Passenger Trains > Tri-weekly proposal is risky

Why doesn't William Flynn understand the risk of going tri-weekly?  It potentially threatens the whole national network!
Passenger train supporters, Amtrak employees, members of Congress, State & munincipal leaders all are cognizant of the risk.
You know, there's a certain subjectivity and emotional connection to these trains.  He doesn't get that.
Here are all the synonyms for risky.  All of them apply to the current situation.

• dangerous,
• grave,
• grievous,
• hazardous,
• jeopardizing,
• menacing,
• parlous,
• perilous,
• serious,
• threatening,
• unhealthy,
• unsafe,
• venturesome

Everyone on this board knows that, I also am still thinking Gardner's behind this anyway since he claims the LD Trains are draining everything else and that's bull crap!

How does Amtrak continue if there is no money? Are they supposed to continue operating until the money runs out and then just shut down completely and declare bankruptcy? That would be smart...

Ridership has still been pretty steady so far through this month.  If we can just get through October, then the holidays will upon us.
How can they ignore one of the busiest travel periods, which sometimes even surpasses the the Summer peak?
Granted, it will be lower than previous years, but still, with Covid guidelines, should be strong!

dispr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does Amtrak continue if there is no money? Are
> they supposed to continue operating until the
> money runs out and then just shut down completely
> and declare bankruptcy? That would be smart...

An earlier thread suggested that's exactly what could happen.  Amtrak will lay off people, reduce service, and dig in for the duration. When the money runs out, the trains stop, lights get turned off etc.

That's pretty unusual for government agencies / enterprises but we are in unusual times

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't William Flynn understand the risk of
> going tri-weekly?  It potentially threatens the
> whole national network!
> Passenger train supporters, Amtrak employees,
> members of Congress, State & munincipal leaders
> all are cognizant of the risk.
> You know, there's a certain subjectivity and
> emotional connection to these trains.  He doesn't
> get that.
> Here are all the synonyms for risky.  All of them
> apply to the current situation.
>
> [*]dangerous,
> [*]grave,
> [*]grievous,
> [*]hazardous,
> [*]jeopardizing,
> [*]menacing,
> [*]parlous,
> [*]perilous,
> [*]serious,
> [*]threatening,
> [*]unhealthy,
> [*]unsafe,
> [*]venturesome
>

Oh the humanity! Dangerous and unhealthy? Yes, folks have been dropping like flies for years in all the communities with tri-weekly or no service!!

Oh, and you forgot the word apocalyptic. Better make peace with your Maker now...

JG

Posted from Android

jgilmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mp51w Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why doesn't William Flynn understand the risk
> of
> > going tri-weekly?  It potentially threatens
> the
> > whole national network!
> > Passenger train supporters, Amtrak employees,
> > members of Congress, State & munincipal leaders
> > all are cognizant of the risk.
> > You know, there's a certain subjectivity and
> > emotional connection to these trains.  He
> doesn't
> > get that.
> > Here are all the synonyms for risky.  All of
> them
> > apply to the current situation.
> >
> >

• dangerous,
  > >
• grave,
  > >
• grievous,
  > >
• hazardous,
  > >
• jeopardizing,
  > >
• menacing,
  > >
• parlous,
  > >
• perilous,
  > >
• serious,
  > >
• threatening,
  > >
• unhealthy,
  > >
• unsafe,
  > >
• venturesome
  > >
  >
  > Oh the humanity! Dangerous and unhealthy? Yes,
  > folks have been dropping like flies for years in
  > all the communities with tri-weekly or no
  > service!!
  >
  > Oh, and you forgot the word apocalyptic. Better
  > make peace with your Maker now...
  >
  > JG
  >
  > Posted from Android
  Whatever!

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ridership has still been pretty steady so far
> through this month.  If we can just get through
> October, then the holidays will upon us.
> How can they ignore one of the busiest travel
> periods, which sometimes even surpasses the the
> Summer peak?
> Granted, it will be lower than previous years, but
> still, with Covid guidelines, should be strong!

That crafty bunch at Amtrak hqtrs : " don't confuse us with the facts. "
Anderson and Gardiner have brainwashed Flynn on the LD service. 
I wish we could fire'em , fire 'em all at Amtrak hdqtrs. 

Just curious. If you miss a connection in Chicago does Amtrak put you up for the necessary additional nights until our connecting train actually runs? What about meals? With daily service, there is always a train the next day....the Cardinal being the lone exception. I"ll bet most passengers have no clue this would even be an issue assuming their next train runs daily.  

Good point Anderson!

Posted from Android

Three day a week LDT's will kill Amtrak very quickly.  Numbers lie and liars use numbers.

EXPENSE - Why is no one commenting on the fact that the tri-weekly service is going to produce a great cash flow EXPENSE (e.g. cash outflow to be exact) let alone a great expense for the Profit & Loss Statement (be it "below the line" or above the line, whatever they build an argument for).

There will be an EXPENSE for at least a year before turning the corner to any costs saving measures that tri-weekly service MAY even produce. Remember the reduction to tri-weekly service did NOT work for VIA Rail's Ocean. But a switch to tri-weekly service (especially the Canadian) did work in the early 1990s - largely because it also came at the same time that onboard service was revolutionized. Specifically, VIA Rail was able to negotiate abolishing the traditional conductor and assistant conductor role and re-organizing the remaining staff, including abolishing or major consolidation of crew hubs.

EXPENSE [of tri-weekly service] include major ones such as:
- A LOT of buyouts have been announced beginning Oct 1, 2020
- Benefit expense (Amtrak said it would pay one year of healthcare costs for those furloughed or let go)
- RR unemployment (with the way the system works - it charges back to Amtrak)
- Cost of re-organizing operations for tri-weekly service. The only way this becomes "cost-effective" is if it is meant to be long term.

In regards to the last point, the only way "cost-effectiveness" plays in is if Amtrak is predicting that this tri-weekly service is expected to be a long term affair, which I believe it will be. The measurements are just there to appease whatever political supporters and advocates it can get for passenger rail service. But tri-weekly service has inherently a great amount of operating inefficiencies, particularly in labor let alone equipment.

Absent of costs - it would make sense to reduce rail passenger service, OVERALL and at EVERY level during "this time."

Would it be cheaper to turn the electric off on the catenary with reduced levels of service on the NEC? Conrail saw savings if they did. Not sure! Is money saved if the swapping of power is done at Philly (due to reduced NEC service)? Are there any creative cost cutting measures for the NEC operations, and service between diesel and electric? If Amtrak had dual modes, as they'd like to have, would it make sense to run diesel power over electric power on the NEC and Harrisburg line - TEMPORARILY to SAVE costs? Frankly, I don't see Amtrak is exercising enough savings on the NEC - only a drastic reduction on the long distance service. If anyone has alternative motives to get rid of a service, or reduce a service (e.g. LD trains), the Gardner and ole Anderson regime can certainly use COVID-19 as an excuse.    

gnr999 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Three day a week LDT's will kill Amtrak very
> quickly.  Numbers lie and liars use numbers.

What Amtrak upper management is thinking:

"Try weekly to kill it."

They've been trying to do this for years, nothing new here!

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would it be cheaper to turn the electric off on
> the catenary with reduced levels of service on the
> NEC? Conrail saw savings if they did. Not sure! Is

Do you have a plan to access NYC without catenary?

> money saved if the swapping of power is done at
> Philly (due to reduced NEC service)? Are there any

What makes you think this saves money?

> creative cost cutting measures for the NEC
> operations, and service between diesel and
> electric? If Amtrak had dual modes, as they'd like
> to have, would it make sense to run diesel power
> over electric power on the NEC and Harrisburg line

Do you have evidence electric is more expensive than diesel? What is this evidence? Why are electric vehicles cheaper to fuel than diesel/gas?

> - TEMPORARILY to SAVE costs? Frankly, I don't see
> Amtrak is exercising enough savings on the NEC -

Keystone round trips Philly to NYC - cut from 10 to 1
Acela roudn trips - cut from 16 to 4 between NYC and DC and from 10 to 4 from NYC to Boston
Regional service has seen 1 round trip from Boston to NYC cut and I think 6 cut from NYC to DC.

That's some pretty drastic cuts.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jp1822 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Would it be cheaper to turn the electric off on
> > the catenary with reduced levels of service on
> the
> > NEC? Conrail saw savings if they did. Not sure!
> Is
>
> Do you have a plan to access NYC without
> catenary?
>
> > money saved if the swapping of power is done at
> > Philly (due to reduced NEC service)? Are there
> any
>
> What makes you think this saves money?
>
> > creative cost cutting measures for the NEC
> > operations, and service between diesel and
> > electric? If Amtrak had dual modes, as they'd
> like
> > to have, would it make sense to run diesel
> power
> > over electric power on the NEC and Harrisburg
> line
>
> Do you have evidence electric is more expensive
> than diesel? What is this evidence? Why are
> electric vehicles cheaper to fuel than
> diesel/gas?
>
> > - TEMPORARILY to SAVE costs? Frankly, I don't
> see
> > Amtrak is exercising enough savings on the NEC
> -
>
> Keystone round trips Philly to NYC - cut from 10
> to 1
> Acela round trips - cut from 16 to 4 between NYC
> and DC and from 10 to 4 from NYC to Boston
> Regional service has seen 1 round trip from Boston
> to NYC cut and I think 6 cut from NYC to DC.
>
> That's some pretty drastic cuts.

I simply posed the questions, as no, I am not sure if running electric verse diesel really saves money, so don't twist my words. I posted with questionability, only indicating that Conrail shut the electric off, and did so for various reasons after what THEY felt was a thorough analysis. DO NOT want to open that can of worms, but not sure if it should or could be considered as a cost reduction measure or not. Obviously you don't get trains in and out or through NYC with the "electric turned on." Lets not get that silly. But Newark to New Rochelle is perhaps the only real "requirement." Amtrak swapped power at Philly for a while during electric motor shortages, while also proclaiming it "saved them money." But does it? 

Let's tell the FULL PICTURE here - Keystones are operating at a reduced level, but Harrisburg to Philly STILL has a decent variety - you switch at 30th Street Station to NEC train (morning to early evening trains in both directions). There's still at least two Keystones (morning and evening) AND the Pennsylvanian (mid-day) doing the Harrisburg to NYP direct round-trips with no change/transfer at Philly. And yes, Acela may have had drastic cuts, but they were cut out altogether a few months ago. Acela's are still filling in with hourly Regional trains, just as Acela's were nearly hourly (at least on the south-end if you want to get picky). With some trains going to tri-weekly, does the NEC deserve, and achieve, proper demand levels with operating even this array of Acela Express and Regional and LD trains (on the south-end)? I still see a LOT of empty trains and low % filled trains, even though they are only going to 50% capacity. Between Oct 8th and Oct 31st on southern end - nearly 20 trains NYP to WAS a day on the schedule for weekdays. Various Acelas with 0% full and least amount of full overall, and not many trains above 5-10% full. The Carolinian and Palmetto are often leading with largest capacity full. Hence the reason to cut the Keystones at Philly and not running through. No need for them continuing on the NEC.    

And what other costs, besides trains, has Amtrak exercised in cutting on the NEC and is it enough compared to what the National System is enduring? Should ticket offices on some intermediate stops be further reduced (temporarily) in SOME way - like has been done on the LD and other corridor routes? ONLY a question.......