# If you could add any amenities to Amtrak, what would they be?



## Adrouault

I'm just pondering what would make train travel even nicer. Not speaking to the larger issues of track ownership/on time performance, but rather, amenities for the onboard experience.

I'd say having an espresso maker in the dining car, so that espresso drinks can be had with breakfast, and after lunch.

Memory foam pillows.

What do you all think?


----------



## ehbowen

Comfortable pillows. Pullman Company practice, to the best of my understanding, was to provide each berth with one thick and one thin pillow. You could use either, or both, as you chose.

Warmer blankets. Again Pullman used to use good-quality wool.
Decent food. Not necessarily five-star gourmet quality, but the dining cars were designed with real kitchens optimized to cook real food. Staff them properly and give the crew the freedom to use them. I know ingredient consistency is a real thing, but I think that the menu could feature standard items which are to be cooked exactly the same way with the same ingredients every time, and "chef's specialty" items where the crew could be creative. The two are not mutually exclusive...a diner could feature the "Amtrak Lamb Chop" with known (and published) ingredients and consistent preparation techniques, and "Chef Dale's Cajun Lamb Chop" which used the same base ingredients but with the chef tweaking it in his own preferred way.
Coffee and tea are cheap. No reason they shouldn't be available to sleeper passengers 24/7.
Travel pillows in coach. Rent them out for $2 if you're really being cheap.
Arm rests in all newly purchased/installed/renovated coach seats. They can fold away if not wanted by *both* passengers.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

When they added Business Class to the LSL what was there before hand? I believe there was business class on one side of the area where you purchased snacks and beverages and the other area was very limited seating (maybe six booths, one was for crew and the other was for the staff). Very little area and you couldn't consume your own outside food/drink there. By contrast the Superliner cars had the whole upper level Sightseer Lounger Car for that purpose with a lot more seating, great views, and you can consume outside food/drink so it's way better. They need something like that on Viewliner Cars. Was there something like that before the business seating came in and now you have to pay extra for that luxury? Of course on the Superliners there isn't Wi-Fi so it's six of one and half dozen of the other. Speaking of amenities, how about Wi-Fi on the Superliners? Not every Superliner has the scenery of the CZ. Try being stuck on the TE between Longview and Dallas waiting for freight trains.


----------



## ehbowen

Full lounge cars with just seating (sofas, chairs, small tables) and a bar used to be common on premium trains before Amtrak.


----------



## zephyr17

Sleeping car lounges on LD trains.

Actual lounges (per ehbowen) on eastern LD trains.


----------



## Adrouault

ehbowen said:


> Comfortable pillows. Pullman Company practice, to the best of my understanding, was to provide each berth with one thick and one thin pillow. You could use either, or both, as you chose.
> Warmer blankets. Again Pullman used to use good-quality wool


I'm bringing my memory foam pillow, and a duvet on my next trip for this reason.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Here a some of mine:

-Putting a diner car back on the Silver Star

-Allowing sleeper passengers to get food and (some) drinks for free from the cafe car (if a particular train has one, whether a diner is also present or not).

-If a train has a diner car, giving coach passengers the option to upgrade their fares to include their meals. I dare say that some people want included meals but don't necessarily want sleeper accommodations. Coach pax get meals included on Auto Train, but no other trains offer that.

-Different types of lighting to be used during quiet hours, which would allow for emergency use yet make it easier for coach passengers to sleep.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Adrouault said:


> I'm just pondering what would make train travel even nicer. Not speaking to the larger issues of track ownership/on time performance, but rather, amenities for the onboard experience.
> 
> I'd say having an espresso maker in the dining car, so that espresso drinks can be had with breakfast, and after lunch.
> 
> Memory foam pillows.
> 
> What do you all think?


Memory foam pillows? I used to sell those, on a traveling basis. Shredded memory foam with bamboo (viscous rayon) covers. I hate them. They are poisonous. I used to load them into the back of my SUV for sales runs, and then when I got into my car in the morning, my head would start spinning. I stopped being able to "sell" them- its hard to sell a product you don't believe in.

What makes train travel nicer, besides a few creature comforts mostly covered, is meeting people. Strangers in the night; I met my closest friend on the train. Its easier to interact with somebody if you know you will never see them again if it doesn't work out. As for blankets, the AmBlankets, which are modacrylic, aren't wool, but they are quite warm- and fire proof. You can always ask for another. Actually, I have one in my linen closet my wife uses when its winter, and I turn the heat off in the bedroom.


----------



## railiner

Reading all of the above suggestions....well it seems like what everyone would like, would be for Amtrak to turn back the clock a few decades, when most of what was mentioned was standard on Amtrak, in the so-called "Camelot" era.... New Superliner's on transcon routes, new Amfleet or Turboliner's on shorter routes, freshly rebuilt HEP converted Heritage cars on Eastern long haul routes, good dining car menus of freshly prepared meals, with differences on different routes, real china, silverware, glassware, flowers on linen covered tables...(later period), .chef's sent to the Culinary Institute of America for customized courses... all until the notorious budget cuts ended most of that....(sigh)...


----------



## Adrouault

Was it really like that?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

not at all. the glasses are colored like the rose.


----------



## Shortline

I'd be happy if they just cleaned the cars. Especially inside, but also outside/windows. The rooms are dirty and shabby most of the time, with just a minimum level of cleaning.


----------



## TiBike

Cleaning would be very good. If I were really dreaming, though: just run the ****** trains on time.


----------



## neroden

Cheap:

-- reliable food with ingredients lists available

-- WiFi on the Superliners

Expensive but within Amtrak's control:

-- cafe/lounge/observation cars for the Eastern single-level fleet

-- level boarding at all platforms

Difficult:

-- run the trains on time (probably requires purchasing the tracks)


----------



## A Voice

Already mentioned, but the very first amenity I'd like to see is included/bundled meals for coach passengers, either on an optional basis (pay extra for a "meal plan") or perhaps tied to length of trip and thus time on the train (ie., basic ticket or just a snack for short to medium distance trips; Full dining-car meals for overnight and all-day journeys, all figured in the ticket price). This doesn't really give the passengers anything they can't have now, but contributes needed revenue for Amtrak and potentially improves the economics and utilization (and hence justification) of the dining car.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> When they added Business Class to the LSL what was there before hand? I believe there was business class on one side of the area where you purchased snacks and beverages and the other area was very limited seating (maybe six booths, one was for crew and the other was for the staff). Very little area and you couldn't consume your own outside food/drink there. By contrast the Superliner cars had the whole upper level Sightseer Lounger Car for that purpose with a lot more seating, great views, and you can consume outside food/drink so it's way better. They need something like that on Viewliner Cars. Was there something like that before the business seating came in and now you have to pay extra for that luxury? Of course on the Superliners there isn't Wi-Fi so it's six of one and half dozen of the other. Speaking of amenities, how about Wi-Fi on the Superliners? Not every Superliner has the scenery of the CZ. Try being stuck on the TE between Longview and Dallas waiting for freight trains.


Prior to business class, the _Lake Shore Limited_ carried an Amfleet II lounge car, just as the other overnight single-level long-distance trains still do. This is, of course, the same car which is currently employed as a "diner lite". With the advent of business class, you have an Amfleet I with tables to one side only and the business seating on the other. Hence, no more full lounge.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

At one time, the Amfleet II lounge cars had lounge tables and seats on one side and booths on the other; for a period the lounge area was converted into a smoking cubicle. Then it was converted into Diner Lite cars that had booths on both sides and a slightly more capable food prep area (convection ovens were installed).

However, the winter consist of the LSL had 3 food service cars, one unstaffed- a Diner, and Amfleet II lounge on the New York section, and an Amfleet I or Horizon club-Dinette (with BC 2-1 seating) on the Boston section- whose seats were not in inventory, but could usually be sat upon.

Way before all this, Amtrak actually ran Dome lounge cars on the Boston section. And I remember the Heritage lounges from Florida service. The windows were bigger, but the layout was basically the same as the Amfleet II lounges.

The really nice lounges everyone has weltschmerz for have been gone 30 years at least.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

A Voice said:


> Prior to business class, the _Lake Shore Limited_ carried an Amfleet II lounge car, just as the other overnight single-level long-distance trains still do. This is, of course, the same car which is currently employed as a "diner lite". With the advent of business class, you have an Amfleet I with tables to one side only and the business seating on the other. Hence, no more full lounge.


And which Viewliner trains have business class seating, LSL I know and my personal enemy train. Crescent yes and Silver no? Then do the Silvers have more lounge space? Can you consume your own personal food in the lounge space on the Silver Star/Meteor then? I'm not sure that is so bad but the fact that the space was so limited on the LSL bothered me.


----------



## Adrouault

Crescent is your enemy? how come?


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I think Philly means the LSL is the enemy train. (There's a period at the end of the phrase mentioning the LSL, and "Crescent" starts a new phrase.)

Which brings me to the amenities I would like the most--bring back the paper newspapers and the paper timetable. Some of us still like to read paper. More of us than you would think.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Adrouault said:


> Crescent is your enemy? how come?





Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think Philly means the LSL is the enemy train. (There's a period at the end of the phrase mentioning the LSL, and "Crescent" starts a new phrase.)
> 
> Which brings me to the amenities I would like the most--bring back the paper newspapers and the paper timetable. Some of us still like to read paper. More of us than you would think.


No, not the Crescent or the LSL. His enemy is the Cardinal.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Ah, yes, you are right as usual, AmtrakBlue. I see now he is talking of two trains in that phrase. I thought perhaps he had added another enemy train in addition to his archenemy, the Cardinal. The business class car on the Cardinal is a lovely addition. When I was on the Cardinal going to Chicago, I saw quite a few people taking the business class for short stretches. I ran into two ladies who got on in the morning and were going to Chicago for a shopping trip. They were raving about the addition of the business class car.

Just thought of another amenity I miss: having the SCA put the blanket on the bed. It's ridiculous to have it in plastic and make you put it on yourself--how many of us would return to a hotel that said oh, by the way, you are paying a lot of money for your room but we aren't going to put the blanket on the bed for you--do it yourself?

And real silverware and china and flowers and real tablecloths.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I have no reason to hate the LSL. The LSL is one of my favorite trains and going forward will be my predominant Chicago-NEC train (I have a feeling I won't be taking the CL that often). But the idea of business class taking away lounge car space in general sounds like a negative.


----------



## SarahZ

I've traveled on several trains since the "blanket wrapped in plastic" started, and I have yet to actually see a blanket wrapped in plastic. My bedding has always been placed and tucked in as normal.

Are the wrapped blankets only used on certain trains?

Speaking of blankets, I say no to wool. People tend to be allergic/sensitive to it.


----------



## jebr

I've seen it for sure on the Empire Builder and the California Zephyr. I think I've seen it on the Coast Starlight too, and maybe the Lake Shore? Not 100% sure on that last one. I don't think it's a huge deal either way, although the bags seem wasteful since they're not recycled.


----------



## Acela150

So the one thing that I would honestly change is the bedding on LD trains.

For those of you who have ridden on Via's Canadian in their sleeping accommodations you'll know what I'm referring to.

But 10 years ago when I rode the train from Jasper to Vancouver the Roomettes had amazing bedding. Real pillows and a down comforter. The sheets were clean and comfortable as well.


----------



## Adrouault

The bedding could definitely be improved.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The sheets are sheets, those are fine. I'm pretty sure the acrylic blankets are used for their fireproofness, which wool is not, particularly. The mattresses, on the other hand, especially the upper berths, could certainly stand some improvement. As for pillows, I usually pack my own. I prefer 100% goose down. I rarely stay in hotels that accommodate that, let alone Amtrak.


----------



## E60JPC

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Speaking of amenities, how about Wi-Fi on the Superliners?


I had Wi-Fi in my sleeper room on board the Southwest Chief between Chicago and Los Angeles earlier this week. The car had a mobile Wi-Fi router tied to a cellular network so the quality and availability of the Wi-Fi service varied considerably depending on where we were. If we were passing through a populated area with good cellular coverage (e.g. Kansas City, Albuquerque), we had internet access. If we were in the middle of nowhere, there was spotty or no internet.


----------



## tricia

HOT WATER FOR TEA IN THE SLEEPING CARS. (Yes, I'm shouting, though not at anyone on this forum.




)

And I'll second the call above for return of paper timetables, specifically the national system timetable.


----------



## neroden

Paper timetables are a necessity. The pocket timetables for the individual routes are perhaps more important than the national booklet, but both are important.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They are both irrelevant. People have smartphones. And if you don't, you have Julie. 7


----------



## jis

Let the games begin


----------



## JRR

The Silver Meteor has the blankets in a sealed plastic bag. Though thin, they are warm.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## A Voice

Green Maned Lion said:


> They are both irrelevant. People have smartphones. And if you don't, you have Julie. 7


Just because you find it preferable or more convenient to get your information from a smartphone or Julie doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. This is often particularly true of generations who remember phones with cords and with a literal dial to place your calls; These are also often some of Amtrak's highest revenue (bedrooms, etc.) customers. Is it really worth alienating them to save literal pennies printing a route timetable folder?

But the National Timetable also plays a marketing and "familiarization" role for passenger rail (ie., look at all the other places we can go by train). The website, phones, and Julie all work very well for looking up needed information; They often fail just as strongly at a general and casual overview. It is much easier (and more pleasant) to peruse a timetable than it is to ask Julie twenty different questions.



jis said:


> Let the games begin


Indeed, phones work fine for games.....


----------



## Green Maned Lion

My home phones have cords, most have dials; I collect old phones. The ones with dials have a neat little device that captures pulses, and then transmits them in touch tones. I have these expensive little devices because I dont want to give up my metal bodied, bakelite handsetted 302 and my 500, but being one of a handful of rotary dialers on my exchange, the phone company didnt want to continue to support pulse dialing at some expense.

To continue to indulge my extravagece would have been unreasonable to request. So is yours.


----------



## tomfuller

The first 10+ years of riding on Amtrak was exclusively in coach. My idea is to allow coach passengers to have ONE shower per trip after about 8 hours on board.

The lounge area at the head end primarily used by women, could be converted to a shower room by taking out the toilet and replacing with a shower.

You would pay the coach attendant or someone else for a $5 chit to use to get into the shower room. Towels, soaps etc. could be provided just as they are for the

sleeping car passengers.


----------



## Acela150

Green Maned Lion said:


> They are both irrelevant. People have smartphones. And if you don't, you have Julie. 7


He's right. We're in the 21st Century where the iPhone is king. I keep updated NEC PDF timetables in my iBooks. Yes it was great to have a hard copy of a National Timetable. But times have changed and we must go with the flow.

A great example I can use is here in Philly Septa will be no longer selling tokens at Subway Stations starting in the new year. In favor of their New Payment Technology referred to as "Septa Key". Which is a contactless card that you scan against a reader and it deducts your fare from your "Key Card". People in Philly are annoyed by it. But what they don't understand is that Septa is the only Public Transit agency in the nation that still has tokens and paper transfers. I believe that the MTA in NYC ceased token fares in 2003, give or take a few years. Bottom line.. Tokens and Paper Transfers are a waste and outdated.


----------



## Maglev

On trains where the Business Class seating is essentially the same as coach, I think there should be a guarantee of two seats per passenger in Business Class.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Why do you think such a nutty thing as this?


----------



## Maglev

Green Maned Lion said:


> Why do you think such a nutty thing as this?


It is an additional amenity that could be offered with no capital expenditure. Fares could be adjusted to prevent lost revenue.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It would also reduce capacity. And frankly, I am not sure what it would benefit. Perhaps in business class they could allow you the indulgence of buying an empty seat, something they do not let you do in coach. What they really need to do is develop a business class concept that offers more than an actually reserved seat, a curtain, and a warm soda.


----------



## Blackwolf

Dedicated 2-1 Business Class seating standard system-wide; Current LD seating pitch. As a minimum. Standardize the whole hard product so it is the same no matter if you're riding the Coast Starlight, the Cardinal, a Surfliner or any other train with BC.

Ideally, the hard product for Long Distance BC would incorporate a lie-flat pod.

Update and make more comfortable the Sleeper accommodations. Definitely gain better mattresses, improved sheets and more plush/heavier blankets. And better/thicker pillows.

But as has been stated before, CLEAN THE DARN TRAINS BETTER. Do more complete deep-cleaning of passenger spaces, and if things like carpeting are beyond help, strip and replace with new.

I'm ready to receive the throwing of produce my way now.


----------



## west point

Good point about making coaches BC reducing capacity instead ----

You could fill the CAF options with BC only cars and add one to each single level car train. That way capacity is actually increased.


----------



## Anderson

I'm a fan of standardizing BC (you'd probably have two slight variants on the product for single-level and bi-level BC), though I'd have it as two products (one for overnight/LD trains and another for daylight/corridor trains). Some minor variations aside, Amtrak really should make a reasonably standard BC product a "take it or leave it" proposition and have some other label for non-standard products ("Custom Class" or "Parlor Car Service" come to mind).

The other thing I would like to see, setting the above aside, is some sort of "better than Business Class" service on the VA Regionals. The main reason in _this_ case is that (1) something like 25% of the revenue from VA's trains is from BC pax; and (2) you've got a not-insignificant number of pax traveling from, say, RVR or Hampton Roads up towards New York, and the needs of a two hour trip are really not the same as an eight-hour trip.


----------



## west point

A question that needs answering is ----- Does Amtrak make BC on single level trains = BC in Acela-1s ? Sine all Acelas is either BC or first class the big question might be will Amtrak BC be 2& 1 or 2 & 2 ?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I personally never liked the branding of Acelas basic service level as Business Class. I would market something like Regional Coach (current coach service), Regional Business (2-1 seating, free soft drinks), Acela (current Acela BC), and Acela First (same as it is now). If they could get the slots, Id also buy but some commuter style equipment and run a third lower class of service that was unreserved, no food service, and ran more locally- call it Corridor Economy or something. I think it would bring in some of the bus business without really compromising the other services.


----------



## Anderson

Green Maned Lion said:


> I personally never liked the branding of Acelas basic service level as Business Class. I would market something like Regional Coach (current coach service), Regional Business (2-1 seating, free soft drinks), Acela (current Acela BC), and Acela First (same as it is now). If they could get the slots, Id also buy but some commuter style equipment and run a third lower class of service that was unreserved, no food service, and ran more locally- call it Corridor Economy or something. I think it would bring in some of the bus business without really compromising the other services.


I would probably retain food service if they were running a long-haul commuter-type train, but mainly because I suspect that said food service would make money (as F&B apparently does on the Regionals as-is). I might not have a cafe area, but a "standing buffet" (in UK terms) could probably justify itself on a WAS-NYP run, _particularly_ if Amtrak were willing to load on a modest number of additional stops (e.g. Hamilton, NJ) while holding to a travel time in the four-hour range (I'd want to keep the travel time under that level, but anything in the 3:30-4:00 range should work for marketing/convenience purposes).

TBH what I would _probably_ be inclined to do with such a train (presuming it could pass ADA muster) would be to have a single "Cafe/Accessible" car with a decent number of accessible seats (you could probably fit a few dozen), have two cars abutting it with similar seats, and have the rest of the cars be non-ADA bilevels. If you've got ten Wheelchair slots in one car and two more in each of the neighboring cars (plus some other non-stair but non-wheelchair seats in the single-level car), that's about as many as you have on an existing Regional. A ten-car train with this configuration (presume that 9 of the cars are NJT-style bilevels plus the one oddball) would have a capacity sitting somewhere just over 1200. If you could remove the extended single-level portion from 7 of the cars you might be able to slip in an extra 8 seats per car (so 56 seats overall), for a total capacity in the mid-1200s.


----------



## jis

Just be aware though that to actually provide 100 seat capacity in the NJT style multilevels one will have to severely curtail baggage space. The situation on NJT MLV trains carrying airline passengers between EWR and NYP is not a pretty site at all, and would be a significant hazard should one of these catch fire or derail.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Just be aware though that to actually provide 100 seat capacity in the NJT style multilevels one will have to severely curtail baggage space. The situation on NJT MLV trains carrying airline passengers between EWR and NYP is not a pretty site at all, and would be a significant hazard should one of these catch fire or derail.


Depending on what you're looking at for the service (e.g. what role it is to play), I think dropping to one carry-on/one personal item would be a reasonable change for that service. FWIW, how would this compare with bus services' allowances?


----------



## jis

How does one enforce such a thing at say, NY Penn Station? And where are the hundred people going to put their one carry on item in the MLV cars, unless you furnish them like the Atlantic City MLVs were, in which case you don;t get to 100 seats, since a lot of space is taken up by luggage racks.

Bus service has ample luggage hold under floor with curbside checkin/cjeckout. MLVs don't, and I doubt Amtrak will get seriously into checked baggage business on Commuter-like trains.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'd suggest that the Name "Metroliner" be taken out of mothballs and used on the new Acela II when they arrive.

Also changing Business Class to Club Class or Parlor Service,at least on the NEC, wouldn't be a bad Marketing idea as long as the amenities and service were such that the Name fit!


----------



## Maglev

Bob Dylan said:


> I'd suggest that the Name "Metroliner" be taken out of mothballs and used on the new Acela II when they arrive.


Hooray for this!

The name "_Acela_" vaguely sounds like a part of the body I can't mention here. Or maybe the part of a house where you find a furnace? In any case, it is a nonsense word that never should have been taken as a name for our nation's premier trains. But then, come to think of it, the trainsets themselves are nothing great... It would be fitting for new trainsets to have a revived name.


----------



## Anderson

Maglev said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest that the Name "Metroliner" be taken out of mothballs and used on the new Acela II when they arrive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray for this!
> 
> The name "_Acela_" vaguely sounds like a part of the body I can't mention here. Or maybe the part of a house where you find a furnace? In any case, it is a nonsense word that never should have been taken as a name for our nation's premier trains. But then, come to think of it, the trainsets themselves are nothing great... It would be fitting for new trainsets to have a revived name.
Click to expand...

If "Acela" sounds like it, "Avelia" does even moreso (it sounds like part of either the lungs or like it should be part of some other bodily system). If Amtrak doesn't shake out a decent new name or bring back a solid older one (e.g. Metroliner) then I'll just be sticking to Acela IIs and I think a lot of folks will as well.


----------



## A Voice

Anderson said:


> Maglev said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest that the Name "Metroliner" be taken out of mothballs and used on the new Acela II when they arrive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray for this!
> 
> The name "_Acela_" vaguely sounds like a part of the body I can't mention here. Or maybe the part of a house where you find a furnace? In any case, it is a nonsense word that never should have been taken as a name for our nation's premier trains. But then, come to think of it, the trainsets themselves are nothing great... It would be fitting for new trainsets to have a revived name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If "Acela" sounds like it, "Avelia" does even moreso (it sounds like part of either the lungs or like it should be part of some other bodily system). If Amtrak doesn't shake out a decent new name or bring back a solid older one (e.g. Metroliner) then I'll just be sticking to Acela IIs and I think a lot of folks will as well.
Click to expand...

Acela (acceleration + excellence) did have its origins as a "nonsense" word, but since has become a respected and recognized brand in the Northeast (the "Acela" corridor phrase has been used even outside transportation circles); It would be foolish to drop it for a product line (Metroliner) with far less public recognition and generally remembered (if at all) as lacking the status and service standards of Acela. For a train which has been very much a mechanical abomination, it has resonated with the public.

Indeed, the name "Amtrak" is also a nonsense term; Should we also advocate to resurrect Railpax?


----------



## jebr

Back on the "economy basic" service:

I think the idea of having a separate fleet of cars just for a cheaper economy product is terrible unless you're going to start having that service everywhere. The idea of having to procure new separate cars, keep a separate stock/extras/etc. just for one service seems like a lot of capital expense for what's supposed to be an economy product. The money might not be there to make sense to have it.

Amtrak would be better off finding ways to sell NER seats with restrictions to try and grab the bus market, in my opinion, at least when there's lots of open seats. Even when adding frequencies or stops, I'd rather have that service have full amenities and offer more expensive seats for those that will pay than to try and restrict revenue on an economy-style train car. Better to add restrictions to it that make the ticket less desirable to business passengers and reduce expenses for Amtrak rather than try to offer yet another product on the NEC.

As ideas on what an economy basic fare could have for restrictions:


Online only availability - it would not be sold in person or through phone agents.
No checked baggage allowed. Alternatively, allow checked baggage but only for a fee (maybe in the $20-$30 range per bag.)
No agent interaction "for free" at the station - tickets must be printed online, shown through a phone, or printed at a kiosk. Tickets printed by an agent would be subject to a fee (perhaps waived if all QuikTrip machines are down.)
No refunds or exchanges allowed, much like the SmartFares.
No upgrades or companion fares allowed.
50% AGR points earned.
The idea is that the product is a tradeoff - in exchange for a deeply discounted fare you're using only self-service options (or fees if you wish to use options with agent assistance,) removing your ability to further discount/upgrade the fare, limiting points earning ability, and essentially guaranteeing revenue for that specific train. These restrictions may seem somewhat draconian, but for a decent discount it would offer an option to compete with the bus lines for the budget traveler (many of who don't expect to be able to refund/exchange tickets and are willing to go self-service already) while hopefully making the fare restrictive enough that people who are paying higher fares today won't generally switch to the cheaper option.


----------



## Anderson

Ah, yes, StupidSeats [1]...

I'd allow the use of the station agent, if only because (as hinted) sometimes the QT machines either go down or don't "play nice" (e.g. I find myself unable to search via my AGR number) _and _because in a lot of cases there's not much being saved. There's also the fact that at a number of smaller stations, the attitude is "let the conductor figure out if you're properly ticketed", so you'd almost invariably get situations where someone would board expecting to just pull their ticket up on their [insert device here] following boarding and get a rather rude awakening at a more "controlled" station. I also think that trying to collect a $5-10 fee at the counter is going to cause a problem when things _do_ go haywire with other options.

I'd be tempted to allow phone bookings as well, if just because the website is not famous for its reliability (leading to far too many cases where folks could legitimately claim the website is down), though web-only status was slapped onto Student Advantage sometime back. Unfortunately for Student Advantage, this was at the same time as the discount dropped to 10% and it was made not applicable to non-coach fares, so there quickly became no reason not to just use AAA (or NARP as the case might be) instead and any practical "nudge" probably died a quick-and-painless death as a result along with the use of that discount. Hard-barring station purchases doesn't seem to be an issue for an advance purchase, however.

The other options, though, I like. I'd allow checked baggage for a fee (I see no compelling reason to pass up this as a possible revenue stream).

[1] This was the name which I started using for the then-branded "SmartSeats" back when Amtrak.com wasn't set up to offer the three fare categories like it is now...so I was always wary of booking an advance fare lest there be hidden T&C. This actually gave me something of an allergy to advance booking, period, since I was worried about getting slapped somehow when I'd wind up rebooking because the website had decided to jam me with a restricted fare...and it sure didn't help my reticence to book coach, either, for similar reasons.


----------



## jebr

Yeah, with the agent you'd probably need an override just-in-case, although the instances where it'd truly matter would be quite small (staffed station where the person doesn't have a mobile device that can pull up the PDF or Amtrak app with the ticket and all QuikTrak machines are down.) I would at least make it stated policy to dissuade people from doing so, while internally allowing agents to override it as needed. Simply stating that a charge would apply would likely dissuade people from unnecessarily going to an agent to have a ticket printed.

As for booking over a phone: while the website occasionally has issues, I haven't heard of outages longer than a day or two for the website, and even extended outages are few and far between. Considering such a fare would likely only be available far in advance (two weeks would be my personal though, just like Saver fares) I wouldn't see the need to have it available via phone on the off chance there's outages and it's in the exact two week window where the fare may not be there tomorrow.

While neither of these are, on an individual interaction, particularly costly, in the aggregate it adds up. The more people use self-service the fewer phone agents and station agents have to be replaced or hired to handle demand. The terms also need to be restrictive enough to prevent too many people that already travel Amtrak and are willing to pay the higher price from buying down to a lower fare. The restrictions also generally match restrictions on low-cost bus lines or ULCCs, the market that such a product would be aimed at.


----------



## MARC Rider

Maglev said:


> On trains where the Business Class seating is essentially the same as coach, I think there should be a guarantee of two seats per passenger in Business Class.


The only trains that meet that definition are the Pennsylvanian and the Palmetto. (I'm not sure about the Coast Starlight or the Crescent.)

And not all the coach cars on the Pennsylvanian are Amfleet IIs, as I found out one time, having to ride an Amfleet I when I didn't expect to. I've always taken business class on the Palmetto, despite of the Amfleet IIs in coach because Business class is less crowded, which is also why I take it sometimes when I ride the Northeast Regionals.


----------



## MARC Rider

I would add dining car service to the Pennsylvanian, the Palmetto, the Vermonter, the Adirondack, and maybe the Lynchburgers.

(Hey, this is fantasyland, right?)


----------



## Anderson

jebr said:


> Yeah, with the agent you'd probably need an override just-in-case, although the instances where it'd truly matter would be quite small (staffed station where the person doesn't have a mobile device that can pull up the PDF or Amtrak app with the ticket and all QuikTrak machines are down.) I would at least make it stated policy to dissuade people from doing so, while internally allowing agents to override it as needed. Simply stating that a charge would apply would likely dissuade people from unnecessarily going to an agent to have a ticket printed.
> 
> As for booking over a phone: while the website occasionally has issues, I haven't heard of outages longer than a day or two for the website, and even extended outages are few and far between. Considering such a fare would likely only be available far in advance (two weeks would be my personal though, just like Saver fares) I wouldn't see the need to have it available via phone on the off chance there's outages and it's in the exact two week window where the fare may not be there tomorrow.
> 
> While neither of these are, on an individual interaction, particularly costly, in the aggregate it adds up. The more people use self-service the fewer phone agents and station agents have to be replaced or hired to handle demand. The terms also need to be restrictive enough to prevent too many people that already travel Amtrak and are willing to pay the higher price from buying down to a lower fare. The restrictions also generally match restrictions on low-cost bus lines or ULCCs, the market that such a product would be aimed at.


If the website is down intermittently (which has occasionally been the case for a few days), there's a risk of space selling out. In a sense, I've got a problem with "This fare is available...but only when the website decides it wants to let you have it" situations. Remember, not all seats tend to be eligible for the fare.

Probably a compromise would be to have the fare nominally be "web-only" but have instructions that if someone calls in claiming web issues, the agents can override to get it, particularly if you're close in to the window. NB a number of airlines have rules wherein if X cannot be done due to an IT problem/limitation you can call in and the charges are waived.

(Mind you, the change/cancel restriction is enough to get me to walk the other way already...but I also miss the days before e-ticketing when you could just pull a refund if you hadn't printed the tickets.)


----------



## railbuck

MARC Rider said:


> I would add dining car service to the Pennsylvanian, the Palmetto, the Vermonter, the Adirondack, and maybe the Lynchburgers.


... which would promptly become known informally as the Lunchburgers.


----------



## Anderson

MARC Rider said:


> I would add dining car service to the Pennsylvanian, the Palmetto, the Vermonter, the Adirondack, and maybe the Lynchburgers.
> 
> (Hey, this is fantasyland, right?)


Realistically, I'd like to see Amtrak work up some sort of hot meal service that can be run out of the cafe (like the heated meals...the beef stroganoff was actually quite good, and I remember a sausage pasta I liked as well). This would probably require Amtrak to bother, you know, _advertising_ the meals as an option as well...

Another thing would be (1) stocking the bar a bit better and (2) trying to get to a point, on certain trains, that the OBS can actually mix a drink. I remember being able to request a Bailey's, Courvoisier, and hot chocolate...it was a drink recommended to me by an attendant on the Coast Starlight that was both a brilliant upsell on her part (two shots=$15) and an _amazing_ winter drink. I can't get that anymore (heck, I can't get a Bailey's and coffee anymore outside of the Acela now). I have to compare this (horridly unfavorably) to what I can get up on VIA (either on the Canadian or on their corridor trains in Business).


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have never understood Amtraks unwillingness to properly stick their bars. There is no higher markup item on earth than alcohol in a captive audience environment.

I am a heavy drinker, as I have mentioned. At $7.50 a shot, sleeper fares become much more appealing. I need to be pretty drunk to get to sleep (I have suffered severe insomnia my whole life, and alcohol is the only one that works reliably- plus at this point I am actually substance dependent) let alone on a train. Bringing a pint of Seagrams for $7 vs 8 drinks at $7.50 ($60) is a substantial offset of the room upgrade.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Great idea Cliff!

Once Amtrak starts running the Metroliners ( ne Acela II)with Parlor Car Service on the Regular Regionals and theLD Trains, the Hot Meals and Top Shelf Liquor,Cordials and Beer will become an additional source of revenue!


----------



## dlagrua

What we miss most is the ice and availability of coffee during the day in the sleepers. The main ingredient in both of these is water so how much will it really cost? Would also like better housekeeping and more fresh cooked food in the diner including adding the diners back on the LSL, Silver Star and Cardinal. Sleeper passengers pay a lot of money to travel and its not fair that on some trains you feed them the equivalent of fodder.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Life isnt fair. It is, however, quite a circus.

Somehow this particular quip seems particularly appropos to Amtrak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> ... You could fill the CAF options with BC only cars. Add one to each single level car train. That way capacity is actually increased.


YES! More capacity of every type of Viewliner -- business class, sleepers, bag dorms, baggage, probably even diners.

A Business Class Viewliner-2 could be a nice upgrade just by being newer, with higher windows and ceilings, better HVAC, more outlets, better WiFi..

Make them all 2-1 seating and offer First Class standards. Not to call it "First Class" because bean counters don't like to see those words on your expense account. But Business Class is fine, or Business Premium or Business Plus. Perhaps put the upscale car in the front of the train, behind the baggage car but ahead of the sleepers (to put more distance between the train whistle and those trying to sleep).

Of course, coach class capacity would be increased a bit as the existing Business Class cars reverted to the coach fleet.

Yeah, I know Amtrak is trying to reduce the number of different types of cars. Good luck with that. When it offers sleepers you might get a Viewliner or a Viewliner--2, with or without the potty in the roomette, until the original type are all upgraded? But I digress.

A "Business Plus" car with 2-1 seating could create a kind of 'Coach Plus' sleeper, a more spacious and comfortable place to overnight than coach, but much cheaper than a roomette. It might draw customers from sleeping class (looking to save money) and from coach class (looking for better but affordable space), thereby creating more capacity in both roomettes and coach seating.

CAF could handle the job. The delays with the diners have been so stressful because the heritage diners are done and their replacement is urgent. And CAF seems to be doing better lately. In two or three years, when the last of the diners and the bag-dorms and sleepers are finished, adding another 25 Business Class cars should be quite doable.

Some will say, get the business class cars out of the coming order for hundreds of coaches and lounge cars. And that multi-Billion order will be funded when? Delivered when? I think the order is at least one election away, maybe two, then time from order to delivery. We could get more cars from CAF around the same time, or sooner.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

MARC Rider said:


> ... add dining car service to the Pennsylvanian, the Palmetto, the Vermonter, the Adirondack, and maybe the Lynchburgers.


This deserves serious experimentation, cuz I doubt if anybody knows.

A good time for a tryout is coming up. When the full 25 diners are in hand, or almost so, before putting diners back on the Star, continue the Star's money-saving diner-less experiment. Instead, use a handful of diners on two or three of the mid-range routes as you have here. (Not sure the Palmetto needs a diner, if the Star doesn't ...)

Seems like three to five years from now, the border hassles that afflict the Adirondack should be alleviated, and faster, more reliable service will boost ridership. And the Vermonter will extend to Montreal. (It will become, btw, in effect a second frequency for the big chunk of the riders on the Adirondack going end to end, and vice versa, probably bringing the usual ridership gains from a second frequency.) I'm hoping to see enuff new riders on the Vermonter/Montrealer and the Adirondack that these trains will need at least one more coach car on each, and perhaps a business class car as well. These additional riders will mean additional customers for any a dining car.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvanian, with the transfer to/from the Capitol Ltd at Pittsburgh, is already like the Eastern half of a LD train to/from CHI. A diner could offer lunch and dinner WB, and lunch for sure and maybe breakfast EB.


----------



## west point

Our proposal to make the whole 70 car CAF option BC was so most of the NEC trains could have an upgraded BC for sale. That would be approximately 45 seats for each car . 18 LD train sets = 810 seats and SD NEC trains with 2-3 turnovers, 45 train sets = ~ ~4500 available seats per day total of almost 5000 seats maybe sold per day ? ? ?

That should bring in new clientele ? ?

2 & seating probably 45 seats with fares 33% higher would make new cars revenue neutral with LD AM-2s 60 seats.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

That option is not practically activatable.


----------



## neroden

My analysis still says that if the CAF option can be exercised the best thing to do is to just get more sleepers. There simply aren't enough to meet demand, and they'd be profitable, but there aren't enough single-level trains to plausibly make a new large order for *sleepers*. Business class and even cafes can be attached to a coach order, they're not that different.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Unless there is already a sleeper version of the car... such as the Siemens unit.


----------



## neroden

The only Siemens Viaggio sleeper shipment I can find a record of is to Russian Railways. I'm betting they'd have more trouble making a US sleeper than CAF. The 8-compartment, 4-bed-per-compartment layout isn't going to work in the US anyway -- our market demands "Pullman sections", not "Pullman compartments".


----------



## Alexandria Nick

A Voice said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maglev said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest that the Name "Metroliner" be taken out of mothballs and used on the new Acela II when they arrive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray for this!
> 
> The name "_Acela_" vaguely sounds like a part of the body I can't mention here. Or maybe the part of a house where you find a furnace? In any case, it is a nonsense word that never should have been taken as a name for our nation's premier trains. But then, come to think of it, the trainsets themselves are nothing great... It would be fitting for new trainsets to have a revived name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If "Acela" sounds like it, "Avelia" does even moreso (it sounds like part of either the lungs or like it should be part of some other bodily system). If Amtrak doesn't shake out a decent new name or bring back a solid older one (e.g. Metroliner) then I'll just be sticking to Acela IIs and I think a lot of folks will as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acela (acceleration + excellence) did have its origins as a "nonsense" word, but since has become a respected and recognized brand in the Northeast (the "Acela" corridor phrase has been used even outside transportation circles); It would be foolish to drop it for a product line (Metroliner) with far less public recognition and generally remembered (if at all) as lacking the status and service standards of Acela. For a train which has been very much a mechanical abomination, it has resonated with the public.
> 
> Indeed, the name "Amtrak" is also a nonsense term; Should we also advocate to resurrect Railpax?
Click to expand...

Being from a different generation, "Metroliner" makes me think of an airplane, actually. Makes me think of those red US Airways Metrojets and the Fairchild Metroliner (which used to be a fairly common turboprop airliner).


----------



## Green Maned Lion

neroden said:


> The only Siemens Viaggio sleeper shipment I can find a record of is to Russian Railways. I'm betting they'd have more trouble making a US sleeper than CAF. The 8-compartment, 4-bed-per-compartment layout isn't going to work in the US anyway -- our market demands "Pullman sections", not "Pullman compartments".


That theyd have trouble with such a thing is patently absurd.


----------



## neroden

Designing an entirely new internal car layout which they haven't done in 50 years? Yeah, Siemens probably wouldn't even *bid* on that.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They already designed a layout for the Russian Railways. What, precisely, would be difficult to design a layout with a center aisle vs. a side aisle for half the car? You are aware that sleeping compartment walls are non-structural, yes?


----------



## jis

American exceptionalism?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

I simply don't think Siemens would bother to bid on an entirely new interior configuration, one which requires *moving the windows* and does have structural considerations (sleeping compartment walls actually do have to hold the beds up), for a small (<100) run of cars. Any new design carries risk; bizarre American regulations increase the risk; and Siemens is risk-averse.

If there were a run of several hundred sleepers, then yes, they'd do the work and design it. For a small order, I don't believe they'd offer a remotely viable bid. There's a basic principle that small orders can only be gotten at reasonable prices in two ways: (1) by piggybacking on an already-existing order with minimal design work (this isn't minimal), and (2) by getting a company desperate to establish itself in a new market who is therefore underbidding (CAF).


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Why would you need to move any windows?

Non structural means they are not structural to the car shell, not that they are incapable of bearing weight.

That design could easily be reconfigured to carrying 16 two person rooms wit a center aisle instead of 8 4 person rooms with a side aisle.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Let me draw that out further. I hate doing this kind of speculations, but lets consider the following:

1) The Superliner I cars are reaching the end of their lifecycle, and would benefit from replacement.

2) The Amfleet II cars are also indicated to be nearing the end of their lifecycle, and would benefit from replacement.

3) The Amfleet I cars were next to be replaced on that list.

Further, it would not be difficult, in my opinion, to reconfigure the Russian Rail design cars to have a center aisle with 16 roomettes- the rooms appear to me to be 2 meters wide, so longitudinal berth is likely doable, using the same window design as the Russian car.

This would allow you to create a pair of cars consisting of a 16-roomette car with 2 restrooms, a shower, and an attendant's room (as configured for the russian train), and a 6-bedroom (two berths and a bath), one-handicapped room, and 2 family (four berths, no bath), two bathrooms, and a shower. This combined car pair would give you 16 roomettes, 6 bedrooms, 2 family rooms, and a handicapped room, for a total of 54 passengers; an increase of 10 over a Superliner, and a relatively minor decrease of 3-per-car average over a Viewliner.

Diners, lounges, and coaches are of course in the bag for that sort of thing. Lounges and diners would be a straight replacement sort of thing. For a Superliner coach, you would need 3 60 passenger single levels to replace each one.

To replace the Superliner I sleepers (70 originally), diners (35 originally), lounges (25), and coaches (135, iirc), the Amfleet II coaches (125) and lounges (25), and the Amfleet I coaches and cafes (call it 420 coaches and 80 lounges), you would need:

70 Bedroom Sleepers

70 Roomette Sleepers

305 LD coaches

50 LD lounge cars

35 dining cars 530

420 short distance coaches

80 short distance lounge cars

---------------------

1030 Total Cars

Do you really thing that if Amtrak managed to make a coherent order for replacing the cars, consisting of 1030 cars over a 10-15 year time frame at say $3 mil a piece average, for a $3.1 billion order, Siemens would be unwilling to bid, because of the difficulty of redesigning the interior wall structures of 70 of the cars?


----------



## west point

Why do some of our posters keep posting that Amfleet-1s will be replaced first ? That is misleading to new members on this forum. The Fleet Strategy plan revision came out in March 2012. Each budget revision plan for every year since has stated the AM-2s first as well. Amtrak has always stated that the AM-2s would need replacing first due to fact their average mileage is on average 40% + higher than AM-1s. The one exception is the LD AM-1s that are lounges that travel with the AM-2s LD trains.

Probably some of us need wait to see how many additional AM replacements will enter service before any AM-2s are retired ? That of course does not count any wreck retirements of any AMs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have no idea why some people post that. I didnt specify that they would- in fact, I pointedly put Amfleet IIs first. I was just explaining the vastness of a car replacement order, the small ness of Siemens creating Viaggio Comfort sleepers (they did this for 200 Russian Railways cars), and Nerodens preposterous assumptions.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

tomfuller said:


> The first 10+ years of riding on Amtrak was exclusively in coach. My idea is to allow coach passengers to have ONE shower per trip after about 8 hours on board.
> 
> The lounge area at the head end primarily used by women, could be converted to a shower room by taking out the toilet and replacing with a shower.
> 
> You would pay the coach attendant or someone else for a $5 chit to use to get into the shower room. Towels, soaps etc. could be provided just as they are for the
> 
> sleeping car passengers.


I think that is a great idea. I travel exclusively in coach, sometimes for nights at a time, and this is by far the largest issue I run into. I have considered getting a rail pass and riding Amtrak for weeks in a row with no nights off the train, but I do not know how I would do without the shower. I actually think it would even work to open up a shower or two in the sleeping cars with a limit of one to two coach passengers at a time and only those travelling overnight permitted to use the showers. In past years, I have traveled in sleeping cars with my dad and the showers are always underutilized as it is. This would increase customer satisfaction and attract more customers, especially for multi-night long-distance trips with such a minimal increase in traffic in the sleepers that most passengers would not even notice.


----------



## west point

One possible problem. Many persons taking showers might deplete potable water to point that more stops would be needed to replenish the potable water ? Can anyone list present potable water servicing stations ? Other than terminals only sure of ATL. Florence, Sacramento.


----------



## jebr

Amtrak could also try to find partners at layover points that would allow coach travelers to shower cheaply. Gyms would probably be a good place to start - many have showers and at least some have towel service (or could provide it.) Sell a day pass to the gym for $5 to people with a same-day ticket and shower access is taken care of at least at layover points.

It's not perfect, but it seems a lot simpler than trying to regulate access to the sleepers for showers.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

I for one would appreciate the opportunity to take a shower en route somewhere. The Chicago Metropolitan Lounge has shower access for $50 according to the website? (https://www.amtrak.com/at-the-station/station-lounges.html). That is the only shower I saw on the page. That is one expensive shower. The $5 jebr suggested or even $10 might be something I'd be more willing to pay and to have it at more than one location in addition to CHI would be nice.


----------



## dlagrua

west point said:


> One possible problem. Many persons taking showers might deplete potable water to point that more stops would be needed to replenish the potable water ? Can anyone list present potable water servicing stations ? Other than terminals only sure of ATL. Florence, Sacramento.


Very good point. You have far less passengers in the sleepers and lower water use. AFAIK, the water storage tanks are all the same size. The supply is just not there for everyone in coach to take a shower and replenishment stops are typically spaced far away from each other. It would also not be very practical to have shower stops as it would cause large changes in the schedule and late trains often cut the stops short to make up time. In the 30's, 40's,50's and 60's showers were hardly available on LD trains. The best that can be done at this point is to take along a towel, washcloth (with a zip lock bag) and a small hotel size bar of soap and use the sink to give yourself a "sponge bath". Not ideal but certainly better than nothing. . I assume this is how they did it back in the early days unless you used the shower in the barber shop!.


----------



## Dank

I would love to see a bar car on LD trains with a full bar and a few regional beers on tap in which the train serviced.


----------



## west point

Before we try to get special cars let us get the train consists up to at least 16 cars. Otherwise a very unwise set up.


----------



## neroden

Indeed.... I'd like to see platforms on the LSL route lengthened to support consistent 16-car, 2-locomotive operation. It's already typically 14 cars and 2 locomotives and it could use an extra sleeper most of the time, and it already has an extra coach in peak periods -- and it's a popular train for people to ask to add private cars to (though Amtrak rarely does so).

Seems expensive, though. One has to query whether it would be more practical to run a second train on that NY-Chicago route instead, allowing both trains to be shorter than the existing platform lengths.


----------



## Anthony V

neroden said:


> Indeed.... I'd like to see platforms on the LSL route lengthened to support consistent 16-car, 2-locomotive operation. It's already typically 14 cars and 2 locomotives and it could use an extra sleeper most of the time, and it already has an extra coach in peak periods -- and it's a popular train for people to ask to add private cars to (though Amtrak rarely does so).
> 
> Seems expensive, though. One has to query whether it would be more practical to run a second train on that NY-Chicago route instead, allowing both trains to be shorter than the existing platform lengths.


Because a second train could give Ohio daylight service?


----------



## west point

Neroden: Correct about the platform length. However it is not just the LSL that needs longer platforms. NYPS and many stations out of it do as well ! Then there is the BOS platform length problem that is going to be horribly expensive to correct !


----------



## Dank

west point said:


> Before we try to get special cars let us get the train consists up to at least 16 cars. Otherwise a very unwise set up.


Sorry, I'm lost. What is special about 16 cars?


----------



## neroden

Anthony V said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.... I'd like to see platforms on the LSL route lengthened to support consistent 16-car, 2-locomotive operation. It's already typically 14 cars and 2 locomotives and it could use an extra sleeper most of the time, and it already has an extra coach in peak periods -- and it's a popular train for people to ask to add private cars to (though Amtrak rarely does so).
> 
> Seems expensive, though. One has to query whether it would be more practical to run a second train on that NY-Chicago route instead, allowing both trains to be shorter than the existing platform lengths.
> 
> 
> 
> Because a second train could give Ohio daylight service?
Click to expand...

Among other things:

TWO A DAY.pdf


----------



## Green Maned Lion

16 cars is the current understood limit for Amtraks current HEP standard and requirements.

Before one starts expanding platforms, EMUs and Bi-level cars are options to consider.


----------



## west point

OTP ! !


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> 16 cars is the current understood limit for Amtraks current HEP standard and requirements.
> 
> Before one starts expanding platforms, EMUs and Bi-level cars are options to consider.


Bilevels aren't practical on the LSL route -- hello, NYC tunnels. NJT's bilevels are a hack which is not efficient in any way.

EMUs are a great idea as soon as someone puts up the billion dollars to put wire over the entire route. ;-)

Platform lenghtening is somewhat more practical in the short term than either. You can get away with stopping the train at some platforms which are short, if there aren't that many passengers getting on or off at that station. (However, stopping twice at Syracuse, or Rochester, really is inappropriate.) Thankfully both New York and Chicago have long platforms already. (Especially if, as has been proposed, the LSL moves to the high-level ex-mail platform at Chicago.)

Economies of scale do mean that generally one wants to have longer trains, so long platforms fit with that.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking

SarahZ said:


> I've traveled on several trains since the "blanket wrapped in plastic" started, and I have yet to actually see a blanket wrapped in plastic. My bedding has always been placed and tucked in as normal.
> 
> Are the wrapped blankets only used on certain trains?
> 
> Speaking of blankets, I say no to wool. People tend to be allergic/sensitive to it.


That's interesting about wool. Wool is an animal hair and is washed many times before being spun into yarn and after being woven into fabric and placed into bags to keep dust and germs from them. The purpose of the bag is to keep the blanket clean and germ free after being washed.


----------



## SarahZ

Some people are allergic to the lanolin. For others, it’s a sensitivity to itchy material.

I can’t have wool anywhere near my skin. I feel like I’m on fire, and I break out in a rash.


----------

