Passenger Trains > So, you're given the job of saving the LD trains

Time for some ideas here. You're a consultant invited into the inner chambers of Amtrak HQ.

Joe Boardman is there. Amtrak Joe Biden has his checkbook. Mitch McConnell has decided he wants to restore the Kentucky Cardinal to his state, and has his Bourbon. He's feeling generous. Give him that train, and he'll give you some room. The head of Amtrak's labor conference is there, willing to deal some concessions for some job security.

There are agreements on the state supported trains, they look OK. The NEC states are putting in some money, and that's mostly in good order. But you've been paid to bring ideas on getting the LD train costs and revenue in balance.

So, whadayya gonna do? Specifics, please...

1. Insist on a sole-source, no-bid, cost-plus, open-end contract.

Spin on your heel, and walk - no RUN!! - for the nearest exit. As long as Boardman is in charge, it matters not what someone ELSE proposes - if it doesn't come from HIM - or select BYM, it will never see the light of day.

And in truth, your posit is flawed from the outset - you are seriously wrong if you think Boardman et al want to save LD trains. They do not. They DO want "inter-city trains" - not the same thing at all, not by a long shot.

I am still very certain that the future of LD trains is simple - up the state-supported mandate mileage to 1200 west of the Mississippi; slice up all LD trains to FIT that mandate, become an operator only, pray to anyone who will listen that someone - anyone - will take over the infrastructure costs (maintenance, replacement) of the NEC, and settle into the operator role they have attempted several times to monopolize. If you look at all purchases to date, they are good for the NEC and nothing (so far) that can not run on the NEC. Coincidence? Not.

I have been a consultant in just such a position. I told my boss that I would rather take any other job - because all we'd end up being is a scapegoat for when this thing breaks down - and it will not succeed, it can not succeed. And that was a transportation entity far bigger than Amtrak.

I hear a theme from Lalo Schifrin.

Bargain for more time. Say that we are going to do a seven year experiment to determine the viability of the LDT network (and settle for five). Of course you would have to have a definite schedule of funding for the duration.

I have some ideas about how I would approach the "experiment", but I think that you really don't want to hear them.

Increase capacity, particularly by running the Try weakly trains daily.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Increase capacity, particularly by running the Try
> weakly trains daily.

It's really a matter of equity that the Sunset and the Cardinal should run daily.

The premise is ridiculous because Joe Biden doesn't have a checkbook and Mitch McConnell only controls the Senate. The House is mostly un-controllable children. Congress is the key to any future for Amtrak. Given the makeup of the next Congress, the best anyone can hope for is status quot.

Your brother in law is a "consultant," and you recommend him for a $2 million study. A committee will be appointed to review the study in two years. You will also want to subcontract a plum chunk o change to the congressman's daughter in Florida, who's Dad sits on the transportation committee.

While at it, they can get $81 million more from the CIA to study interrogation techniques.

Rail/cruise ship possibilities between Hialeah and Havana should also be thrown into the study, and all participants will be rewarded with a box of Cuban cigars.

In all seriousness though, Amtrak should not pay track rental fees to host railroads that delay passenger trains. CN has in the past tried to work with Amtrak withregard to "incentive payments" over and above the flat negotiated rates. Instead of just awarding incentives, there should be disincentives.

If a host railroad delays a passenger train, not only should Amtrak get free passage, but the host railroad should reimburse the government for extra crew costs, fuel burned while sitting in sidings, and misconnect expenses, among other costs. Exceptions for "Acts of God" such as washouts, rockslides, and under some circumstances derailments.

If such rules were in place, "bad dispatching delays" would be a thing of the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/14 07:30 by NewRiverGeorge.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Time for some ideas here. You're a consultant
> invited into the inner chambers of Amtrak HQ.
>
> Joe Boardman is there. Amtrak Joe Biden has his
> checkbook. Mitch McConnell has decided he wants
> to restore the Kentucky Cardinal to his state, and
> has his Bourbon. He's feeling generous. Give him
> that train, and he'll give you some room. The
> head of Amtrak's labor conference is there,
> willing to deal some concessions for some job
> security.
>
> There are agreements on the state supported
> trains, they look OK. The NEC states are putting
> in some money, and that's mostly in good order.
> But you've been paid to bring ideas on getting the
> LD train costs and revenue in balance.
>
> So, whadayya gonna do? Specifics, please...

I would need to give that a substantial amount of thought before writing anything.

However, in the Real World [tm] your RFP is nowhere near long enough. The RFP for operating the MARC service on the B&O was 1000 pages or so. The proposal needs to be accompanied by two dozen forms, the instructions for which are not necessarily clear and not necessarily found in the same place in the RFP. The RFP should be sufficiently obscure in meaning that it needs to be read and discussed among the consulting team for a consensus of what it means. It's best when there is some inconsistency in the requirements, with some contradicting others. A good RFP requires the competing consulting teams to put in at least 1000 hours responding. Throwing out a proposal as non-responsive must be as easy as possible.

Of course, you should have started with an RFQ and limited the amount of reading of proposals needd before even starting.

TAW

Capture some of the high-end tourism dollars currently going to Rocky Mountaineer and VIA. Build a "train-in-train" service on Amtrak's most scenic and desirable routes. I define "train-in-train" as a closed part of the consist offering a higher level of service aimed at end-to-end leisure travelers - the land cruise market.

Possible business models are (1) "Direct" - Amtrak brands, sells and operates the service, (2) "Wet lease" - Amtrak partners with a tour operator such as a cruise line to do the selling, but provides the equipment and on-board service, (3) "Dry lease" - Same as #2 but Amtrak provides the equipment only - operator designs and provides the on-board service, or (4) "Haulage" - Amtrak simply allows an operator to attach their own cars to the consist, as Pullman Rail Journeys does today. Beginning with option 1, Amtrak's share of revenue lessens, but so does the capital cost, operating cost, and risk.

Three routes that I would suggest have the best chance of success because of scenery, journey time, and appeal/ease of access of end points are LA - Seattle, Bay Area - Denver, and LA - Grand Canyon. The latter was discussed here about a month ago and would require partnership with GCRR and probably some infrastructure investment. It also would be primarily sold as a round trip, while the other two as one way "cruises" with a return airfare option.

I would start small - probably a single train consist operating on a 2/4 day cycle depending on route, and invest with market growth. For biz models 1-3, I would operate 4-6 Superliners including a Sightseer Lounge, Diner and Sleepers. A couple of the ten-bedroom cars taken from the off-season Auto Train would increase the amount of premium accommodation that could be sold. Spruce the cars up - the current imitation wood grain interiors coming from Beech Grove are fine. Add WiFi, upgraded bar and dining options, and streaming trip narration to headphones for those who want it. For biz model 4, where the operator brings their own train, companies such as PRJ or Rock Mountaineer would be likely partnering candidates.

Regardless of which model is implemented, the goal would be to grow demand to where additional consists are needed, and the season extended and additional seasonal routes introduced, perhaps in conjunction with ocean cruise sailings from ports like New Orleans, Long Beach or Fort Lauderdale.

Dave

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Time for some ideas here. You're a consultant
> > invited into the inner chambers of Amtrak HQ.
> >
> > Joe Boardman is there. Amtrak Joe Biden has his
> > checkbook. Mitch McConnell has decided he
> wants
> > to restore the Kentucky Cardinal to his state,
> and
> > has his Bourbon. He's feeling generous. Give
> him
> > that train, and he'll give you some room. The
> > head of Amtrak's labor conference is there,
> > willing to deal some concessions for some job
> > security.
> >
> > There are agreements on the state supported
> > trains, they look OK. The NEC states are
> putting
> > in some money, and that's mostly in good order.
> > But you've been paid to bring ideas on getting
> the
> > LD train costs and revenue in balance.
> >
> > So, whadayya gonna do? Specifics, please...
>
> I would need to give that a substantial amount of
> thought before writing anything.
>
> However, in the Real World your RFP is nowhere
> near long enough. The RFP for operating the MARC
> service on the B&O was 1000 pages or so. The
> proposal needs to be accompanied by two dozen
> forms, the instructions for which are not
> necessarily clear and not necessarily found in the
> same place in the RFP. The RFP should be
> sufficiently obscure in meaning that it needs to
> be read and discussed among the consulting team
> for a consensus of what it means. It's best when
> there is some inconsistency in the requirements,
> with some contradicting others. A good RFP
> requires the competing consulting teams to put in
> at least 1000 hours responding. Throwing out a
> proposal as non-responsive must be as easy as
> possible.
>
> Of course, you should have started with an RFQ and
> limited the amount of reading of proposals needd
> before even starting.
>
> TAW


Brilliant!! Love it!,
C

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

To: Lakawanna484

If you hired me as a consultant to "save the LD trains"; I would insist you sign a contract with me; stating that you agree that Amtrak is a totally political entity; completely dependent on the U.S. Congress; and that Mr. Boardman has no power whatsoever to improve or save the LD trains himself.

You must also agree, the new Congress considers LD trains wasteful spending; and can be expected to have "ice cold ears" when listening to any plan to "save LD trains". Therefore it's highly probable that ANY ideas or suggestions on LD trains will be ignored by the new Congress. But, if you agree, and hire me; I would make these suggestions:

1. The original House budget for Amtrak was never voted on; but it actually proposed to separately fund LD trains with a budget of $900M. With this figure in mind; I would contact Joe Boardman.

2. I would ask Mr. Boardman: "How much of the current LD service can you operate for $900M?" I would also ask, "tell me which trains you want to keep "as is"; and which trains you might want to "brake up" into blocks of service. Also, are there any trains you would like to drop?

3. Armed with this data; I would hire a Washington Lobbyist to seek a Congress person to sponsor a LD funding bill for $900M. It must be a Republican sponsor because this Party will be running the show. A Democrat sponsored Amtrak bill will go nowhere.

Chances of success are slim; but the only thing going for us is that the $900M is a "Republican" figure; and therefore, the "ice cold ears" might at least listen to a figure they once proposed themselves. At least, this might have a chance of saving most of the LD trains (hopefully).

Joe's Consulting Service



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/14 16:15 by floridajoe2001.

Expand the Autotrain concept between large cities, figure out how to make picking up and setting out cars faster, and build pure blocks. If the CZ could move both me and my truck from Denver to Chicago or SFO, that would be huge. The biggest problem with Amtrak is I get to the nearest city to my destination and then it's "now what?" It's usually a pain to get a rental car from the train station, as the car agencies are focused on air travel, and the cost of a rental car just makes Amtrak look less attractive. Plus there's nothing like having your own car when you get somewhere, particularly in many of the places the LDs go. It's one of the few things Amtrak can do to really differentiate itself from airline travel.


Thought for years that there'd probably be a market throwing semis on flat cars and putting the drivers in a sleeper up front with good food and all the TV they can watch, particularly for long haul routes like Chicago-LA. Would take load off the highway and deal with the problem of not being able to make the delivery at the other end for all the small operators out there. However, doing something like that would take full-on freight railroad cooperation and not really affect Amtrak's LD system.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/14 16:11 by NDHolmes.

The only thing to do with the LD trains is to select another operator to run them. One without all of Amtrak's bloated overhead and one that can actually market the trains and run them like they care. Probably they will still have to be subsidized by the Feds, just not Amtrak. The studies I have done show some of the operations can at least cover their operating costs and the Auto Train actually makes money. The Sunset and the Cardinal will have to run daily.

Insist on the SAME government subsidies given PER PASSENGER to the Essential Air Service by the DOT.

http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service

$74 to $801 per passenger.

jfrank39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing to do with the LD trains is to
> select another operator to run them. One without
> all of Amtrak's bloated overhead and one that can
> actually market the trains and run them like they
> care. Probably they will still have to be
> subsidized by the Feds, just not Amtrak. The
> studies I have done show some of the operations
> can at least cover their operating costs and the
> Auto Train actually makes money. The Sunset and
> the Cardinal will have to run daily.


This...

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, whadayya gonna do?

I'm going to wake up from my nice dream.

Radical changes, first FRA you gotta go. You actually require trains to be heavier for "safety" make them lighter and more fuel efficient

Second, modify coach in a way so coach sleepers have a better opportunity to actually sleep

Third, menu if you want ala carte, fine pie and coffee for dinner, OK, just give more options on what and how it is served in the dining car.

Make competitive pricing Vs airlines and promote it vastly.

Add two more lounge cars, make them privately owned if need be, one as a bar, one as a smoking car.

Finally, subsidies just like airlines and roads, either all or nothing

The idea is to bring more passengers on the trains

Posted from Android

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hear a theme from Lalo Schifrin.


LOL!