While all ideas should be at least be considered, your proposal would be an extremely tough sell. Your cost estimates are way too low. Remember to add something for track maintenance, fire patrol, overhead (insurance, utilities, managers and such) and the management fee. Labor costs can include another 50% over the hourly rate for employer contributions, any insurance, unemployment or disability. I would not expect one cook and one server to feed 120 passengers - and catering costs of a high end meal would run $25 per passenger. Credit card fees would be maybe 3% of the cost - and be sure to add another 5% to the price for the preservation fee.
There is also a matter of having enough dining car seats or tables to serve these meals - so figure two or three cars dedicated to this. YOu could stop again at Osier, but this would add to the length of the trip. Add in the capital costs/investment for dining/table cars that would have to be recovered or funded. I really don't think anyone but the most rabid foamer with disposable income would truly appreciate a trip like this.
CATS already has enough "options" that make things confusing enough. I looked at their website last year and I had to really look to find the "typical" trip that was a round trip by train from either Antonito or Chama. The Commission itself commented in the RFP their concern over the costs of the bus service and meals at Osier. Do they really need to offer the option of buses both ways, to the train or from the train, every day? There has to be some schedule that makes the bus service economical. If they are losing(?) money offering the bus service, would they really lose too many passengers by eliminating it or at least reducing when it is available?
Too often the effort made to attract a few more passengers loses sight of the costs and demand. (Remember the mixed train discussed a while back?) What you are looking for is 1) a value added option to existing service 2) a new service that will attract thousands 3) a special service that has a high profit margin.
Even the proposed Cumbres turns may have issues. They talk of "entertainment" costs at Cumbres. I thought the whole idea of the trip was to offer a lower cost half-day option that would be family friendly. Even the Cinder Bear trains were too expensive (IMHO), because the cost of catering a hot-dog lunch at Cumbres had to be added. I'm not sure exactly where the price point is (or what range) for CATS, but their marketing seems to have been missing it. My definition of successful means you are either meeting an existing demand or creating a demand for your productor and attracting through advertising and promotions enough response to make a profit. If in fact the discounted fares out of Antonito last fall were a bust - then you have to consider that: The price was still too high even after the discount; the promotion failed to reach potential customers; there is no more demand for that service.
CATS premium service have created (in my opinion) a problem for off peak days. Consider that the base train has 5 cars:
1. Parlor car - 20 seats
2. Tourist/bar car - 26 seats
3. Concession car - no seats
4. Handicap accessable car - 18 coach seats
5. Open air gon - no revenue seats
While it is true the parlor and tourist car are extra fare - do they consistently sell out on off-peak days? For a 5 car train, there are only 64 revenue seats or an average of 13 per car. Adding a full coach brings it up to 108 seats or 18 per car. That is a whole lot of train to drag over the mountain for such few seats (at least DRGW got paid for mail and express cars). Add three more full coaches to the basic 6 car train set and you have 240 passengers or only 27 per car.
Based on 2012 fares (adult/child):
Coach from Antonito - $75/$40 x 44 seats (8 kids) = $3020 per full car
Coach from Alamosa - $91/$50 x 44 seats (8 kids) = $3676 per full car
Tourist - $125/$67 x 26 seat (4 kids) = $3018 per full car
Parlor - $165/na x 20 seats = $3300 per full car
As can be seen above - a full coach out of Alamosa has a higher revenue than either premium car. The premium cars also have additional labor costs, and a greater possibility of being not sold out during the off-peak season.
Assuming the basic 6 car off season train sells 1/2 the premium and 3/4 the coach seats:
Parlor - 10 passengers = $1650
Tourist - 13 passengers = $1510
Coach+ADA - 47 passengers = $2760 Chama - $2265 Antonito
Total Revenue per off-peak train =
$5920 Chama / 6 cars = $987 avg per car
$5425 Antonito / 6 cars = $904 per car
Assuming the basic 6 car train + 3 more coaches sells all the premium and all but 18 seats of one coach:
Parlor - 20 passengers = $3300
Tourist - 26 passengers = $3018
4 Coach+ADA - 176 passengers = $14,704 Chama - $12,072 Antonito
Total Revenue per off-peak train =
$21,022 Chama / 9 cars = $2335 avg per car
$18,390 Antonito / 9 cars = $2043 avg per car
If should also be noted that the fares for a one-way trip by train and the other direction by bus are the SAME as the train by round trip (Chama fares for coach). There is not additional charge for the bus, so the entire bus program must be absorbed directly by the regular fares. The RFP noted that the bus and Osier meal costs were each about 10% of the expense. The more passengers that take advantage of the bus/train combination actually directly creates a substantially greater expense for the railroad.
The concession car is dependent upon sales to pay its way, the more passengers per train the greater the potential revenue. The handicap car is a neccesity to comply with ADA, but obviously has far lower revenue per car if it is not actively being used by a handicap passenger. The rider gon is absolutely non-revenue, and does it really make economic sense to include it on days where there are maybe 50-60 passengers on the entire train?
If you try to compare the DSNG to CATS - there are some substantial differences. Both CATS and Durango are "destination railroads" - you need to be purposely driving to their location, need to commit most of the day, and probably need reservations.
Durango operates out of one terminal with multiple departures, the train has a destination where passengers can buy lunch, wander town and shop. How many articles have you read about western tourist destinations where the DSNG (or Grand Canyon RR) is mentioned? Most of this is free advertising for the railroad.
CATS operates out of two terminals (additional cost) with only one departure from each (less options). CATS has to maintain the dining facility at Osier, and include meals as part of their costs. CATS has never gained the same reputation or recognition that Durango has. CATS is also somewhat hindered by more political considerations, and the lack of funding to make capital investments to expand/alter service.
Mot tourist railroads can only depend on the railfan market to support a few special trains per year. The majority of their business is from the general public. 20 years ago you could get a steam loco and a few cars and if you had some halfway decent scenery along the track - you were in the tourist railroad business. Nowadays that does not work. The average typical trip of 20 years ago is now supplemented by premium services or theme trains. Families are more likely to spend their money at theme parks or resorts, and those who remembered the golden age of rail travel and the days of steam are getting fewer every day.
The only thing I am willing to bet on is that the CATS operations 5 years from now will be very different from todays if it is to be self-supporting.
Don't look at the CATS as how you would run the trains - look at it fom the perspective on how you would run the trains day after day and pay the bills on a consistent basis.
I find it unusual that the new contract seems to base incentives on passenger counts (only allowing 50% credit on those passengers that don't go to or though Osier) - which clearly shows the economic development aspect of the railroad. The economic health of the railroad itself (and true success of the operator) is not based on passenger counts, but if reveneues (from whatever trains) consistently exceed expenses while meeting maintenance goals and capital investments.
My (long winded) opinion ....
