# Adding More Through Car Service to LD Trains



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 20, 2016)

I have asked several times about extending LD trains and one of the most common responses was that only a few stations are able to service LD trains.

On the other hand, the through car model seems to work very well for some of the LD trains. The Lake Shore Limited has a Boston leg, the Empire Builder has a Portland leg, and there are through cars connecting the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited. Amtrak has discussed at least three more through car possibilities: a Pennsylvania leg of the Capitol Limited, a St. Louis leg of the Cardinal, and a Los Angeles leg of the California Zephyr.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/536/878/PRIIA-210-Cardinal-PIP.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/652/435/PRIIA-210-CaliforniaZephyr-PIP.pdf

In addition, All Aboard Ohio has suggested through cars off the LSL to serve CLE-CIN (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf) although they proposed switching the schedule which hurt or eliminate possible transfers in CHI.

I think this is a good way to add city pairs and potential one seat rides to existing LD routes without requiring transfers. In the example of the Capitol-Pennsylvanian, no new train miles are required as the two trains in question are already running. The negative is that you are holding one train back and delaying it if the other portion is delayed (ex. the Pennsylvanian must wait for the CL). I would still think the through cars is a net positive (and Amtrak agreed even though they haven't implemented the through service yet).

Some more possibilities I came up with:

Boston section of SM (Split/Merge anywhere between NYP and RVR)

Richmond section of CL

Oklahoma City section of TE (Just merge the TE and HF)

San Jose section of CZ (Split/Merge at EMY or SAC)

San Diego section of SWC

San Diego section of CS (Split/Merge at Santa Barbara or LAX)

For some of these, simply split/merge two trains similar to the proposed Capitol/Pennsylvanian through cars. Others require some more creativity. Example: Terminate 86/164 in NYP, Run 498 NYP-BOS in its place between the cities. Essentially you are splitting the 86 and 164 in NYP and passengers on those trains would have to transfer to go north of NYP (although there will still be other direct trains from Virginia to New England including the 498 for passengers in Richmond, Fredricksburg, and Alexandria). For some, you may just want to "add" the through branch as an additional frequency between the two cities (not practical for NYP-BOS because of capacity limitations).

For some of these, instead of splitting a train so one leg goes to one city and one goes to another (LSL), have a reduced consist continue to another city and leave the rest of the LD train in the regular terminal point (similar to TE/SL).

Hopefully this will expand the Amtrak LD system without drastically increasing costs.

You could also add new legs to LD trains on tracks/routes that Amtrak doesn't already use (ex. SLC-LAX) but that would require a bit more money.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 20, 2016)

To do a through car from the Zephyr to LA, or vice versa, would mean an overnight layover. Unless you're thinking about spending 12 to 16 hours in the yard or on the siding, it would be the same as you have now. Even the Coast Daylight wouldn't change it -- that's an even longer gap. You'd need a third, overnight train between LA and the Bay Area. That'll be a while coming, long enough, I think, that high speed rail will be on the horizon, rendering it moot. Yes, I mean that long  . Continuing the Zephyr on to LA would be likelier, I think. That's not to say likely.

You could tack a Zephyr car onto a Capitol Corridor to get to/from San Jose. If you did it at Sacramento, it shouldn't delay the CC, unless going eastbound the CZ was so late that they had to hold up the last run to San Jose to do it. It would have more and more convenient stops than just continuing the Zephyr to San Jose. It would be a question of demand. Same would be true of doing a CS/Surfliner swap at Santa Barbara, although the southbound timing would be tighter -- only one chance to do it.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 20, 2016)

I think a Capitol Limited to Silver Star connection would work well. The schedule currently allows 1.5 hours going North/West and 2 hours going South/East. This would likely be as fast as a route via New Orleans and it would serve Tampa and Miami. The 92 schedule would likely have to be moved up 30 minutes, which would not have much of an impact on any major cities. The best way to do this would probably we to flip the consist of the Capitol Limited. The trans dorm and a coach could be added to the back of the Silver Star. While I have heard many people recommend making the Capitol Limited single level, I would prefer to see the City of New Orleans or Auto Train go single level if necessary.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2016)

One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level.  Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.

Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 21, 2016)

jis said:


> One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level.  Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.
> 
> Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.


That makes sense about the capacity of the Auto Train, I did not think about that. But what about the City of New Orleans? I have never ridden on it but I think it makes more sense to have a Superliner option to the East Coast. I also think the mountain scenery is considered better on the CL, making the Lounge useful. Is there any way the Capitol Limited could be changed from 3 to 2 consists? That would likely be all the equipment needed, as this would only require 4 transition sleepers and 4 coaches, and I know I have seen trains in the past with a baggage car and no transition car. The CL and SS combination would take 35 hours CHI-JAX, allowing for 2 hours in WAS. The CONO takes 19.5 hours CHI-NOL, and I'd assume that would also have a least an hour in NOL. That means if it takes it any more than 14.5 hours to JAX the route via WAS would be faster. I am not saying I don't support the CONO extension, but I think this could be a short term solution and both could run together in the future. The only major cities they would share would be CHI, JAX, and ORL so I think they could both be successful.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 21, 2016)

jis said:


> One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level.  Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.
> 
> Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.


That makes sense about the capacity of the Auto Train, I did not think about that. But what about the City of New Orleans? I have never ridden on it but I think it makes more sense to have a Superliner option to the East Coast. I also think the mountain scenery is considered better on the CL, making the Lounge useful. Is there any way the Capitol Limited could be changed from 3 to 2 consists? That would likely be all the equipment needed, as this would only require 4 transition sleepers and 4 coaches, and I know I have seen trains in the past with a baggage car and no transition car. The CL and SS combination would take 35 hours CHI-JAX, allowing for 2 hours in WAS. The CONO takes 19.5 hours CHI-NOL, and I'd assume that would also have a least an hour in NOL. That means if it takes it any more than 14.5 hours to JAX the route via WAS would be faster. I am not saying I don't support the CONO extension, but I think this could be a short term solution and both could run together in the future. The only major cities they would share would be CHI, JAX, and ORL so I think they could both be successful.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2016)

It is not a question of supporting or opposing. It is a matter of taking facts on the ground into consideration. There is a process in place with a study completed for the possibility of extending the CONO. OTOH, there is not anything going on regarding doing anything with the CL.

It is almost certain that Amtrak will make no change to anything unless someone pays for it. There is a political constituency for the CONO extension. There is none for extending the CL to anywhere.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 21, 2016)

I know the CONO extension has a lot of support and the CL extension has not even been mentioned, but it does not require a lot of support. The train already exists, the stations are in place, and if the CL could be brought down to 2 sets CHI-WAS, would require no extra equipment. None of this is true about the CONO. All that would be required is slightly more maintenance costs, but the Silver Service consists change train length often already so I do not see why this can't be done. And if this can't be done, do you think a 92 to 29 connection would be reasonable? All that would be changed is 30 minutes in the schedule. 30 to 91 is alrwdy a guaranteed connection.


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2016)

Yup, getting a connection in place is desirable. it could be achieved either by moving 92 earlier or pushing 29 departure a little later. Both requires CSX to agree to the change. I have no idea how easy or complicated that is.

One thing about pulling 92 earlier may be that it then either has to wait in Washington DC or it might arrive into new York within the tail end of the evening rush. I don;t know for sure if that would be an issue, but it could be. If it is then pushing 29 later by half hour would seem to be the weay to go, though that could make 29 and 49 run too close to each other for NS to handle at the west end. Again, no idea if it matters or not.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 21, 2016)

If they are both equally acceptable to CSX and NS I would prefer 92 moving earlier. It would give JAX and SAV slightly better times and would prevent PGH from moving past midnight. For a 2 hour transfer, 92 would have to be moved up 33 minutes. The current 92 arrives WAS at 2:38 and leaves around 3:08. No Amtrak trains leave between 2:05 and 3:00, so a 2:35 would probably work fine. It still wouldn't arrive NYP to at least 6:00 and would travel opposite peak direction so it should fit in. If for some reason it could not, WAS could probably hold it for an extra 30 minutes.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 21, 2016)

My proposal for BOS-Florida service:

Southbound:

Train 93 (M-Th) runs NYP-Richmond Staples Mill Rd

Train 83 (F) runs NYP-Newport News

Train 161 (Sa-Su) runs NYP-WAS

Northbound:

Train 86 (M-F) runs Richmond Staples Mill Rd-NYP

Train 164 (Sa-Su) runs Richmond Staples Mill Rd-NYP

497 and 498 train times approximate.

497 (93's times): BOS 9:30am, Providence 10:11am, New Haven 12:09pm, NYP 1:48pm-3:15pm, ORL 12:49pm next day, MIA 6:39pm next day

498 (86's times): MIA 8:10am, ORL 1:35pm, NYP 11:00am-12:30pm next day, New Haven 2:08pm next day, Providence 3:47pm next day, BOS 4:35pm next day

Boston/New England passengers trade a Virginia train for a Florida train which serves many of the cities the Virginia trains served.

Virginia passengers can still take the same trains truncated in NYP to Washington, Philadelphia, and New York. Richmond and Fredricksburg passengers can still take 497/498 to/from BOS and New England.

Another possibility would be to split the SM in Richmond with 497/498 making all of the stops of 93 and 86 and 97/98 making only the current SM stops north of Richmond. So a passenger from PHL to Florida would take 97 (fewer stops) but a passenger from BWI to Florida would take 497 since 97 wouldn't stop there. With this option, more passengers between NYP and Richmond can gain direct service to Florida without the main SM stopping there.


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 21, 2016)

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 21, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?


None of the trains truncated are Acelas. Essentially the trains (all regional) questioned are split in NYP. From the Boston/New England end, they keep most of the same stops and gain a lot more. From the Virginia end, they keep all the stops up to NYP. I don't see any major losses.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 21, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?


Or we can cut all long distance trains to Washington DC have all passengers transfer to a NEC train. Save a lot of equipment, just need to find the space for the maintain buildings / tracks.


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 21, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> > Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?
> ...


Either you run them in the long distance pattern on the Corridor, receiving passengers only southbound and discharging northbound, or you keep them scheduled as a Regional carrying local passengers. As a long distance, it would be a terrible idea in both directions, considering how few people would ride a Meteor extension, a complete waste of a bridge slot. As a Regional schedule, you can't credibly serve intra-NEC traffic at the tail end of a train that will routinely run late. 98 arrived into NYP more than half an hour late 29 times in the last two months. That kind of timekeeping is unacceptable for a train serving local passengers. Either way, passengers traveling intra-NEC lose. And there are a lot more of them than you'll ever get coming from Florida.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 21, 2016)

Well I know Amtrak once wanted to have a direct BOS-Florida train and they had the same problems north of BOS so I'm guessing they had enough passengers from New England to Florida.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2016)

Guess why they stopped doing that at the first opportunity.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 22, 2016)

jis said:


> Guess why they stopped doing that at the first opportunity.


You're assuming every Amtrak decision makes sense.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 22, 2016)

Wasn't it The Champion that ran Boston-Florida in the early Amtrak years?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 22, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > keelhauled said:
> ...


It would be irrelevant for the southbound leg. As for the northbound leg, unless you are coming from Florida then ride one of the other 18 trains going north to BOS then.

There has to be some way to find out how many passengers transfer from the SM to New England.


----------



## west point (Apr 22, 2016)

We are all ignoring a very important item. That is maintenance. In the pre Amtrak legacy there were car repairmen at many locations for long distance trains. There were enough trains and spare equipment located at those locations so trains ( cars ) could get minor problems that might sideline a car fixed and continue on a trip.

Have no idea today where there is maintenance on the NEC but would suspect WASH, BAL, PHL, NYP, New Haven, BOS. Any more ?

On LD routes there are very few maintenance locations. Those are planned where the opposite directions trains meet with some exceptions. Example Florence where Auto Train scheduled at about same time as well as Meteor. Other locations with maintenance are often where a train set overnights such as Lynchburg, Fort Worth.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 22, 2016)

west point said:


> We are all ignoring a very important item. That is maintenance. In the pre Amtrak legacy there were car repairmen at many locations for long distance trains. There were enough trains and spare equipment located at those locations so trains ( cars ) could get minor problems that might sideline a car fixed and continue on a trip.
> 
> Have no idea today where there is maintenance on the NEC but would suspect WASH, BAL, PHL, NYP, New Haven, BOS. Any more ?
> 
> On LD routes there are very few maintenance locations. Those are planned where the opposite directions trains meet with some exceptions. Example Florence where Auto Train scheduled at about same time as well as Meteor. Other locations with maintenance are often where a train set overnights such as Lynchburg, Fort Worth.


On my plan, only a smaller consist goes north to BOS, the main SM still ends and is serviced in NYP (similar to the LSL).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 22, 2016)

Which portion(s) of the NYP-BOS route is subject to the 19 cars per day rule? Is NYP-New Haven-Springfield-BOS subject to it? If not, I would push for that route for the through cars to the SM.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 22, 2016)

New Haven, Providence to Boston is subject to a limit the trains agreement. The major issue is boats traffic. One of bridges just got rebuilt, however another one is due. Time to bit the bullet, tunnel or go high.

The inland route is losing most Amtrak service soon, as the State of Connecticut is getting ready to run a commuter type service on those tracks.

Not sure if CT is get the title to those tracks, but that would be the time to bring up the limit on trains going on the shoreline.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 23, 2016)

I think we might confusing terms. "Inland Route" refers to Boston-Worcester-Springfield-New Haven. The improvements going on currently north of New Haven in on track known as the "Springfield Line". Corrections welcomed there.

The restrictions east of New Haven state that no more than 39 trains--not cars--operate on that

portion of the railroad. The boaters and hence the Coast Guard are responsible for imposing that restriction. Money talks!

This is the first I've heard of Amtrak reducing the number of trains between Springfield and New Haven.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 23, 2016)

Here's a proposed schedule. I gave the trains roughly a half hour in Springfield each way to make the turn (also to match the LSL/Vermonter schedules). Baggage service will be available in the stations that currently have it (New Haven, Springfield, and Boston South Station). The consist would be similar to the ALB-BOS LSL leg and would split/merge off the SM at NYP with the remainder of the train staying in New York.

The northbound train would arrive in BOS about a half hour after the 98-82/154/174 transfer as listed in the timetable (6:30pm arrival) but that assumes the connection is made. Also, passengers in BOS can check baggage through to Florida. The southbound train would leave BOS about 1.5 hours earlier than the 93/83/161-97 transfer (9:30am departure). I personally would live with the extra time here to avoid the transfer (plus you get checked baggage the entire route). If the Springfield turn can be done quicker, that time would be reduced. I am hoping in general 50 minutes is enough to make sure the train can arrive in NYP and be hooked with the SM so it can leave at 3:15pm with delay. If the BOS through cars are late getting into NYP perhaps it can continue on to PHL or WAS and catch the SM there so the SM isn't delayed out of NYP because of the BOS leg. Also if the SM is late coming from Florida the split from the SM can be done further south allowing the BOS passengers to skip some of the stops.

For BOS and SPG, they will have two LD trains and will have one seat service to Florida and (if and when it returns) Chicago. For the Connecticut stops, it will be their first LD train. Hopefully it will reduce the traffic in NYP transferring to/from New England.

Boston Through Cars Silver Meteor April 2016.pdf


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 23, 2016)

Yes, your plan shows that you're more off course than usual. First of all, Metro-North has indicated they are going to want a lot more money to add additional trains on their territory. Indeed, CT legislators intimated they don't believe Amtrak pays their fair share now and they are considering more fees for the existing trains.

Secondly, there is a reason that Amtrak gave up the inland route and that is CSX indicated they wanted alot more money in track improvements to run the train. At the time, Massachussetts balked and the NYP-BOS via the inland route ceased to exist. While Massachussetts has taken steps to reintroduce the service, it is still quite slow and plagued with pitfalls. even the most cursory search on the boards you frequent would reveal this basic information. For the benefit of a (sort of) one seat ride, you are adding another hour and thirty minutes minimum to the already long ride, while increasing fees by operating off Amtrak's main high speed line. Some of the regional trains are up for the new baggage cars. Hopefully, this plan moves forward and then baggage can be checked on additional regional trains. It would be better of 93 receives the bag and the passengers and their checked luggage can transfer at WAS together.

Finally, this isn't the early 90's. NYP is no longer a good environment to switch live trains. There isn't really room to "run" around trains, which is why the practice was stopped except in cases of extreme emergencies. Everything goes to the yard unless in can turn and burn on the platform in a timely fashion. The tracks that were used for these moves in the past (maintenance, switching, etc) have been upgraded and are now equipped with 3rd rail for LIRR usage due to the severe congestion.

Your proposals never consider the operational environment, the regulations (like what happens if the connecting train is late and you need an air plant to maintain the federal brake test) or the cost of the manpower that is needed to complete you grandiose plans. Switching out passengers cars isn't as simple as dropping a freight car on a siding. You need things like an extra engine or the equivalent ( air plant, 480 volt standby), track space, electricians, mechanical forces etc.

When companies add all of these things into the equation, the results are often (no always) unfavorable...particularly if they're paying for it,


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2016)

That is an important point that Thirdrail makes. Amtrak's rolling stock is really not designed to effectively operate a bunch of through and sectional carriages that are easily parked or transferred from one train to another. For that one would prefer carriages that can keep themselves powered for some significant amount of time, thus saving on cost of shore power facilities. Systems that have such extensive service indeed use self powered carriages.

Amtrak is designed to operate more or less complete trains with little enroute shunting, and that is the way it is. Shuffling of cars en route is the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 23, 2016)

At least I'm trying to propose ideas to improve the Amtrak map, serve more cities, eliminate transfers. What are the rest of you doing? Satisfied with the status quo? You may be happy with the Amtrak system. I'm not. There's plenty of holes in it. And if you're not happy with Amtrak service, do you have any ideas to make it better?


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2016)

You realize that you're asking that to 1) an Amtrak employee that's out there working every day and is try to educate you on the very real operational limitations that come with the proposals you suggest, and 2) a rail advocate that's spent more time working on such topics than you've been alive?

You should be welcoming their inputs with open arms if you actually want to accomplish something past pointless pie in the sky proposals that have no chance of coming to fruition.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 23, 2016)

Ryan said:


> 2) a rail advocate that's spent more time working on such topics than you've been alive?


I wish. I doubt anyone's been working for 43 years.



Ryan said:


> You should be welcoming their inputs with open arms.


Inputs would imply some better way to address the issues and problems I bring up, not just say my ideas "won't work".


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2016)

In the US I have been involved in passenger rail advocacy in some way shape or form for only 37 years, so yeah not 43 years.

My goal in these discussions is to identify things that need to change for an idea to work. I offer these observation irrespective of whether I think the proposal is stupid or not. 

For example in this immediate case the issue I see us that the current equipment is inappropriate for the sort of frequent coupling, uncoupling and shunting that would be involved. Past equipment was better suited for such, as are quite a bit of coaching stock in Europe and the non-EOG equipment in India.

Thirdrail was also pointing out why current practices won't make these proposals easy to implement. An appropriate discussion could be along the lines of 1. Do these proposals make sense as a part of a broader strategy? And 2. If so what needs to change and what would be the possible return for the cost of making those changes?

However, when people turn out to be so thin skinned as to start attacking motives and taunting, I start wondering why bother?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 23, 2016)

jis said:


> In the US I have been involved in passenger rail advocacy in some way shape or form for only 37 years, so yeah not 43 years.
> 
> My goal in these discussions is to identify things that need to change for an idea to work. I offer these observation irrespective of whether I think the proposal is stupid or not.
> 
> ...


Indeed, Jis. While I can agree that these proposals may seem like it is part of a broader strategy that increases available trains and routes, in real life, these ideas must weighed against items such as costs, value, acceptability and feasibility.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> At least I'm trying to propose ideas to improve the Amtrak map, serve more cities, eliminate transfers. What are the rest of you doing? Satisfied with the status quo? You may be happy with the Amtrak system. I'm not. There's plenty of holes in it. And if you're not happy with Amtrak service, do you have any ideas to make it better?


If you actually read something other than your own threads, you'd see that you're not that novel. There are plenty of proposals form board members. If you run over to Railroad.net, you'll see that I've made proposals...and unlike your proposals, I actually balance the fleet. However, not unlike yourself, I don't assign costs since there are many factor that go into them.

I'd love to see more trains. Hell, I've watched trains come and go as gaps in the network grew. However, there are severe limitations such as costs, finances, equipment availability. As such, I know that the even the proposals I've endorsed and recommended will not come to fruition because I don't have a few billion dollars to get the trains I want running, let alone maintained.

Who is putting up the money? Where is the equipment coming from? What do the hosts have to say? These are all reasonable questions, which when brought up to you....well, you pout and sulk. That is the very nature of "input." These are the limitations...what is your plan for overcoming them?

If you go to RR'net, and do a search of my posts, you'd see that I've said some very disparaging things about your favorite train, the Pigeon. I've also attacked the Downeasters and a few other trains. However, I'm wise enough to know without them, there wouldn't be others, including the NEC. This is particularly true at a time like this.

I want everyone in this thread to put on their thinking caps and ponder this:

***ahem***

How much equipment is unavailable these days? How many cars have been lost since January 1, 2015? How many of the NEW baggage cars are currently out of service and will not be available for some time? ACS-64s? Diesels? Did anyone realize there was yet another diesel vs truck incident today?

It is to the point that even the mighty NEC is losing cars to prop up off corridor trains due to equipment being damaged in accidents, held up in lawsuits or just falling apart from constantly being on the go. So, unless someone is putting up BILLIONS to maintain what is already operating (by congressional mandate), I look at these proposals as "ideas" that may seem nice, but have little realistic chance of occurring. Unless someone pays, the gaps are going to get larger.

As I've stated before, the bane of my existence is not being able to bury you with service proposals and route analysis studies that have occurred. They are way deeper than most of what has been proposed, and they have costs, potential ridership numbers, equipment counts etc. They would make your mind melt. If you want to do something, why not file a FOIA request and see if they will grant you access?

in the meantime, if I see a good idea, i chime in. When the thread passed about the second Pennsylvanian, I found the slot, equipment, times and balanced the fleet.

If I see a bad idea, I will indicate why it is bad...just as I did above. There are threads that cover the limitations of operating East of New York. I started a thread on Railroad.net on operations east of NYC when I mentioned extending a Florida train to Bos. That was at least 4 years ago. In that time, some of the bridges that caused the train count have been rebuilt. However, there is much more work to be done. So, it will be interesting to see if the Coast Guard amends the cap in 2018, when they are up for review.

However, if more slots are found, is it better to operate a small long distance train, with its limited revenue potential (but greater direct network access) or restore the two canceled Acela trains, with their high revenue potential?

That is a real discussion, with real consequences, that requires real knowledge of how Metro-North and/or CSX (if you choose the inland route) bills Amtrak for passage. Is it by the number of trains? Is it by hour of the day (premium slot vs off peak slot?) Is it by number of cars? How much would servicing cost? Storage? Maintenance? Wear and tear? How do these items stack up to the benefits of the proposals?

These are just a few of the things that come into play and this is the reason why you don't see a ton of passenger operations. This is a very expensive operation. Even commuter services that carry thousands of people a day can't cover their costs. So, imagine some of the states, facing a budget shortfall deciding to subsidize some of suggestions the members of this board make.

Does that mean give up? No, but carping on a board without lobbying (and I do pay into a lobbying group) is just internet banter.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 23, 2016)




----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 23, 2016)

State of CT is limited by federal law on what it can charge for Amtrak trains to travel on Metro North tracks. A few years back Amtrak try to jack the fees on the Shoreline East Commuter Trains by a reported 10 times. Amtrak back down stated "Just a opening Bid". One thinks the state wants to charge the same fee it gets charge from Amtrak.

The limitation on number of trains East of New Haven is State of CT not USCG. USCG has regulations but nothing about a limited of trains. Also Shoreline East does not count on the limit. The limited is more to do on the weekend than weekday.

CSX does not own the track between Springfield, MA and Boston, MA. MBTA does, bought it a few years back.

Let's not forget the funds that the State of CT has payed for work on the inland (Springfield) line. Work that has not gotten done, but Amtrak has promised to get done.

Feel free to correct any misstatement, but I do think upgrade of service is in the cards. One just has to think about it from time to time. A lot of changes going on in the last four years.

Now should that be a long distance train....

Last rant: DB rail going for all ICE trains, as that were the money comes from. However people like Locomore is coming and runing trains on the same route at a much lower cost. Acela is not the solution that fit all problems.

Link for Locomore: https://locomore.com/en/services.html


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 24, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> State of CT is limited by federal law on what it can charge for Amtrak trains to travel on Metro North tracks. A few years back Amtrak try to jack the fees on the Shoreline East Commuter Trains by a reported 10 times. Amtrak back down stated "Just a opening Bid". One thinks the state wants to charge the same fee it gets charge from Amtrak.


Not so. Metro-North can charge more based upon cars exceeded by the current operating agreement. Indeed, they do not even have to operate extra service upon demand. With additional negotiations, I would expect more fees, particularly when Metro-North starts working on their bridges and considering this statement from Senator Blumenthal:



> Connecticut pays far more than its fair share for maintenance of railroad tracks through the state and Amtrak should contribute more, according to U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
> 
> Blumenthal, D-Conn., and state Transportation Commissioner James Redeker held a conference call Wednesday to discuss issues raised during a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee earlier in the day. Blumenthal is chairman of the committee.
> 
> Maintenance of the rails has been raised as an issue because of the May 17 derailment in Bridgeport, in which 76 passengers and crew members were injured. An inspection by a Metro-North foreman two days before found a section of track lacking ballast under a rail joint. It was at that spot that a joint bar connecting the rails broke, possibly causing the derailment.





> "Clearly, today's hearing highlighted the need for investment in infrastructure long term ... through either a railroad trust fund or an infrastructure bank," Blumenthal said.
> 
> Redeker had reported the state had spent $3.2 billion on track upkeep in the past 10 years, while Amtrak had spent $64 million in the state. Those numbers "show that Connecticut taxpayers and citizens are paying much more than our fair share. ... Amtrak is getting a free ride and failing to pay its fair share," Blumenthal said.





> Amtrak is a federally subsidized agency that operates railroads across the country. It runs the Shore Line East commuter train from New Haven to New London as well. An Amtrak spokesman did not respond to questions before deadline.
> 
> Connecticut owns the tracks between the New York border and New Haven, while Amtrak owns those east of New Haven. The state contracts with Metro-North to maintain its tracks.







Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The limitation on number of trains East of New Haven is State of CT not USCG. USCG has regulations but nothing about a limited of trains. Also Shoreline East does not count on the limit. The limited is more to do on the weekend than weekday.


I stand corrected. The USCG and the Connecticut DEP (among others) do have input as to how many trains operate over the bridges. Please note that Shore Line east DO count towards the total number trains allowed. This why when C-Dot increased service to NLC, Amtrak cut trains and cross honored. The original agreement (modified since its inception) is up for renegotiation in 2018 and the Coast Guard will no doubt be involved.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> CSX does not own the track between Springfield, MA and Boston, MA. MBTA does, bought it a few years back.


To the best of my knowledge, Massachusetts owns from Back Bay to Worcester (CP 45.) From CP 45 to CP 92(?), the railroad is CSX's Boston Subdivision. From CP 92 to SPG (CP 98), the railroad is CSX's Berkshire Subdivision. Most of the railroad from CP 45 to CP 92 is single track, hilly territory. This is why Amtrak stopped operating the inland route. CSX wanted money for upgrades and Amtrak had their own, recently upgraded high speed line that they controlled. While upgrades are occurring, it is still a long, slow, hilly route.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Let's not forget the funds that the State of CT has payed for work on the inland (Springfield) line. Work that has not gotten done, but Amtrak has promised to get done.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but very well. The existing Springfield line could easily accommodate a few more Amtrak trains. What it can't accommodate is the commuter service commingling with Amtrak service. The bottleneck is the aforementioned B&A route. Until improvements are completed, you're still have a rough ride to Boston.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Feel free to correct any misstatement, but I do think upgrade of service is in the cards. One just has to think about it from time to time. A lot of changes going on in the last four years.
> 
> Now should that be a long distance train....


Indeed. There have been a lot of changes already with more on the horizon. 2018 is just around the corner and work on the Thames and Niantic river bridges have been completed. Perhaps more slots will be available on the Shore Line. With CSX seeing traffic drop, I wonder if MASS can grab the rest of the line. Personally, I'd like to see another ALB-BOS train that met the Vermonter and SPG shuttle for connections. I'd also like to see service on the inland route restored especially since the trains on thrived on Fridays and Sundays for a total of 4 trains between SPG-BOS. However, one thing hasn't really changed and that is a lack of equipment. Even if track work is completed, you need equipment to push the service through. Until the equipment comes available, I have advocated for MBCR (now Keolis) to extend their reach and operate commuter service from BOS-SPG. At SPG, they can transfer to an Amtrak train to the corridor, the Vermonter (hopefully the Montrealer) or the forthcoming Knowledge Corridor commuter service to Greenfield. I think it would be an easier sell and the states would take interest.

See, I have pie in the sky ideas too!



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Last rant: DB rail going for all ICE trains, as that were the money comes from. However people like Locomore is coming and runing trains on the same route at a much lower cost. Acela is not the solution that fit all problems.
> 
> Link for Locomore: https://locomore.com/en/services.html



That's a good looking train. I prefer locomotive hauled consist due to their flexibility. However, there is a shortage of cars and I don't see anyone ponying up money for new coaches. it is back to the point of wondering " now that we've robbed Peter to pay Paul, should we actually pay Paul or split it between Paul and Robin?"

The Acela sets are confined to the corridor and new sets may be on the way. When that happens, it would make sense to use the confined equipment in the confined corridor and allow the remaining cars to deploy into areas where the Acela can't operate. This is why when Amtrak added additional weekend service to Boston, using the Acela was a no-brainer.

There wasn't much else available.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 24, 2016)

I'm certainly in the minority here but I feel that long distance service on Amtrak is important. At times I feel some of you if you were starting from scratch wouldn't run any trains more than 300 miles (the trains OTP goes down the longer it gets). Here's the opposing view. If a location is 2-3 hours away, I can reasonably drive the distance in the same (or less) time if parking was not an issue (I recently went up to New York and it parking was an issue so I did take a train). For a long distance trip like Chicago or Florida even if I drove I'd probably get tired and have to make stops (possibly overnight) and the train would be comparable in terms of time and I don't have to stop several times for rest/gas. While I certainly appreciate the trains to New York or Washington, the trains to Florida and (if it exists) Chicago are more valuable. If I could get one more train to Philly, why should I want another train to DC when there are already tons of them? Is there a big difference between 20 trains to DC and 21? There is a big difference between one daily to Chicago and none. I'd even say a second Pittsburgh train is significant. So when it comes to Boston, I think they should have choices rather than 19 of the same route that serves the same cities. I get the Acelas are huge money makers. I'm not sold on the Regionals that travel south of DC. Certainly Virginia should have train service (especially since they pay for it) but I would imagine 90% of the demand in Virginia is to New York and south.

NARP Ridership Data:

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf

VA Service/Richmond: WAS 46,798, PHL 11,862, NYP 39,298, NHV 1,475, BOS 905

VA Service/Norfolk: WAS 41,444, PHL 8,664, NYP 29,161, NHV 1,110, BOS 579

So why do they need to hog precious BOS-NYP slots for a few extra thousand riders (and I believe those numbers are for multiple daily trains)? You can talk about all of the OTP problems with the Silver Meteor but BOS-RVR is almost 600 miles already. Once the train goes south of WAS or north of NYP then you're adding quite a bit of miles. I think the Virginia trains would still be effective if they only ran NYP-Virginia. It doesn't even have to be all of them terminating in NYP, just enough to make BOS-Florida a reality. I would say even if you just ran BOS-WAS trains in place of BOS-Virginia trains it would be an improvement for New England.

The reasoning behind my latest proposal: Inland Route instead of Shore Line East because of the capacity limitations. I certainly didn't see all the issues with the Inland route but then again pick your poison. And the Inland Route was certainly Amtrak's choice in the Summer of 2000: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0034

I also proposed a through car branch instead of running the whole SM up to Boston and not being able to service it there which has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions (who says I don't listen?). With all the problems with splitting/merging, can you imagine the LSL or EB without it (well technically LSL is going through it now and there's a whole thread about it)? Sure it's a hassle but without it Portland and Boston wouldn't be able to go through to Chicago and Dallas/Austin wouldn't be able to go through to Los Angeles. And I don't think through car branches in the future are dead, Amtrak proposed through cars off the Capitol Limited in 2010. Have things gotten much worse in just six years? I'm hoping the problems with the LSL don't become permanent and Boston will have no service at all.

You're never going to convince me that Boston-Florida service isn't worthwhile. Difficult? Sure. Are we lacking in money/equipment? Absolutely. But I'd be willing to guess that more than 1,600 passengers a year travel to/from Florida and BOS (not even counting the rest of New England) and are forced to transfer. I'd imagine there's more interest in New England to go to Florida than to go to Norfolk. If the Silver Meteor is as late as some of you say, connection nightmares and rescheduling in NYP for the New England passengers are certainly not uncommon. Plus, there's the baggage inconvenience. Maybe you do have to make some sacrifices with our current limitations to gain something more valuable.

You can say what's the point to discuss projects that aren't feasible now? I still think the ideas should be active or if and when Amtrak can take care of them people will forget. I'm worried that's happening to my other big wish list project. The longer these things drag on, so many people just forget the old trains even existed. At least there's movement towards New Orleans-Florida again.

There may be progress at the local level and I do appreciate Thirdrail7's efforts but I feel there needs to be progress at the national level and LD level too.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

I don't think you're in minority about LD trains. I think you are in the minority about having all LD routes be one seat trips. That's just not going to happen.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2016)

It seems to me that providing service where there is none at present, should take priority over tinkering around with schedules in areas where people already have service, just to give a one seat ride to a few.


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 24, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I also proposed a through car branch instead of running the whole SM up to Boston and not being able to service it there which has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions (who says I don't listen?). With all the problems with splitting/merging, can you imagine the LSL or EB without it (well technically LSL is going through it now and there's a whole thread about it)? Sure it's a hassle but without it Portland and Boston wouldn't be able to go through to Chicago and Dallas/Austin wouldn't be able to go through to Los Angeles. And I don't think through car branches in the future are dead, Amtrak proposed through cars off the Capitol Limited in 2010. Have things gotten much worse in just six years? I'm hoping the problems with the LSL don't become permanent and Boston will have no service at all.


Just because you don't like transfers does not mean that when they occur it is like the second train just simply doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of the consumer. I know that people do SPO and east to PDX by way of SEA, some due to scenery, others because they weren't able to purchase a direct ticket, and some simply because they wanted to be on a train longer (gasp!).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 24, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I don't think you're in minority about LD trains. I think you are in the minority about having all LD routes be one seat trips. That's just not going to happen.


Not necessary all of them but I think there are at least a few where there would be significant gains.



jis said:


> It seems to me that providing service where there is none at present, should take priority over tinkering around with schedules in areas where people already have service, just to give a one seat ride to a few.


Wouldn't disagree on the new areas getting service. Would disagree on it just being a "few".



CCC1007 said:


> Just because you don't like transfers does not mean that when they occur it is like the second train just simply doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of the consumer. I know that people do SPO and east to PDX by way of SEA, some due to scenery, others because they weren't able to purchase a direct ticket, and some simply because they wanted to be on a train longer (gasp!).


But the transfer does negatively affect ridership. Who said that? Amtrak.

(Capitol Limited PRIIA 2010: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PR ... ed-PIP.pdf)

"Recognizing the importance of connecting ridership at Pittsburgh, the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the Capitol Limited focuses on leveraging that strength. In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery. "

The Amtrak Chicago Gateway report (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/873/180/Chicago-Gateway-Amtrak-Blue-Ribbon-Panel-Final-Report.pdf) showed some of the various transfer numbers to/from the CL. 22,386 between the CL and Pennsylvanian alone, 15,988 between the CL and SWC, and 15,212 between the CL and CZ. I'd be curious at some of the other numbers in the Amtrak system. I would guess LSL-SWC and LSL-CZ are higher than their CL counterparts because the LSL has a lot more riders. I'd also guess there's a lot of transfers between BOS-NE and the SM in NYP or WAS (maybe even to the SS although that schedule is way worse). I would say once you get above 20,000 or even 15,000, Amtrak has to at least think about a one seat ride possibility to smooth travel experiences. And at least once one point Amtrak has thought of CL-Pennsylvanian, BOS-Florida, and even CL-SWC (there is a separate thread about it). Or make the transfer less unbearable. At least waiting in Union Station or Penn Station is better than in the Pittsburgh (emphasis on the first syllable) Am-Shack.

Am I the only one here that's had a missed connection before?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 2, 2016)

Normally people say go to Plan B but for me this is probably Plan K by now...

Northbound:

Use the 174 and 164 as through cars off the 98. Keep the same schedules but require the trains to wait in RVR for the 98. The SM would split at Staples Mill for BOS service. The 174/164 will stay regional trains between RVR-BOS while the 98 will continue north to NYP. Passengers from Florida wishing to go to WAS, PHL, NYP or any current SM stop will still be able to take the 98 to their destinations and the train will only discharge passengers at those stops and may leave before the schedule. Passengers going from Florida to BOS/New England must take the 498 (or transfer in NYP).

Southbound:

Use the 93/83/161 as through cars to the 97. The 161 (Sa/Su) only go to WAS but they can be extended to RVR, replacing 71/87. The 83 (F) currently goes to Newport News but that will have to be cut (the 133 from NYP to WAS can be extended to Newport News). These trains will serve as regionals from BOS to RVR and will be attached to the 97 (which must wait for the respective regional train) at RVR. The 97 will only receive passengers up to RVR. Passengers from BOS/New England will use code 497.

Intra-NEC traffic is now allowed on the Palmetto and ridership significantly increased when this happened. Here, the regionals still exist and function as regionals but then are joined/split at RVR for travel to Florida.

I think this setup is similar to the proposed CL-Pennsylvanian through cars. The obvious negative is the regionals are subject to delays. This is more of an issue from Florida than from Boston.

ASM Data: https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/connections.php

2015 (Jan-Dec) delays

98 to 174: "Missed 14 out of 239 connections, or 6%"

98 to 164: "Missed 8 out of 109 connections, or 7%."

So 6% of the time the 174 will be delayed out of Richmond. But even if the 98 is really late, the 84 is a little over an hour later out of RVR than the 174 so (space permitting) the wait wouldn't be that long even if the train is severely delayed. This is actually better than 30-42 since passengers on the 42 will have to wait for the 30 no matter how late it is.

93-97 was missed only 4% (7 of 182) of the time and only one was after February so the weather was probably a factor in the other 6.

Meanwhile, passengers from the 98 now have to transfer to New England. Assume they use 98-174 in NYP as listed in the timetable. That connection was missed "17 out of 234 connections, or 7%."

So either you make 6% of 174 passengers wait for the 98 or 7% of passengers miss the 174 and have to wait for the next train (or the next one after that, depending on how late the 98 is). If you choose the through car option, the passengers waiting for the 174 can (space available) jump on the 84 if the 174 is more than an hour late. Plus if the 98 delays the 174 by less than an hour it's just a delay where if the delay is in NYP passengers have to change tickets in NYP. And if the 174 becomes a through car from the 98, experienced passengers would avoid 174 altogether (on M-F 86 leaves Staples Mill at 6:00am and 84 leaves at 8:18am).

So unless you think 30-42 is going to be a problem, why is 98-174 going to be a problem?

I'm sure there other details to iron out but I think it's worth it. Plus, little or no service would be cut and the regionals will still run with only a 7% possibility of a delay from the SM.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 3, 2016)

How can I put this nicely?

You have no idea what you're suggesting.

So, instead of nitpicking, I'm just going to make it easy and ask you to answer these questions:

How many cars can Boston's S&I building accommodate for servicing? This is important since it appears you are adding cars to an existing regional set.

What does train 133 turn for and what equipment will you name for replacing the missing set of equipment if you send it to NPN?

What does 161 turn for on weekends and what equipment will now represent the train if you extend it, especially since 71 goes to NFK. Speaking of 71, if you extend 161 to NFK, how will that effect the crew turn?

What makes you think CSX will accommodate a train sitting in RVR, awaiting a connection that may be hours late? Additionally, what does that do to the riders of the EXTREMELY busy regional train as 93/99 and 164/174 are among the top "heavies" on the New England division. Speaking of Richmond, who is performing the switching of this equipment considering there are no really switching crews in RVR? I suppose the road crew, but since some of the trains don't change crews, what happens if the connecting train leaves? What will you do with the late train?

How much more will you have to pay Metro-North since you're adding cars to a train?

We won't even ask where you're plucking cars for this through train but once you answer these questions, we'll take it to the next level.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 3, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'm certainly in the minority here but I feel that long distance service on Amtrak is important. At times I feel some of you if you were starting from scratch wouldn't run any trains more than 300 miles (the trains OTP goes down the longer it gets). Here's the opposing view. If a location is 2-3 hours away, I can reasonably drive the distance in the same (or less) time if parking was not an issue (I recently went up to New York and it parking was an issue so I did take a train). For a long distance trip like Chicago or Florida even if I drove I'd probably get tired and have to make stops (possibly overnight) and the train would be comparable in terms of time and I don't have to stop several times for rest/gas. While I certainly appreciate the trains to New York or Washington, the trains to Florida and (if it exists) Chicago are more valuable. If I could get one more train to Philly, why should I want another train to DC when there are already tons of them? Is there a big difference between 20 trains to DC and 21? There is a big difference between one daily to Chicago and none. I'd even say a second Pittsburgh train is significant. So when it comes to Boston, I think they should have choices rather than 19 of the same route that serves the same cities. I get the Acelas are huge money makers. I'm not sold on the Regionals that travel south of DC. Certainly Virginia should have train service (especially since they pay for it) but I would imagine 90% of the demand in Virginia is to New York and south.
> 
> NARP Ridership Data:
> 
> ...


I don't know what happened to the post I made regarding this, but I already mentioned this to you on another board. It is NOT a few extra thousand riders. The numbers you posted are for the Virginia based riders. What you are leaving out are the THOUSANDS of NEC only riders that ride the same train but travel between WAS and BOS. 94 and 93 are the busiest of the "heavies," but you won't see the numbers on the Virginia data rail sheet. These trains are basically three large swaths of riders: NPN/RVR-WAS, WAS-NYP, NYP-BOS. The trains are routinely full over all segments.

The Boston corridor could actually use more trains. Indeed, they added an additional Acela trip on Saturdays since there wasn't enough regional equipment. Adding a car or two off a late, long distance train isn't going to do much and neither will hogging a precious slot with a long distance train.

You apparently don't understand the equipment utilization or route numbers.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The reasoning behind my latest proposal: Inland Route instead of Shore Line East because of the capacity limitations. I certainly didn't see all the issues with the Inland route but then again pick your poison. And the Inland Route was certainly Amtrak's choice in the Summer of 2000: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0034


Your sense of history is skewered. The inland route was naturally the route of choice in 2000 since the North End was still being electrified in preparation of the Acela service. Capacity was extremely limited so this pushed additional trains to the inland route and indeed, some trains on the Shore Line had to use the First District route (Dorchester Branch) to Boston.

Now, the line is open, electrified and is dispatched and maintained by Amtrak. You don't have to worry about CSX's heat restrictions, fees or slow terrain which takes roughly and hour and fifteen minutes longer. Feel fee to peruse the timetable museum and look at the eye popping time difference.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I also proposed a through car branch instead of running the whole SM up to Boston and not being able to service it there which has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions (who says I don't listen?). With all the problems with splitting/merging, can you imagine the LSL or EB without it (well technically LSL is going through it now and there's a whole thread about it)? Sure it's a hassle but without it Portland and Boston wouldn't be able to go through to Chicago and Dallas/Austin wouldn't be able to go through to Los Angeles. And I don't think through car branches in the future are dead, Amtrak proposed through cars off the Capitol Limited in 2010. Have things gotten much worse in just six years? I'm hoping the problems with the LSL don't become permanent and Boston will have no service at all.


We'll see what happens with ALB, but if you notice, they aren't rushing to put it back. This is because it is a time and labor consuming operation, particularly with the blue flag rules. Things can change a lot in 6 years. In that time, crews that performed this type of work could have been ELIMINATED. Again, cars need facilities and crews to handle them and once Amtrak started pushing fixed consists, they have been cut. I was talking to a superintendent a while back and he recalled having six electricians for the Southern Crescent (which was about 21 cars at the time.) Now, he said he's lucky if he has six electricians between the yard and station on his busiest tour.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You're never going to convince me that Boston-Florida service isn't worthwhile. Difficult? Sure. Are we lacking in money/equipment? Absolutely. But I'd be willing to guess that more than 1,600 passengers a year travel to/from Florida and BOS (not even counting the rest of New England) and are forced to transfer. I'd imagine there's more interest in New England to go to Florida than to go to Norfolk. If the Silver Meteor is as late as some of you say, connection nightmares and rescheduling in NYP for the New England passengers are certainly not uncommon. Plus, there's the baggage inconvenience. Maybe you do have to make some sacrifices with our current limitations to gain something more valuable.
> 
> You can say what's the point to discuss projects that aren't feasible now? I still think the ideas should be active or if and when Amtrak can take care of them people will forget. I'm worried that's happening to my other big wish list project. The longer these things drag on, so many people just forget the old trains even existed. At least there's movement towards New Orleans-Florida again.
> 
> There may be progress at the local level and I do appreciate Thirdrail7's efforts but I feel there needs to be progress at the national level and LD level too.


I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago. I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.

What I do not advocate is sacrificing a regional for a LD train and I'm not a fan switching cars to between regional and LD trains. An easier fix is allocating bags for the New England Division to aid with luggage and transfers.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 3, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> How can I put this nicely?
> 
> You have no idea what you're suggesting.


If this is you being nice, I really hope I never see you being mean. If you can't make your points without personally attacking or insulting me, you're better off not making any comments at all. Just because I'm not Sheldon Cooper when it comes to train knowledge doesn't mean I'm stupid.



Thirdrail7 said:


> I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago. I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.
> 
> What I do not advocate is sacrificing a regional for a LD train and I'm not a fan switching cars to between regional and LD trains. An easier fix is allocating bags for the New England Division to aid with luggage and transfers.


Finally, at least you are addressing the issue.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (May 3, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > How can I put this nicely?
> ...



This was indeed nice and seemingly, accurate. Since it is accurate, how can you consider it a personal attack? It is quite clear that you never actually considered what happens with the equipment when you makes these proposals. I've mentioned it before. As such, I just cut to the chase since I was short on time. I will now expand so you are not insulted.

You have no idea what you are suggesting...because you do not understand the consequences of your actions. My eyes immediately focused on train your trains and noticed there is no balance. Trains do not exist in a vacuum nor do they simply fall from the sky at various locations. There needs to be balance. Where is the balance? You say 'just extend 133 or leave this train here or shift this train to that schedule' as if there isn't a consequence. It is funny you brought up 83 on Fridays. Take a good look at the schedule for NPN on Fridays. Did you notice NPN finishes with an extra set of equipment? What is the balance? What happens to that equipment? These are things that must be considered.

Since you haven't provided the answers to what you'll do for equipment if you alter the fleet locations, in my estimation it means you do not understand what you are actually suggesting or the snowball you're creating. That does not make you stupid nor did I suggest it does.

If you choose to take it personally, that's on you. The internet is a rough place, I guess.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago. I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.
> ...


I'm not sure that I've said anything different. I stated earlier in this thread that adding a baggage car would help the situation and even mentioned that I started a thread years ago about sending New York based Long Distance service to Boston. I also delivered what I thought was a solid idea (on paper) for adding more service on the inland route.

What I will not do is ignore the realities of a situation to fit my agenda. There are limitations and your ideas often create more questions than answers which may be the reason why some of your proposals don't actually exist.


----------



## west point (May 3, 2016)

This poster believes that there is a need to separate short time improvements with long term solutions. After V-2 SL cars are delivered there are no provisions to acquire any new single level coaches before 2019 - 2021. Source FY 2016 budget request. That really limits what can be done in the short term. Do we like that ? HECK NO ! @ ! !


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 3, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm not sure that I've said anything different. I stated earlier in this thread that adding a baggage car would help the situation and even mentioned that I started a thread years ago about sending New York based Long Distance service to Boston. I also delivered what I thought was a solid idea (on paper) for adding more service on the inland route.


Can you find and link that thread here so we can see it?


----------



## neroden (May 3, 2016)

Albany at least definitely has the facilities and crews to do switching, since they have to switch locomotives anyway. Actually, adding the Boston section to the NY section is not significantly more complicated in personnel terms than attaching the P42s to the New York section. With the prior track arrangement, the movement tied up two out of three platform tracks and far too much of the station throat, but that won't be an issue once all the current work is *done*.

Long-term decisions should never be made for the operational convenience of the employees. Revenue generally outweighs costs. It's one thing to eliminate switching at a location where you can get rid of an entire crewbase, but at a location like Albany where the locos for the LSL have to be changed anyway, it's asinine to avoid running through cars for the convenience of the employees.

The same would apply at Chicago, except for two large issues: the divide between bilevels and single-levels, and the issue of schedule recovery when there are so many different hosts and such long runs. Back when railroads were run by competent people and ran on *time*, however, there were through cars going every which way, and that was because you can charge higher prices for an uninterrupted trip.

Amtrak has been quite rightly moving away from fixed consists, with cutoff cars used intermittently over the last few years at Reno, Denver, and St Louis, and consistently at St. Paul. The ability to generate more revenue with less equipment (less than running excess cars along the whole route) is valuable. Through cars are also revenue generators, in the right circumstances.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 10, 2017)

Getting back to other through cars, what's the holdup for the CL-Pennsylvanian? You would think it would be the easiest of all to do. It's going on seven years since Amtrak proposed it.


----------



## jis (Jan 10, 2017)

Installation of the crossover at Pittsburgh station and availability of Sleepers.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 10, 2017)

When the thru cars at PGH are implemented will the WAS section of the CL remain Superliner equipped? I know that it is possible because of the transition sleeper, but I could also see Amtrak changing the whole train to single level to make it easier for them.

It is disappointing that such relatively small issues are holding it up for so long. If the crossover issue was fixed, the train could run without sleepers temporarily or even run the transition sleeper and a Superliner coach to PHL (I don't know it there is sufficient facilities in PHL or not) until the new Viewliner sleepers are available.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 10, 2017)

I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 10, 2017)

I believe Amtrak in the TE/SL PRIIA wanted to actually remove the through cars. Why is this better? Or is it a cost cutting move?


----------



## neroden (Jan 10, 2017)

The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 10, 2017)

neroden said:


> The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.
> 
> I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.


Part of the reason San Antonio takes so long is that the thru sleeper from the TE is removed from near the front of the consist, behind the baggage and transition sleeper. This train is not set up for switching, unlike the EB and LSL. The TE also sits there a long time before the SL even arrives. I believe that the EB switching more closely resembles that in Albany-Rensselaer than San Antonio.


----------



## jis (Jan 10, 2017)

If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. 



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.


But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.


----------



## neroden (Jan 10, 2017)

jis said:


> If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Restoring the crossover at Pittsburgh was estimated at, if I remember correctly, $50,000.

This is PEANUTS. This can't possibly be what's delaying the through cars. I mean, I could pay for that personally; so could Wick Moorman; it could be crowdfunded no problem...

There must be something else delaying the through cars at Pittsburgh.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 10, 2017)

Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 10, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!
> 
> Lots more than $50,000 involved!


Even if other additional costs pushed the cost above $50,000, it would still be relatively inexpensive relative to the ridership gained. There is no reason to wait for new equipment. As has been stated, running only through coaches at first would be acceptable until the new sleepers are available. I presume whatever coaches will be used for the service are already available, as there are not any replacememts coming anytime soon.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 10, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!
> 
> Lots more than $50,000 involved!


No there wouldn't. This was explicitly laid out in the PIP:



> It requires a switch on both ends so that road crews on these trains can both set out and pick up the cars without requiring a yard switching locomotive and crew. Track 1A also requires 480 volt ground power. A yard switching locomotive and crew would be cost prohibitive for the sake of making so few moves every 24 hours.


Literally no other track work or payments needed, as there would be no change to the operation of either train other than the switching at the station.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 10, 2017)

Thanks for the info Ryan, my bad!

( of course that doesn't mean this will happen in our Lifetimes! )


----------



## JayPea (Jan 11, 2017)

neroden said:


> The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.
> 
> I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.


The switching moves at Spokane don't take very long; I know westbound, when the EB is split, the switching takes a matter of just a few minutes. Eastbound I don't believe it takes very long either.


----------



## jis (Jan 11, 2017)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling.
> ...


Given some other stuff that we have observed, it would appear to be lack of desire to do things that would cause Amtrak to succeed. What railroad in its right mind completely removes Diners from trains - allegedly permanently, only to be able to offer just a room accommodation without the board added onto the fare? If that is the real reason then you just offer anther fare and see what happens. There is much more that is rotten at the top than meets the eye.


----------



## neroden (Jan 11, 2017)

jis said:


> Given some other stuff that we have observed, it would appear to be lack of desire to do things that would cause Amtrak to succeed.


Unfortunately, you're probably right. It could be lack of equipment -- but effort could get around that. It could be uncooperativeness from Norfolk Southern -- but they're usually quite cooperative on stuff like this.

It seems to be lack of will. And it's very disappointing, because we saw a lot of will back in 2008-2010. Who came in and said "eh, let's fire the PIP team instead of implementing the PIPs"? And can Wick fire whoever that was?


----------

