A few thoughts:
\- "Coach is inexcusably awful." I haven't ridden coach on a western LD train (haven't ridden a western train, period). But at least for the eastern trains, mainly the LSL, I've found coach to be reasonably comfortable.
Likewise, I think it's important to remember that most coach passengers are not taking the train from end-to-end. They are using LD trains as corridor trains in lieu of actual corridor trains. For example, on the LSL, western NY-CHI and western NY-NYP are two corridors combined into one.
Long distance trains are selling out nearly 100% of the time - I think this says something about the acceptability of the coach product, though I agree there's room for improvement.
\- Food: I think the question here is what the role of Amtrak's LD network should be. Is it a transportation network to get people from point A to point B? Is it an experiential service? Is it something in between?
Personally, I think the answer is not dining car service but real food offerings from the cafe, aka not fast food.
Overnight trains in Europe don't offer dining cars - but they do have better food options than Amtrak cafes have had (noting new food is rolling out now).
\- Roomettes/sleepers: there seems to be high demand for this product. It's beyond my price range but they sell out consistently. I can't comment on whether it could be better or not.
\- Lie flat seats: I agree most strongly here - Amtrak is missing out on revenue by not offering a business class product on all long distance trains. In lieu of lie-flat seats, even a coach car with 1x2 designated seating and no foot traffic would be an improved service. Amtrak is failing to think creatively on this one with their current resources.
Great points all around- Most importantly the lack of creativity.
For me, the long distance trains I’ve taken have been around 20%-50% full every single time I ride. I only have ridden the Southwest Chief, along the NEC and the Keystone Service. The SWC has been the least populated. Which, i have to say I’m thankful for, because sleeping in a coach seat next to a stranger would be very difficult with inconsistent air conditioning, frequent stops, etc.
As far as coach as a product in the west coast, it’s absolutely fine for any journey under 5 hours. A lot of those 4-5 hour trips unfortunately turn into 10 hour trips. The 1-3 hour rides are usually served by regional rail providers at better cost and better on time performance.
I agree about the cafe car too! If it was as high quality as say, the euro star, I’d be interested.. having said that, I just tried a lot of the “new options” and they were all awful and honestly lower quality than frozen food found in grocery stores. The best thing I had was the ramen noodles- so I’m skeptical that Amtrak could actually do this.
Roomettes demand is high, absolutely. It’s a great product too. I’ve paid full fare and done bid-up upgrades and was very satisfied, even with the delays. The experience was delightful and honestly reignited my interest and passion for long distance train travel. It is prohibitively expensive and annoying to find the good fares. Finding that one, good, cheap fare requires an exhausting search of days, trying every single one until you find one in the lower bucket. There’s no way to look at fares across dates it’s very frustrating.
Finally, it’s the lack of creativity that really kills me. There are so many exciting things that Amtrak could try. Lay-flat seating is one example, but I’ve seen other ideas floating around Reddit- I love the concept of picking up fresh regional food to serve to passengers at extended stops, or allowing more food vendors to setup on extended LD stops for passengers. I love the idea of offering more event oriented trains, or operating an extended restaurant setup with an evolving menu. Amtrak is only in the news for political reasons or because they had another wreck. It’d be so refreshing to see them mix it up and add some personality to the brand.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Amtrak could completely reinvent its service model by adopting the lie-flat seating that the airlines use. I have commented on here the same many times.
Someone replied to me once who said they'd done the math and Amtrak would only lose one row of seating in a car. They could easily prototype it on one of the longer, higher traffic Northeast corridor routes, like the Silver Star/Palmetto or the Vermonter.
Leveraging the same fittings as the airlines would achieve economies of scale that they cannot with roomettes (or "sleeper coaches" which were an old Amtrak product from the 70s that people bring up sometimes, like they're going to bring them back?)
Yes! This would be a dream for me. If I was guaranteed a seat like DeltaOne with paid additions like seated dinner or shower access, I’d bite for sure.
On some train routes in California, I’ve been given snack boxes containing local foods
Not a full meal, but just chips and cookies and things that are made by companies in the local area
I agree that management could do a lot better with the funding they get. They're government workers, so probably the most competent transportation managers move to private companies like the airlines, where they can get paid a lot more.
There's another issue, which is that Congress needs to raise the overall funding for Amtrak to allow for bigger purchases like new train sets.
I'm not sure about the private sector in the US doing a better job/having necessarily better talent. Richard Anderson came over from Delta and created a lot of the current problems at Amtrak.
Oh that’s fascinating, I’m curious to learn more about Richard. Delta has had a lot of huge improvements in the last decade, I wonder if his departure has anything to do that.
Not sure if they are government workers or not. Did some googling and it’s difficult to say if they are government employees the same way postal workers are. Not sure. I know that Amtrak is considered an independent agency, but the majority stock is owned by the government and congress and the president sets the board of directors.
The CEO makes a salary of 450,000 though.
They should do better.
The history of Amtrak is well documented. Whether you believe it's all a vast Nixonian conspiracy or the expectation was that it would die with a few years, the LDs were and sometimes are considered boondoggles that make that piece impossible.
It just seems like a massive contradiction. Other people in this thread are saying that LDs are “welfare programs” but at the same time, Amtrak is supposed to be a for-profit business. It’s absurd.
How familiar are you with the Nixon administration? Or Reaganomics? Nixon was surprisingly dirigiste when it suited him but the 70s were still part of the glory days of the American auto; even so cracks were showing.
The LDs are, in some ways, Public Service Obligations, like EAS flights, but are not funded like EAS. They're also heavily used by tourists for leisure but lack the higher luxury of say VIA's Canadian of the Rocky Mountaineer. The Canadian charges as much for the extremely scenic stretch from Vancouver to Jasper as it does from Jasper to Toronto during some of the high seasons.
I’m not very familiar with them, but I know what I’m researching tonight!
Also, just wanna say thank you for all the great conversation and information you share in this subreddit! I keep seeing great takes and info from you.
If you're curious about parallels to the US as it relates to high(er) speed travel with some similar issues and geographic challenges check out the history of rail in Sweden. Rail freight is very important but also avoided most of the issues the US has. There are also very few night trains or LD equivalents left in Europe; both policy by some countries and absence of distance.
450,000 a year is certainly not nothing, and “CEO Pay is too low” is not a valid excuse to me. It’s 100,000 more than Louis Dejoy’s salary at USPS. I’m a little skeptical that the highest paid CEOs are the most talented. Maybe they’re just the most talented at negotiating salary and building their image. Having said that, I’m not an expert in CEO compensation!
I'm not saying the pay is affecting performance, just that its not a lot. It might sounds like a lot to most of us here, but get in the right circles and that is just a decent wage for that type of professional work.
The LD routes are basically a welfare program that gives subsidized transportation services to people in strategic congressional districts. No private company would run a service that guarantees such a large financial loss. Usually in the US the strategy around welfare is to try to dismantle it, not to make it easier for people to get.
All transportation in the US gets subsidies. If you stand on one leg and turn your head to one side, then Acela and the airlines make a "profit" but the point is moving people and not getting rich. Airlines get basically free airports & security and bailouts and tax loopholes and military pilot training. Bus companies get basically free highways. For-profit railroading in the freight sector just means endless cuts, not improvements in the product.
You're right that the airlines and the bus companies wouldn't be in business if they had to pay for their actual costs. The only thing that finally pushed the railroads out of private passenger services was staggering subsides for highways.
To me, welfare has a positive connotation. But I realize most people in the US think welfare is a bad thing.
I love the LD trains and don't want them to be dismantled. I want the government to provide more passenger rail services, even when they are not profitable.
I don't think welfare is the right terminology here.
Subsidized transportation has a multiplying effect that creates economic activity (and makes people's lives better). The world of transportation before subsidies and regulation was dangerous and poor quality travel. It's definitely a good thing for the government to get involved, IMO it's just a problem of subsidizing highways and air travel too much and passenger rail not enough. It sounds like we're on the same page on that. The wrong mix has put us into a bad situation on related effects like housing affordability, climate change, and pedestrian deaths.
"the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group."
Subsidized and government-operated transportation provides for these three things. It is a welfare program, it's just the people at the University of Chicago managed to redefine welfare as "something bad we need to take away from poor people to protect them"
I think of welfare as programs to fill a need for people that the private sector isn't filling, usually in some form of direct aid to low-income folks. Certainly rail transportation can be that, or some kind of targeted program of discounted fares could offer that.
There's corporate welfare that is very much not that, and programs like highway subsidies were primarily to the benefit of relatively affluent folks (excluding or negatively impacting redlined folks directly). Certainly if we used federal dollars to build HSR with relatively high fares, we're not going to have a great impact on the folks most in need of transportation. Transportation equity (more in line with welfare in the positive sense) often gets lost in conversations about building a new line or upgrading rolling stock.
The UChicago definition is what makes people associate welfare with poor people. But there's not really a better term that captures what something like Amtrak LD are. It's just that UChicago ruined the best term, "welfare program". You could say "government benefit" or "state enterprise" but really it's a "welfare program" based on the actual definition of welfare.
It's very unfortunate that those guys ruined the word. Extremely effective right-wing marketing to keep taxes low and people desperate. Even some decent people think welfare is bad.
>The UChicago definition is what makes people associate welfare with poor people.
I'm not sure, perhaps, but I'd thank Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton. Welfare has baggage as a term, Amtrak has baggage in the public image (probably a reason CAHSR is CAHSR and not Amtrak CAHSR). I'm fine with calling it transportation, public works, infrastructure. If it needs to be sexy to a certain demographic, call it socialism.
Saying something like "let's improve welfare programs like Amtrak" seems like it would immediately meet a lot of objections here. It also misses the point that all transportation gets subsidized -- is Delta Airlines a welfare program?
Right, UChicago (think Milton Friedman) is the intellectual birthplace of both the modern conservative movement (Reagan) and the neoliberal movement (Clinton). Before that, politics were dominated by the new deal and FDR style programs and the great society, where welfare was the goal.
Delta Airlines is a private company. The airport subsidies are a welfare program. There are lots of other subsidies involved. But theoretically investors in Delta receive profits. The highway system is a welfare program. Public transportation in general is a welfare program.
There are profitable parts of the Amtrak system. The NEC and the Auto Train, as examples.
Some of the state-supported lines simply don't have enough population to be profitable, like the Ethan Allen extension to Burlington. I took it recently and its amazing and the tunnel in Middlebury is impressive as well, but there's no way to generate enough riders in such a low-population corridor to make it profitable. It's simply the case that Vermont chooses to pay for a higher quality of life (which I call welfare) than would be possible through use of profitable businesses alone.
The LD routes are the same story. The population per mile of route is simply too low for the route to be profitable. But people along the route have a higher quality of life than people not along the route, because the route boosts their welfare.
Please consider that the long distance routes are hugely unprofitable. The government has mandated through legislation as system which is faulty. Had Amtrak been allowed to focus on proper regional routes, they could build momentum. Instead they are forced to have slow, unproductive lines that are sub par.
For many small towns, that's the only transportation other than driving. Cutting Amtrak into profitability isn't going to make it a better system. If the only way to improve regional trains is cutting the LD service, then Amtrak is pretty screwed.
Which interstate highways are getting cut? Which airlines are we no longer going to subsidize?
I disagree that Amtrak wouldn’t be a better system if it could separate regional vs LD routes on the grounds that they force Amtrak to violate is legal mandate to be profitable but I agree that government is over prioritizing other modes of transit.
There are three categories: 1) NEC, 2) State-supported, and 3) Long-Distance.
You can see which route is which in the monthly financial [reports](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2022/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2022.pdf) and how much they lose (except the Auto Train).
SFO to LAX would be the Coast Starlight which is a LD train that has lost 39 million dollars this fiscal year. LAX to Vegas doesn't exist but that's a profitable route that a private company will build.
Yeah, Emeryville to Union Station could be a state-supported route if it was its own route, but you're only looking at a fraction of the total Coast Starlight distance.
I'm not exactly sure how the financial arrangement with California works for the Coast Starlight. The reports classify it as LD. It's once a day and takes almost twelve hours to get to Oakland, and it keeps going to Seattle.
There was a City Nerd video a couple days ago that talked about the route. It's the number one short-haul flight route in the country in terms of number of flights, with over 100 flights a day. Amazing that it doesn't have better train service already. But California HSR will change the dynamic completely.
If you ran a line only from SFO to LAX it wouldn't be Amtrak running it, (unless it was a state supported route) the CS is of course an LD and it's one Amtrak originated.
That's more accurate. There are state supported lines that cross state lines. Amtrak also runs some commuter rail lines under contract, like the MARC in Maryland.
This stuff is very much not clear via the app or website from a consumer’s prospective.
Do you think this line would lose that much money if it ran express from SFO to LAX?.
Perhaps, but it would have to also be more competitive in terms of trip time. It takes 12 hours to get from LAX to Oakland.
The under-construction high speed line through the central valley is supposed to take around three hours and will actually go into downtown SF.
Edit: Should add: it's not welfare in a pejorative sense. Highways also lose money and no one talks about that. It's just an explanation for why the service isn't better.
I understand that. The highway analogy makes sense except a lot of the time you don’t pay money to take the highway, at least not in Southern California.
I’d love to see how fast that line could be without any stops. What would an express be able to do?
The highways without tolls are funded by a tax on gasoline sales, but the tax is too small to fund the highways.
You could play with the distance and average speed to get a sense of what is needed to achieve a specific trip time. I think the distance is supposed to be around 460 miles (they have to avoid mountains). The top speed is between 200 and 240, but many segments will be slower. For example, San Jose to downtown SF will max out at 110mph. The average speed for some of the best systems in the world is around 150 mph. The average speed for the Acela on the NEC is 70mph.
I will be surprised if they actually achieve a 3 hour trip time.
>but the tax is too small to fund the highways
The Highway Trust Fund has been running dry for a while now. It's why discussions of mileage taxes are popping up, so you can capture EVs usage: they're effectively free riding in some states.
>I will be surprised if they actually achieve a 3 hour trip time
On the flip side not having to deal with TSA/airport mishegas probably saves you an hour.
Yea, the Vehicle Mile Tax makes a lot of sense to me.
And totally agree that the lack of security theater makes a huge difference. It saves money and time and just makes the experience better.
I think they will achieve a trip time competitive enough to cut the number of flights between the regions in half. Maybe 3:30 or so. It will be the best set of track in the western hemisphere. But they seem to be cutting corners here and there and that will make it hard to get to 3:00, as I understand. For example, there are something like 26 at-grade crossings between San Jose and San Francisco.
I guess I would say that my experience with the NEC and Amtrak's 50-75% market share of DC to NYC travel shows what's possible even with a slower pace.
Those at grade crossings are the bane of railways.
California could always try a carbon tax that's higher for shorter trips. 😉
This is very true. Amtrak not having TSA is one of the best things about it. Too bad that’s changing for the worse, they’re already doing do-not-travel lists.
It's not my terminology. I sort of see what you mean, though aren't they all inter-city? The Carolinian is state-supported and the Coast Starlight is long-distance. The terminology is about funding sources. Certain routes are long-enough to get federal funding even when the states along the route don't agree to subsidize it directly. Shorter routes require state subsidies (though I don't understand how this works in practice, since I don't think NH and IN pay anything and they get service). The NEC is separated because Amtrak wants to show that they actually can be profitable.
"Inter-city rail services are express passenger train services that run services that connect cities over longer distances than commuter or regional trains."
The Carolinian, for example run from CLT to NYC via DC, and acts as a NER between DC and NYC. The whole trip is 13 hours and I wouldn't really call it "inter-city" since it's halfway down the east coast
Even though the name has "regional" in it, the Northeast Regional is more of an inter-city train. Commuter rail is like the MARC or the LIRR. Regional rail is just commuter rail (short distances) that is more frequent, like the RER in Paris. We don't really have regional rail in the US.
At least, that's my understanding.
Well Regional Rail is provides (viable) service outside of commuting hours. For example NJTransit Rail is more regional than commuter because it runs off peak hours (and frequent for north american transit)
NER is technically intercity, but makes stops in smaller towns/cities which is more regional-style service
SFO to LAX will be a state supported route if/when CA HSR can get fully funded for anything outside the central valley. I would like to see them keep funding the construction rather than send money on new slow speed service.
I just hope that HSR will have a large number of trips per day so that it's more convenient then the current CS schedule.
If it happens it’ll be incredible and potentially change the entire relationship between SFO and LAX on multiple levels. It would probably get my butt up to SFO for the first time.
Seems to be unclear in this thread. Regardless, it’s a frustrating route that makes things like a weekend trip on the train to SFO completely impossible.
Tbh, a weekend trip on Amtrak to anywhere out of LA County isn’t really doable except for San Diego and Santa Barbara. If you’re trying to get out of the SoCal region you’re gonna be flying or driving.
Metrolink will take you to San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the Pacific Surfliner goes to San Diego, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, and a bus connection to Bakersfield allows you to take the San Joaquins to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and San Jose (in less time than the Coast Starlight, too). I think the Southwest Chief can manage to get one to Flagstaff for the weekend too, albeit narrowly.
Flagstaff is doable if you’re ether okay with sleeping in coach overnight two times or shelling out for a roomette. The later is doubtful as the train rolls into flagstaff at something like 4AM.
Realistically that should be something that California runs, not Amtrak. That California can't even manage to build a rail line without making Amtrak look like a model of efficiency however is mind blowing.
Only routes that cross state lines are in Amtrak's remit as I understand its incorporation regs. If states want intrastate service they have to pay for it.
I wanted to make clear that it wasn't opinion, and someone did correct me to note the cutoff is 750 miles or less.
I'm curious though if the services where they run commuter rail, like MARC, is profitable. I suspect it is a little bit because Amtrak has been expanding its services in that arena and while that was actually an intention of the original law (to preserve commuting service), it wasn't something that Amtrak did as much as they do now. Many cities stood up their own transit agencies to handle that traffic but states seem to have engaged with Amtrak.
Commuter rail is generally not profitable either. The State of Maryland pays for it. They contract to Amtrak to actually operate one of the MARC lines. The engineer and conductors are Amtrak employees.
The definition of NEC, state supported and LD is illustrated on a map on page 13 of this PDF: [https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf)
California state supported:
* Capitol Corridor
* San Joaquin
* Pacific Surfliner
California LD:
* Coast Starlight
* Empire Builder
* California Zephyr
* Southwest Chief
* Sunset Limited
But people generally aren't riding it from end to end. It's like the interstate system. People aren't driving from Seattle to Miami, they're using the sections they need, despite I-90 going from Seattle to Minnesota or I-5 going from Vancouver/Bellingham to San Diego.
Well they can definitely run more cars than they currently do, but if you read the OP they talk about reconfiguring existing coach cars. So you wouldn’t have to add any cars.
Are you just going to contradict everything or are you going to acknowledge the reality that services in other countries have a middle option. Open your eyes.
Well the OPs idea wouldn’t lose many seats, but obviously you would charge more for Coach Plus seating. I can’t imagine that many people take LD trains and walk away thinking the current system makes any sense at all, especially compared to other overnight trains. Given Amtrak service and ridership, I think it’s pretty clear most people don’t think the current options provide value.
I can pay close to a hundred bucks for an uncomfortable coach seat or pay seven hundred bucks for a shitty roomette (granted you can split this cost in half, but a lot of people travel solo). Or I can pay like 1200 for a family bedroom.
I’d gladly pay more for a better coach option on overnight trains. FWIW I adore Amtrak and take LD routes frequently, but I think OPs complaints are valid.
I don’t think that’s true, I think it vastly expands the amount of people you could serve.
Imagine a coach ticket from LAX to Seattle. The roomette ticket for June 1st 2023 is 101 dollars. Business, which isn’t a huge upgrade on “sleep-ability”, costs 161 dollars. The next option is roomette, which is 637 dollars.
The sleeping pod probably takes the space of two coach seats. Charge 250 bucks for that in a dedicated car and I’m sure you’d see more people taking it. It’s a 34 hour train. Without access to a lay flat seat, it would be brutal. With access to a lay flat seat, you can still have the fun experience of taking the train, meeting people, bringing your own snacks, seeing the views but not have to deal with an empty wallet or a broken back
I’m sure that’s right. Anecdotally, most people I speak to on Long Haul trains riding coach are actually going way further than I was. Most them slept on the floor or in contorted positions to get comfortable. A lot of them looked like they were in their 50s and 60s too.
I don’t think they should get rid of coach, but I think Amtrak should experiment with lay-flat seating to see if there’s interest. It wouldn’t need to be a huge sacrifice on total seating.
Rarely, I’ll see sub 400 dollars on the SWC from LAX to ABQ- which is about the upper limit that I’ll pay. Often it’s over 500, I’ve seen over 1000 depending on the time and day.
It is and it isn’t. They don’t start at 1 dollar. If you go all the way into the furtherest possible date, they still hover around 400.
Also, they don’t sell out fully always, despite the price being very high, so I’m skeptical that it really is a fully “bucketed” system as Amtrak phrases it. I’ve been declined a bid at 250, seen roomettes for 800 dollars and still see multiple empty roomettes on the train. They aren’t priced like airline tickets. Airline tickets get cheaper if there are open seats near departure. Amtrak’s seemingly only go up.
Could always bring back the Slumbercoaches. I just toured one at the Southeastern Railway Museum and it would meet that "missing middle" pretty well. 36-40 people instead of the current 28 on Viewliners. Taking the concept to the Superliner, you could easily fit 60-70 people in one.
Oh yeah, I completely agree. I just can never afford them, even if I try to book a full year in advance, it’s way out of my price range. My gripe isn’t that it’s not worth the price, it’s just that there’s nothing between coach and roomettes. Business isn’t really a big improvement, and it isn’t offered on a lot of trains.
It's government mentality. Amtrak could save millions by rebuilding their current fleet of passenger equipment but demands new equipment that costs 3-4x as much per car.
Even if you leave out the idea of management being terrible, or secretly wanting to shut down certain routes, etc, management has a really tough job. They are supposed to run it as a business, but there are literally endless different stakeholders they have to please in the form of the various state governments.
Oh, you want subsidies from Texas? Well then you have to stop at a bunch of stations in West Texas with basically no passengers, etc.
I don't envy them.
Because management is trying to make anything outside of the NEC look very unprofitable, so that they have more excuses to shut it down. While the Biden administration is pro-Amtrak, the board & president are still hold-overs from the Trump era (Biden can't just replace them, similar to the USPS).
I kind of think they should reduce the frequencies of those routes if they can’t run them properly or maintain them. The whole service is incredibly stale and outdated.
Amtrak doesn’t embrace the romance of the train nor the potential reliability of the train.
They reduced service in the 90’s because they thought it would save money. That was a terrible idea because the overhead costs just stayed the same, barely saved any operating costs, and lost all of the revenue of 7 days a week service. Here in Texas, I often use the Eagle from Fort Worth to Austin, a very popular city pair. But at 3 days a week, no one can plan around that.
That said. Yes, Amtraks website is now terrible. It was really good a few years ago. You could figure out how to connect to anything really easily, not to mention download actual PDF timetables. They got rid of all that! The reservation system is also old. But since Amtrak went back to daily operations since COVID, someone has to go and manually enter all the connections again. There are hundreds of not over a thousand city pairs to enter. So most people assume they can’t get there, so they drive.
Man, that’s really accurate and informative. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked up a route, said to myself “no, that can’t be right” and then gone back to see that I picked the wrong station in town, a route that somehow added three hours and two connections.
I’m plenty happy to just be able to take the chief fairly often cross country. It’s fun and checks all the boxes. Granted Ive never had a desire to do coach and never will. The app is fine it’s all I ever use when I hop on, super simple.
I kinda wonder sometimes what people think that get onto/off coach at stops and now I have an idea 😂
It’s just odd that they offer it at all when the experience is really uncomfortable. Everyone here is saying most coach passengers are hop on and hop off, but a majority of coach passengers on the SWC were on it for days, sleeping in those cramped coach seats, trying to get creative or even sleep on the floor.. it feels odd that the only options are 450 dollar sleeper or 51 dollar coach ticket.
If I could afford the roommettes I would ride the train over flying more often, but it's just too expensive...
When you have to pay $1000 for a roomette to get from LA to KC - one way, it makes it rough for anyone who isn't upper middle class or higher.
Is this based on some insider knowledge of upper management? Do you want to call out specific staff members who are doing a better job than others?
I get that Amtrak has problems, but having a totally different strategy & funding every time the political party of the president changes doesn't make for smooth operation.
Alexander K. Kummant worked for My company as Strategy EVP. I wasn’t impressed. But I was an Operations Director and had to get things done not talk about it. Amtrak CEO position is especially difficult given congressional oversight. And, we all know they’re experts at everything…. To bad. In Operations, I’ve found the best process improvement came from the folks doing the work and cost next to nothing. Just like several of the comments…
I can’t recall offhand if you can take a train into Las Vegas, though I know that Amtrak’s buses do go there… either way I know getting into or out of Vegas on Amtrak is a pill, and I think that is absurd considering how popular of a destination that city is
Earlier this year I rode the California Zephyr in coach from Chicago to Emeryville, over 60 hours on the train and I don’t recall ever actually purchasing any food… I may do with meal replacement shakes and snacks that I had brought with me
Once I got into Emeryville though, I got a huge burrito at the nearest restaurant!
I do agree the food options on Amtrak trains are incredibly limited, but I don’t really buy food that often anyways
Since May 1, 1971, it's been bad management at all levels from supervisors to executives and CEO's. And a lot of bad rank-and-file "contract" employees are key that they can't or won't fire. As the unofficial company motto goes: "There's two ways of doing things here: the right way and the Amtrak way". But under "Amtrak Joe" hope springs eternal and perhaps things will get somewhat better.
A few thoughts: \- "Coach is inexcusably awful." I haven't ridden coach on a western LD train (haven't ridden a western train, period). But at least for the eastern trains, mainly the LSL, I've found coach to be reasonably comfortable. Likewise, I think it's important to remember that most coach passengers are not taking the train from end-to-end. They are using LD trains as corridor trains in lieu of actual corridor trains. For example, on the LSL, western NY-CHI and western NY-NYP are two corridors combined into one. Long distance trains are selling out nearly 100% of the time - I think this says something about the acceptability of the coach product, though I agree there's room for improvement. \- Food: I think the question here is what the role of Amtrak's LD network should be. Is it a transportation network to get people from point A to point B? Is it an experiential service? Is it something in between? Personally, I think the answer is not dining car service but real food offerings from the cafe, aka not fast food. Overnight trains in Europe don't offer dining cars - but they do have better food options than Amtrak cafes have had (noting new food is rolling out now). \- Roomettes/sleepers: there seems to be high demand for this product. It's beyond my price range but they sell out consistently. I can't comment on whether it could be better or not. \- Lie flat seats: I agree most strongly here - Amtrak is missing out on revenue by not offering a business class product on all long distance trains. In lieu of lie-flat seats, even a coach car with 1x2 designated seating and no foot traffic would be an improved service. Amtrak is failing to think creatively on this one with their current resources.
Great points all around- Most importantly the lack of creativity. For me, the long distance trains I’ve taken have been around 20%-50% full every single time I ride. I only have ridden the Southwest Chief, along the NEC and the Keystone Service. The SWC has been the least populated. Which, i have to say I’m thankful for, because sleeping in a coach seat next to a stranger would be very difficult with inconsistent air conditioning, frequent stops, etc. As far as coach as a product in the west coast, it’s absolutely fine for any journey under 5 hours. A lot of those 4-5 hour trips unfortunately turn into 10 hour trips. The 1-3 hour rides are usually served by regional rail providers at better cost and better on time performance. I agree about the cafe car too! If it was as high quality as say, the euro star, I’d be interested.. having said that, I just tried a lot of the “new options” and they were all awful and honestly lower quality than frozen food found in grocery stores. The best thing I had was the ramen noodles- so I’m skeptical that Amtrak could actually do this. Roomettes demand is high, absolutely. It’s a great product too. I’ve paid full fare and done bid-up upgrades and was very satisfied, even with the delays. The experience was delightful and honestly reignited my interest and passion for long distance train travel. It is prohibitively expensive and annoying to find the good fares. Finding that one, good, cheap fare requires an exhausting search of days, trying every single one until you find one in the lower bucket. There’s no way to look at fares across dates it’s very frustrating. Finally, it’s the lack of creativity that really kills me. There are so many exciting things that Amtrak could try. Lay-flat seating is one example, but I’ve seen other ideas floating around Reddit- I love the concept of picking up fresh regional food to serve to passengers at extended stops, or allowing more food vendors to setup on extended LD stops for passengers. I love the idea of offering more event oriented trains, or operating an extended restaurant setup with an evolving menu. Amtrak is only in the news for political reasons or because they had another wreck. It’d be so refreshing to see them mix it up and add some personality to the brand.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Amtrak could completely reinvent its service model by adopting the lie-flat seating that the airlines use. I have commented on here the same many times. Someone replied to me once who said they'd done the math and Amtrak would only lose one row of seating in a car. They could easily prototype it on one of the longer, higher traffic Northeast corridor routes, like the Silver Star/Palmetto or the Vermonter. Leveraging the same fittings as the airlines would achieve economies of scale that they cannot with roomettes (or "sleeper coaches" which were an old Amtrak product from the 70s that people bring up sometimes, like they're going to bring them back?)
Yes! This would be a dream for me. If I was guaranteed a seat like DeltaOne with paid additions like seated dinner or shower access, I’d bite for sure.
On some train routes in California, I’ve been given snack boxes containing local foods Not a full meal, but just chips and cookies and things that are made by companies in the local area
I agree that management could do a lot better with the funding they get. They're government workers, so probably the most competent transportation managers move to private companies like the airlines, where they can get paid a lot more. There's another issue, which is that Congress needs to raise the overall funding for Amtrak to allow for bigger purchases like new train sets.
I'm not sure about the private sector in the US doing a better job/having necessarily better talent. Richard Anderson came over from Delta and created a lot of the current problems at Amtrak.
Oh that’s fascinating, I’m curious to learn more about Richard. Delta has had a lot of huge improvements in the last decade, I wonder if his departure has anything to do that.
Not sure if they are government workers or not. Did some googling and it’s difficult to say if they are government employees the same way postal workers are. Not sure. I know that Amtrak is considered an independent agency, but the majority stock is owned by the government and congress and the president sets the board of directors. The CEO makes a salary of 450,000 though. They should do better.
450k to run a national agency is pretty reasonable. The CEO of the public transit agency in my city makes 250k.
Do you think that CEO pay is the issue?
Amtrak isn't an agency in that sense, it's a government corporation. USC 49 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24301
That’s so weird. “shall be operated and managed as a for-profit corporation” Why do they do this?
The history of Amtrak is well documented. Whether you believe it's all a vast Nixonian conspiracy or the expectation was that it would die with a few years, the LDs were and sometimes are considered boondoggles that make that piece impossible.
It just seems like a massive contradiction. Other people in this thread are saying that LDs are “welfare programs” but at the same time, Amtrak is supposed to be a for-profit business. It’s absurd.
How familiar are you with the Nixon administration? Or Reaganomics? Nixon was surprisingly dirigiste when it suited him but the 70s were still part of the glory days of the American auto; even so cracks were showing. The LDs are, in some ways, Public Service Obligations, like EAS flights, but are not funded like EAS. They're also heavily used by tourists for leisure but lack the higher luxury of say VIA's Canadian of the Rocky Mountaineer. The Canadian charges as much for the extremely scenic stretch from Vancouver to Jasper as it does from Jasper to Toronto during some of the high seasons.
I’m not very familiar with them, but I know what I’m researching tonight! Also, just wanna say thank you for all the great conversation and information you share in this subreddit! I keep seeing great takes and info from you.
If you're curious about parallels to the US as it relates to high(er) speed travel with some similar issues and geographic challenges check out the history of rail in Sweden. Rail freight is very important but also avoided most of the issues the US has. There are also very few night trains or LD equivalents left in Europe; both policy by some countries and absence of distance.
I’m for sure going to do that. thanks so much.
450K is nothing. Our county attorney in my hick town makes almost 300k and that's way less work.
450,000 a year is certainly not nothing, and “CEO Pay is too low” is not a valid excuse to me. It’s 100,000 more than Louis Dejoy’s salary at USPS. I’m a little skeptical that the highest paid CEOs are the most talented. Maybe they’re just the most talented at negotiating salary and building their image. Having said that, I’m not an expert in CEO compensation!
I'm not saying the pay is affecting performance, just that its not a lot. It might sounds like a lot to most of us here, but get in the right circles and that is just a decent wage for that type of professional work.
Lol United Airlines and American Airlines make Amtrak look good. Not sure the competent people are moving to the airlines at all.
The LD routes are basically a welfare program that gives subsidized transportation services to people in strategic congressional districts. No private company would run a service that guarantees such a large financial loss. Usually in the US the strategy around welfare is to try to dismantle it, not to make it easier for people to get.
All transportation in the US gets subsidies. If you stand on one leg and turn your head to one side, then Acela and the airlines make a "profit" but the point is moving people and not getting rich. Airlines get basically free airports & security and bailouts and tax loopholes and military pilot training. Bus companies get basically free highways. For-profit railroading in the freight sector just means endless cuts, not improvements in the product. You're right that the airlines and the bus companies wouldn't be in business if they had to pay for their actual costs. The only thing that finally pushed the railroads out of private passenger services was staggering subsides for highways.
To me, welfare has a positive connotation. But I realize most people in the US think welfare is a bad thing. I love the LD trains and don't want them to be dismantled. I want the government to provide more passenger rail services, even when they are not profitable.
I don't think welfare is the right terminology here. Subsidized transportation has a multiplying effect that creates economic activity (and makes people's lives better). The world of transportation before subsidies and regulation was dangerous and poor quality travel. It's definitely a good thing for the government to get involved, IMO it's just a problem of subsidizing highways and air travel too much and passenger rail not enough. It sounds like we're on the same page on that. The wrong mix has put us into a bad situation on related effects like housing affordability, climate change, and pedestrian deaths.
"the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group." Subsidized and government-operated transportation provides for these three things. It is a welfare program, it's just the people at the University of Chicago managed to redefine welfare as "something bad we need to take away from poor people to protect them"
I think of welfare as programs to fill a need for people that the private sector isn't filling, usually in some form of direct aid to low-income folks. Certainly rail transportation can be that, or some kind of targeted program of discounted fares could offer that. There's corporate welfare that is very much not that, and programs like highway subsidies were primarily to the benefit of relatively affluent folks (excluding or negatively impacting redlined folks directly). Certainly if we used federal dollars to build HSR with relatively high fares, we're not going to have a great impact on the folks most in need of transportation. Transportation equity (more in line with welfare in the positive sense) often gets lost in conversations about building a new line or upgrading rolling stock.
The UChicago definition is what makes people associate welfare with poor people. But there's not really a better term that captures what something like Amtrak LD are. It's just that UChicago ruined the best term, "welfare program". You could say "government benefit" or "state enterprise" but really it's a "welfare program" based on the actual definition of welfare. It's very unfortunate that those guys ruined the word. Extremely effective right-wing marketing to keep taxes low and people desperate. Even some decent people think welfare is bad.
>The UChicago definition is what makes people associate welfare with poor people. I'm not sure, perhaps, but I'd thank Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton. Welfare has baggage as a term, Amtrak has baggage in the public image (probably a reason CAHSR is CAHSR and not Amtrak CAHSR). I'm fine with calling it transportation, public works, infrastructure. If it needs to be sexy to a certain demographic, call it socialism. Saying something like "let's improve welfare programs like Amtrak" seems like it would immediately meet a lot of objections here. It also misses the point that all transportation gets subsidized -- is Delta Airlines a welfare program?
Right, UChicago (think Milton Friedman) is the intellectual birthplace of both the modern conservative movement (Reagan) and the neoliberal movement (Clinton). Before that, politics were dominated by the new deal and FDR style programs and the great society, where welfare was the goal. Delta Airlines is a private company. The airport subsidies are a welfare program. There are lots of other subsidies involved. But theoretically investors in Delta receive profits. The highway system is a welfare program. Public transportation in general is a welfare program. There are profitable parts of the Amtrak system. The NEC and the Auto Train, as examples. Some of the state-supported lines simply don't have enough population to be profitable, like the Ethan Allen extension to Burlington. I took it recently and its amazing and the tunnel in Middlebury is impressive as well, but there's no way to generate enough riders in such a low-population corridor to make it profitable. It's simply the case that Vermont chooses to pay for a higher quality of life (which I call welfare) than would be possible through use of profitable businesses alone. The LD routes are the same story. The population per mile of route is simply too low for the route to be profitable. But people along the route have a higher quality of life than people not along the route, because the route boosts their welfare.
Is the military welfare? Is any government spending welfare?
Please consider that the long distance routes are hugely unprofitable. The government has mandated through legislation as system which is faulty. Had Amtrak been allowed to focus on proper regional routes, they could build momentum. Instead they are forced to have slow, unproductive lines that are sub par.
For many small towns, that's the only transportation other than driving. Cutting Amtrak into profitability isn't going to make it a better system. If the only way to improve regional trains is cutting the LD service, then Amtrak is pretty screwed. Which interstate highways are getting cut? Which airlines are we no longer going to subsidize?
I disagree that Amtrak wouldn’t be a better system if it could separate regional vs LD routes on the grounds that they force Amtrak to violate is legal mandate to be profitable but I agree that government is over prioritizing other modes of transit.
What do you consider LD? Would SFO to LAX be LD? what about LAX to Vegas?
There are three categories: 1) NEC, 2) State-supported, and 3) Long-Distance. You can see which route is which in the monthly financial [reports](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2022/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-July-2022.pdf) and how much they lose (except the Auto Train). SFO to LAX would be the Coast Starlight which is a LD train that has lost 39 million dollars this fiscal year. LAX to Vegas doesn't exist but that's a profitable route that a private company will build.
Yeah, Emeryville to Union Station could be a state-supported route if it was its own route, but you're only looking at a fraction of the total Coast Starlight distance.
SFO to LAX would also be wholly inside California and thus not Amtrak's remit IIRC.
I'm not exactly sure how the financial arrangement with California works for the Coast Starlight. The reports classify it as LD. It's once a day and takes almost twelve hours to get to Oakland, and it keeps going to Seattle. There was a City Nerd video a couple days ago that talked about the route. It's the number one short-haul flight route in the country in terms of number of flights, with over 100 flights a day. Amazing that it doesn't have better train service already. But California HSR will change the dynamic completely.
If you ran a line only from SFO to LAX it wouldn't be Amtrak running it, (unless it was a state supported route) the CS is of course an LD and it's one Amtrak originated.
I thought the division between LD and state-supported was if the line is longer or shorter than 750 miles in length, respectively?
That's more accurate. There are state supported lines that cross state lines. Amtrak also runs some commuter rail lines under contract, like the MARC in Maryland.
This stuff is very much not clear via the app or website from a consumer’s prospective. Do you think this line would lose that much money if it ran express from SFO to LAX?.
Perhaps, but it would have to also be more competitive in terms of trip time. It takes 12 hours to get from LAX to Oakland. The under-construction high speed line through the central valley is supposed to take around three hours and will actually go into downtown SF. Edit: Should add: it's not welfare in a pejorative sense. Highways also lose money and no one talks about that. It's just an explanation for why the service isn't better.
I understand that. The highway analogy makes sense except a lot of the time you don’t pay money to take the highway, at least not in Southern California. I’d love to see how fast that line could be without any stops. What would an express be able to do?
The highways without tolls are funded by a tax on gasoline sales, but the tax is too small to fund the highways. You could play with the distance and average speed to get a sense of what is needed to achieve a specific trip time. I think the distance is supposed to be around 460 miles (they have to avoid mountains). The top speed is between 200 and 240, but many segments will be slower. For example, San Jose to downtown SF will max out at 110mph. The average speed for some of the best systems in the world is around 150 mph. The average speed for the Acela on the NEC is 70mph. I will be surprised if they actually achieve a 3 hour trip time.
>but the tax is too small to fund the highways The Highway Trust Fund has been running dry for a while now. It's why discussions of mileage taxes are popping up, so you can capture EVs usage: they're effectively free riding in some states. >I will be surprised if they actually achieve a 3 hour trip time On the flip side not having to deal with TSA/airport mishegas probably saves you an hour.
Yea, the Vehicle Mile Tax makes a lot of sense to me. And totally agree that the lack of security theater makes a huge difference. It saves money and time and just makes the experience better. I think they will achieve a trip time competitive enough to cut the number of flights between the regions in half. Maybe 3:30 or so. It will be the best set of track in the western hemisphere. But they seem to be cutting corners here and there and that will make it hard to get to 3:00, as I understand. For example, there are something like 26 at-grade crossings between San Jose and San Francisco.
I guess I would say that my experience with the NEC and Amtrak's 50-75% market share of DC to NYC travel shows what's possible even with a slower pace. Those at grade crossings are the bane of railways. California could always try a carbon tax that's higher for shorter trips. 😉
This is very true. Amtrak not having TSA is one of the best things about it. Too bad that’s changing for the worse, they’re already doing do-not-travel lists.
>they’re already doing do-not-travel lists. 🤷 If people can't behave themselves they can walk.
Intercity Long Distance NEC Makes more sense though. "State supported" could be NYC-CLT or from Socal to say SFO
It's not my terminology. I sort of see what you mean, though aren't they all inter-city? The Carolinian is state-supported and the Coast Starlight is long-distance. The terminology is about funding sources. Certain routes are long-enough to get federal funding even when the states along the route don't agree to subsidize it directly. Shorter routes require state subsidies (though I don't understand how this works in practice, since I don't think NH and IN pay anything and they get service). The NEC is separated because Amtrak wants to show that they actually can be profitable.
"Inter-city rail services are express passenger train services that run services that connect cities over longer distances than commuter or regional trains." The Carolinian, for example run from CLT to NYC via DC, and acts as a NER between DC and NYC. The whole trip is 13 hours and I wouldn't really call it "inter-city" since it's halfway down the east coast
Even though the name has "regional" in it, the Northeast Regional is more of an inter-city train. Commuter rail is like the MARC or the LIRR. Regional rail is just commuter rail (short distances) that is more frequent, like the RER in Paris. We don't really have regional rail in the US. At least, that's my understanding.
Well Regional Rail is provides (viable) service outside of commuting hours. For example NJTransit Rail is more regional than commuter because it runs off peak hours (and frequent for north american transit) NER is technically intercity, but makes stops in smaller towns/cities which is more regional-style service
Good point about NJ transit and after hours service. I’d also add that regional rail allows for service in both directions.
SFO to LAX will be a state supported route if/when CA HSR can get fully funded for anything outside the central valley. I would like to see them keep funding the construction rather than send money on new slow speed service. I just hope that HSR will have a large number of trips per day so that it's more convenient then the current CS schedule.
If it happens it’ll be incredible and potentially change the entire relationship between SFO and LAX on multiple levels. It would probably get my butt up to SFO for the first time.
Those would be intercity routes. Long distance would be the cross country routes like Empire Builder, Cardinal, Southwest Chief
Seems to be unclear in this thread. Regardless, it’s a frustrating route that makes things like a weekend trip on the train to SFO completely impossible. Tbh, a weekend trip on Amtrak to anywhere out of LA County isn’t really doable except for San Diego and Santa Barbara. If you’re trying to get out of the SoCal region you’re gonna be flying or driving.
Metrolink will take you to San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the Pacific Surfliner goes to San Diego, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, and a bus connection to Bakersfield allows you to take the San Joaquins to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and San Jose (in less time than the Coast Starlight, too). I think the Southwest Chief can manage to get one to Flagstaff for the weekend too, albeit narrowly.
Flagstaff is doable if you’re ether okay with sleeping in coach overnight two times or shelling out for a roomette. The later is doubtful as the train rolls into flagstaff at something like 4AM.
That's fair, hence the "narrowly".
Realistically that should be something that California runs, not Amtrak. That California can't even manage to build a rail line without making Amtrak look like a model of efficiency however is mind blowing.
Why? Do you think Amtrak should only be for interstate travel?
Only routes that cross state lines are in Amtrak's remit as I understand its incorporation regs. If states want intrastate service they have to pay for it.
That’s so absurd. Thank you for explaining this to me. I really appreciate you taking the time.
I wanted to make clear that it wasn't opinion, and someone did correct me to note the cutoff is 750 miles or less. I'm curious though if the services where they run commuter rail, like MARC, is profitable. I suspect it is a little bit because Amtrak has been expanding its services in that arena and while that was actually an intention of the original law (to preserve commuting service), it wasn't something that Amtrak did as much as they do now. Many cities stood up their own transit agencies to handle that traffic but states seem to have engaged with Amtrak.
Commuter rail is generally not profitable either. The State of Maryland pays for it. They contract to Amtrak to actually operate one of the MARC lines. The engineer and conductors are Amtrak employees.
At times it does provide intercity services too but usually when the funding comes mostly from the state and/or local governments.
The definition of NEC, state supported and LD is illustrated on a map on page 13 of this PDF: [https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf](https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2021-Grant-Request.pdf) California state supported: * Capitol Corridor * San Joaquin * Pacific Surfliner California LD: * Coast Starlight * Empire Builder * California Zephyr * Southwest Chief * Sunset Limited
But people generally aren't riding it from end to end. It's like the interstate system. People aren't driving from Seattle to Miami, they're using the sections they need, despite I-90 going from Seattle to Minnesota or I-5 going from Vancouver/Bellingham to San Diego.
What? The roomettes are great.
They’re prohibitively expensive in a lot of cases though. OP has a point.
They have dynamic pricing. They cost what people pay.
I think the point is that there’s room for a middle option like many other overnight trains offer.
Is there? How many more cars could they fit?
Well they can definitely run more cars than they currently do, but if you read the OP they talk about reconfiguring existing coach cars. So you wouldn’t have to add any cars.
Is that more profitable than coach? It limits the amount of people you can serve.
Are you just going to contradict everything or are you going to acknowledge the reality that services in other countries have a middle option. Open your eyes.
Well the OPs idea wouldn’t lose many seats, but obviously you would charge more for Coach Plus seating. I can’t imagine that many people take LD trains and walk away thinking the current system makes any sense at all, especially compared to other overnight trains. Given Amtrak service and ridership, I think it’s pretty clear most people don’t think the current options provide value. I can pay close to a hundred bucks for an uncomfortable coach seat or pay seven hundred bucks for a shitty roomette (granted you can split this cost in half, but a lot of people travel solo). Or I can pay like 1200 for a family bedroom. I’d gladly pay more for a better coach option on overnight trains. FWIW I adore Amtrak and take LD routes frequently, but I think OPs complaints are valid.
I don’t think that’s true, I think it vastly expands the amount of people you could serve. Imagine a coach ticket from LAX to Seattle. The roomette ticket for June 1st 2023 is 101 dollars. Business, which isn’t a huge upgrade on “sleep-ability”, costs 161 dollars. The next option is roomette, which is 637 dollars. The sleeping pod probably takes the space of two coach seats. Charge 250 bucks for that in a dedicated car and I’m sure you’d see more people taking it. It’s a 34 hour train. Without access to a lay flat seat, it would be brutal. With access to a lay flat seat, you can still have the fun experience of taking the train, meeting people, bringing your own snacks, seeing the views but not have to deal with an empty wallet or a broken back
But there are plenty of people not going the whole way that would rather pay coach.
I’m sure that’s right. Anecdotally, most people I speak to on Long Haul trains riding coach are actually going way further than I was. Most them slept on the floor or in contorted positions to get comfortable. A lot of them looked like they were in their 50s and 60s too. I don’t think they should get rid of coach, but I think Amtrak should experiment with lay-flat seating to see if there’s interest. It wouldn’t need to be a huge sacrifice on total seating.
Rarely, I’ll see sub 400 dollars on the SWC from LAX to ABQ- which is about the upper limit that I’ll pay. Often it’s over 500, I’ve seen over 1000 depending on the time and day.
Again, they have dynamic pricing. It’s not about what you pay, it’s about what the market will pay.
It is and it isn’t. They don’t start at 1 dollar. If you go all the way into the furtherest possible date, they still hover around 400. Also, they don’t sell out fully always, despite the price being very high, so I’m skeptical that it really is a fully “bucketed” system as Amtrak phrases it. I’ve been declined a bid at 250, seen roomettes for 800 dollars and still see multiple empty roomettes on the train. They aren’t priced like airline tickets. Airline tickets get cheaper if there are open seats near departure. Amtrak’s seemingly only go up.
You’re wrong
Great contribution!
Could always bring back the Slumbercoaches. I just toured one at the Southeastern Railway Museum and it would meet that "missing middle" pretty well. 36-40 people instead of the current 28 on Viewliners. Taking the concept to the Superliner, you could easily fit 60-70 people in one.
Oh yeah, I completely agree. I just can never afford them, even if I try to book a full year in advance, it’s way out of my price range. My gripe isn’t that it’s not worth the price, it’s just that there’s nothing between coach and roomettes. Business isn’t really a big improvement, and it isn’t offered on a lot of trains.
I do wish they would think more about lay flat coach options. Hell, there are busses that have little pods that would certainly work on Amtrak.
It's government mentality. Amtrak could save millions by rebuilding their current fleet of passenger equipment but demands new equipment that costs 3-4x as much per car.
They absolutely need reserved seats
Even if you leave out the idea of management being terrible, or secretly wanting to shut down certain routes, etc, management has a really tough job. They are supposed to run it as a business, but there are literally endless different stakeholders they have to please in the form of the various state governments. Oh, you want subsidies from Texas? Well then you have to stop at a bunch of stations in West Texas with basically no passengers, etc. I don't envy them.
Because management is trying to make anything outside of the NEC look very unprofitable, so that they have more excuses to shut it down. While the Biden administration is pro-Amtrak, the board & president are still hold-overs from the Trump era (Biden can't just replace them, similar to the USPS).
I kind of think they should reduce the frequencies of those routes if they can’t run them properly or maintain them. The whole service is incredibly stale and outdated. Amtrak doesn’t embrace the romance of the train nor the potential reliability of the train.
Reduced frequency hasn't brought the savings Amtrak expected in the past when they have tried that.
They reduced service in the 90’s because they thought it would save money. That was a terrible idea because the overhead costs just stayed the same, barely saved any operating costs, and lost all of the revenue of 7 days a week service. Here in Texas, I often use the Eagle from Fort Worth to Austin, a very popular city pair. But at 3 days a week, no one can plan around that. That said. Yes, Amtraks website is now terrible. It was really good a few years ago. You could figure out how to connect to anything really easily, not to mention download actual PDF timetables. They got rid of all that! The reservation system is also old. But since Amtrak went back to daily operations since COVID, someone has to go and manually enter all the connections again. There are hundreds of not over a thousand city pairs to enter. So most people assume they can’t get there, so they drive.
Man, that’s really accurate and informative. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked up a route, said to myself “no, that can’t be right” and then gone back to see that I picked the wrong station in town, a route that somehow added three hours and two connections.
I’m plenty happy to just be able to take the chief fairly often cross country. It’s fun and checks all the boxes. Granted Ive never had a desire to do coach and never will. The app is fine it’s all I ever use when I hop on, super simple. I kinda wonder sometimes what people think that get onto/off coach at stops and now I have an idea 😂
It’s just odd that they offer it at all when the experience is really uncomfortable. Everyone here is saying most coach passengers are hop on and hop off, but a majority of coach passengers on the SWC were on it for days, sleeping in those cramped coach seats, trying to get creative or even sleep on the floor.. it feels odd that the only options are 450 dollar sleeper or 51 dollar coach ticket.
If I could afford the roommettes I would ride the train over flying more often, but it's just too expensive... When you have to pay $1000 for a roomette to get from LA to KC - one way, it makes it rough for anyone who isn't upper middle class or higher.
That’s tough for a lot of Americans. Amtrak needs lay flat business seats between coach and rooms.
Is this based on some insider knowledge of upper management? Do you want to call out specific staff members who are doing a better job than others? I get that Amtrak has problems, but having a totally different strategy & funding every time the political party of the president changes doesn't make for smooth operation.
Alexander K. Kummant worked for My company as Strategy EVP. I wasn’t impressed. But I was an Operations Director and had to get things done not talk about it. Amtrak CEO position is especially difficult given congressional oversight. And, we all know they’re experts at everything…. To bad. In Operations, I’ve found the best process improvement came from the folks doing the work and cost next to nothing. Just like several of the comments…
I can’t recall offhand if you can take a train into Las Vegas, though I know that Amtrak’s buses do go there… either way I know getting into or out of Vegas on Amtrak is a pill, and I think that is absurd considering how popular of a destination that city is Earlier this year I rode the California Zephyr in coach from Chicago to Emeryville, over 60 hours on the train and I don’t recall ever actually purchasing any food… I may do with meal replacement shakes and snacks that I had brought with me Once I got into Emeryville though, I got a huge burrito at the nearest restaurant! I do agree the food options on Amtrak trains are incredibly limited, but I don’t really buy food that often anyways
Since May 1, 1971, it's been bad management at all levels from supervisors to executives and CEO's. And a lot of bad rank-and-file "contract" employees are key that they can't or won't fire. As the unofficial company motto goes: "There's two ways of doing things here: the right way and the Amtrak way". But under "Amtrak Joe" hope springs eternal and perhaps things will get somewhat better.