auto-diverted passenger miles (and dollars of ticket revenue) as compared to the shorter regional corridors. We call for significant new federal financial support for many more miles of non-Amtrak LRT service in both existing and new LRT networks.”
- What to do, what to do? The folks at the Union Pacific Railroad aren’t exactly known for running Amtrak trains in a timely fashion since UP’s takeover of the former Southern Pacific Railroad. It’s been a decade now, and UP is still struggling to provide adequate service to all of its contract customers, including Amtrak. UP and Amtrak have a mutually agreed upon contract to operate passenger trains over the Union Pacific system in a safe and timely manner, including a requirement by UP to maintain its infrastructure in an orderly manner that provides on-time operation of all of the Amtrak trains the railroad hosts on a daily basis.The two most notorious Amtrak trains operated in a shameful manner by UP are the Sunset Limited and the Coast Starlight, both over former SP tracks. Both trains originate in Los Angeles, the Sunset turns in Orlando, Florida, and the Starlight in Seattle, Washington. Year to date on time performance for the Sunset Limited is 21%, and the Starlight is 02.3%.
So, here you have a conundrum, as our Canadian cousins like to say. Amtrak wants its trains run in a timely manner. UP wants to run its freight business well, and maintain its infrastructure in a way which is best for UP, not necessarily for Amtrak.
The result is that UP is constantly issuing “slow orders” for the Sunset and Starlight. These are operating orders that mandate how fast a train may operate over trackage which is compromised because of maintenance issues. A combination of slow orders and freight train congestion lately has caused most of the delays on the Coast Starlight.
Amtrak has, in part, “thrown in the towel” for the moment on the Starlight, and changed the train’s schedule (see below). Much of the problem has been on the northbound Starlight, between Eugene, Oregon and Seattle. Passengers wishing to use the Starlight for local service between these points when traveling northbound will no longer be able to do so, because Amtrak has no real idea when the train will show up in Eugene. As a result, only passengers already on the train from south of Eugene will be allowed to detrain in the Pacific Northwest Corridor. No new passengers north of Eugene will be allowed to board the train. There are two other daily trains serving the entire length of the Pacific Northwest Corridor, and an additional two trains providing daily service between Portland and Seattle.
This is a partly good move on Amtrak’s part, because there will be fewer unhappy passengers riding a chronically late train. This is a partly bad move on Amtrak’s part, because it lets UP off the hook for on time performance for these same passengers who would have found it more convenient to ride the full service Coast Starlight than the blander, much less desirable corridor trains.
Union Pacific’s last contract change with Amtrak reduced the on-time incentive payments from $4.00 per train mile to $2.50 per train mile. In exchange for the lower incentive payment, UP receives a high regular train mile rate than before the contract change.
Here is what Dennis Larson, numbers cruncher and statistical researcher, and Vice President of the Minnesota Association of Railroad Passengers had to say:
“Union Pacific’s stance is understandable because they are a freight railroad. Typically, business people look at the gross receipts; I would bet UP does the same. Comparing freight train revenue with passenger train revenue would explain the attitude [of UP towards Amtrak].
“But, freight train revenue is far from net profit; most goes for expenses.
“Amtrak revenue has little in the line of expenses [for the host freight railroad such as UP]; most of it is net profit. To get this into perspective, $4.00 a train mile [incentive pay on top of contract pay] comes out to about 2 cents a passenger mile for a train like the Empire Builder and 4 cents a mile for trains like the Hiawatha corridor services.
“If the airlines netted revenue like this at 2 cents a mile they would be collecting around $14 billion a year; usually their best year was around half of that. Greyhound, as well, would be awash in cash. I would bet, without checking, if the railroads themselves netted something like that per ton-mile, they, too, would have so much money they would be looking at places to invest their excess cash, if not in the railroad.
“We know, too, the railroads are not satisfied with their return on investment; that may also be true, but maybe it is time for them to invest in airlines to get a taste of the real transport world, or [perhaps in] truck and bus lines.
“Another question is, why the rate UP collects is a major problem it can’t live with, while other railroads can?
“One can find many reasons to do something, more reasons to do nothing.
“BNSF has lots of traffic, so does UP. UP seems to have lots of problems even when traffic levels are not all that high. It probably comes down to attitude on both sides. Is Amtrak a good negotiator? Probably not, but some in the organization are. Take a look at the BNSF high-line [which carries the Empire Builder], it went from bad to very good all because of an improved relationship. No new track, but a better attitude.
“Even pointing out advantages of Amtrak revenue versus freight revenue would help. Being a reliable tenant, that is being predictable on a daily basis helps, too. The railroads know everything Amtrak does and does not do. Aside from rail fanatics, few are impressed with the Amtrak operation.
“If all was lost, making an issue out of it in various ways might be the way instead of suffering in silence. The proverbial squeaky wheel does, indeed, get oiled. There are solutions, but old-time ‘railroad think’ is to give up. This is the railroad culture; abandon a venture that becomes difficult.”
One well placed Washington observer offered this line of thought:
“One of the problems is that Amtrak [the national system] is simply too small. Even if running the trains were fabulously profitable (i.e, the costs are negligible) Amtrak’s payments are a drop in the bucket for today’s Class One railroads. It’s only human nature that a railroad’s biggest customers in terms of revenue are going to get all the attention. And, as a few hidebound systems have proven over the years, even getting a railroad’s undivided attention isn’t all that special.
“Now, if Amtrak were to grow, and find a way to compensate the ‘freights’ for new capacity, you might get their attention. The fastest way to scare off a freight is to start caterwauling about ‘high speed corridors’ in the absence of bringing adult money to the table. (Doesn’t this sound like Amtrak’s traditional MO and that of the ‘Emerging Corridors’ shills?) Seventy-nine miles per hour passenger trains, if given a modicum of operational discipline on Amtrak’s part, would impose minimally on the capacity of a line, up to four frequencies a day. After that, we should be talking about opening new routes and growing the network, not increasing frequencies to streetcar levels on one particular route.
“A first place to start is to grow consists and cure Amtrak’s chronic allergies to en-route switching. Get a bigger bang for the buck out of a train movement. More revenue, same track rent. Growing a consist is of no concern to the landlord, provided Amtrak assigns enough reliable motive power to get the thing over the line on something resembling what’s on the time card. And I don’t mean growing consists with carloads of kitty litter and apples.”
The only answer to this is for the next permanent president of Amtrak to sit down with the Union Pacific and come to a final resolution to this problem, which includes all of the Amtrak trains operated by Union Pacific. A contract exists; if it’s bad, it needs to be fixed and updated. If it’s just a matter of Union Pacific making a corporate decision to ignore the needs of one of its substantial, continual customers, than UP needs to reexamine its corporate mission and make some changes at the top of the company.
Here is what Amtrak announced in its computerized reservations system:
TRAIN 14 IS OFF-ONLY EUGENE THRU SEATTLE "EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, TRAIN 14 IS DISCHARGE-ONLY AT ALL STATIONS EUGENE THROUGH SEATTLE. "THIS IS IN EFFECT THROUGH THE END OF INVENTORY. "TRAIN 14 HAS BEEN CHRONICALLY LATE FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT IS NO LONGER A RELIABLE SERVICE FOR LOCAL TRAVEL WITHIN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST CORRIDOR. PASSENGERS BOOK TRAIN 14, IT IS HOURS LATE, AND THEY WIND UP ON OTHER CASCADE TRAIN SERVICES ANYWAY. ARROW AVAILABILITY NOW REFLECTS THE REALITY OF THE OPERATION. "TRAIN 11 DOES NOT HAVE THESE ON-TIME PROBLEMS (AT LEAST WITHIN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST CORRIDOR) SO IT WILL CONTINUE TO CARRY LOCAL PASSENGERS. "AMTRAK, 03FEB2006"
- We have been favored with a first-hand report of the new Diner Lite menu on the Texas Eagle by a seasoned rail traveler, raconteur, chronicler of current events, and former big city daily newspaper writer. According to Amtrak, the Diner Lite program is now in use on the City of New Orleans, and Capitol Limited in addition to the Texas Eagle. Amtrak claims that the long distance fleet of trains dining service accounts for 75% of the annual projected loss of $120 million for food service under the old dining car system.Word from inside Amtrak is that the company is not waiting for more input from passengers before implementing Diner Lite on a wider scale. The Sunset Limited will have the service beginning February 15th, the Southwest Chief on April 15th, and the Coast Starlight on May 3rd. The Sunset, Chief, and Starlight are all staffed from the Los Angeles crew base, where approximately 100 onboard services employees will be furloughed. Employees will need a 1996 seniority date to retain a job.
The eyewitness report is below:
“Last Wednesday, January 25th, I rode No. 21 in first class from Chicago to Dallas. At dinner I presented myself in the diner and found, first, that the dining-car crew, while friendly and attentive, was seating all passengers in groups regardless of any stated preference for dining alone. When I entered the diner there were only two other customers in the car, both seated at the same table. I was seated with them and was told I had no choice in the matter. ‘That’s the way we do it now,’ chirped the waitress.
“She seated me with two fellow sleeping-car passengers, both Texans, both wearing their hats at the table. The first was a young man - maybe 25-27 years old, going to Galveston and wearing a baseball cap. The second was a fiftyish guy wearing cowboy gear, including hat.
“They both turned out to quite nice, actually, and I actually was able to participate in some meaningful and friendly conversation with them. We all ordered at the same time. I ordered the braised beef, the young man ordered chicken Parmesan and the older guy ordered tortellini. The food was delivered almost immediately, since no cooking was needed.
“My beef, which came in a reasonably tasty sauce, was palatable - in a junior-high-school cafeteria sort of way. So, surprisingly, was the vegetable medley that came with it. The mashed potatoes were O.K. too. The salad was elderly - iceberg lettuce turning brown where torn. The package ranch dressing was O.K.
“But what really surprised me was the reaction of my table companions. Remember, neither of these guys looked like gourmets, except perhaps in the barbecue department. But both of them rejected their food. The young guy took two bites of his chicken Parmesan and pushed it aside. ‘I can’t eat this,’ he told a waiter who was in the vicinity. The older guy did the same thing with his tortellini - just shoved the dish aside, scowled at the waiter and said, ‘I cain’t finish this. It’s jis’ no good.’
“The waiter, who seemed to have been through this before, rolled his eyes, sighed and said, ‘Write a letter.’ The two guys laughed wearily, and the older guy said, ‘Yeah.’
“‘I would send the letter to Kay Bailey Hutchison,’ I said to the older guy. ‘She seems to care about the trains. And on this train it’s a Texas issue.’
“‘Yeah,’ he said. ‘Kay Bailey would be good.’ We broke up in a reasonably cheerful frame of mind. What these guys did for dinner I don’t know - probably went to the lounge car for a hot dog or a slice of warmed up pizza.
“At breakfast the next morning I had the western omelette with ‘vegetarian ham.’ Again, it was acceptable at the junior-high-school-cafeteria level but did not meet any commercial standards with which I’m familiar. Also, the extremely regular circular shape of the omelette suggested it had been made in some sort of a mold - not standard omelette-handling at any restaurant I’m aware of. The hash-browns were decent.
“FYI, this was the first time in 45 years of sleeping-car travel that I did not tip my porter. As we were standing outside Dallas for 20 minutes waiting for a signal (aboard a train already three hours late), I asked him, ‘Do you have any idea how long we’re likely to be held here?’ He replied, ‘I’m just the sleeping-car attendant, sir. I don’t get involved in train operation.’
“I left him there in his roomette so he could complete his orderly progress to his pension without further interruption.”
Keep in mind the above narrative was written by a gentleman who believes in the business and wisdom of passenger rail service. If Amtrak is annoying this segment of its demographic passenger base, what is it doing to the base such as the two gentlemen also seated at the table? Will they be Amtrak passengers again?
- One of the most obnoxious phrases coming out of Washington and elsewhere these days is the thought that Amtrak of the near future will not be operating “1950s style trains.” Harrumph. Let’s take a quick look at a typical long distance train in the 1950s: the coaches had about 10 fewer seats than the present Amfleet single level coaches, but had large, roomy rest rooms and changing areas, plus large picture windows. The dining cars served freshly prepared restaurant style meals that were reasonably priced. Lounge cars sold mostly liquor and soft drinks, and a small assortment of snacks such as peanuts or pretzels. Sleeping cars held about the same number of passengers as the Viewliners of today, but lacked a shower facility.Other than less service in the lounge cars, and no showers in the sleeping cars, things today seem pretty much as they were in the 1950s. This is bad? Comfort, nutritious food, and windows large enough to enjoy the view are out of style?
Perhaps, we misunderstand the misguided people using this obnoxious phrase. Perhaps what they mean is that 1950s trains were slower than today’s trains, and therefore, were unattractive. Hmm … well, most long distance routes of today run about three to five hours longer in travel time than similar routes of the 1950s. So, if we want to not emulate 1950s trains, perhaps all of the emphasis on speed for corridor trains is wrong, if 1950s speed for long distance trains is wrong, too?
But, wait, perhaps what the misguided people are talking about is that nobody wants to travel by long distance train, anymore, as they did in the 1950s. That certainly must be the case why, in so many previous summers and during busy holiday season travel periods, that all Amtrak long distance trains are usually sold out well in advance for sleeping car and most coach space.
Can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why trains of the 1950s shouldn’t be emulated, now? Better speed, more comfort, and a higher level of amenities (except showers). Obviously, these are all things that nobody wants, today.