# Upcoming Amtrak LD Schedule Changes (2021)



## tricia (May 3, 2021)

Just received an "updated" ticket by email from Amtrak for my upcoming trip between TCA (Toccoa, GA) and Alexandria/DC, July 2 and July 5.

Coming back, it's an improvement AFAIC: Leave DC same time, arrive Toccoa half an hour later than usual, at 6:45AM.

Going there, it's possibly a deal killer: Instead of leaving at 9:40PM, it's now leaving at 1:05AM (!), and arriving half a day late, at 1:22PM instead of 9:32AM.

Amtrak's provided no explanation for this. Does anyone here know what's going on? And for how long?


----------



## TheVig (May 3, 2021)

I got a revised ticket a few moments ago for a trip I have scheduled in October on the Crescent.

Instead of leaving CLT at 130am, the train now departs at 531am. Instead of arriving in PHL at noon, I now arrive at 440pm.

PHL is our final destination and the change luckily doesn't impact us. I can see this being a cluster $#$% for others though.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 3, 2021)

I was originally going say possible NS trackwork, but given the duration, and a phantom booking I just tried for November, it appears to be a permanent change with the Crescent departing NOL at 9:15 am instead of 7:00 am.

The following is conjecture based on one fact. Under the new FRA/STB passenger delay rules, finalized last December, Amtrak and the railroads are to negotiate revised schedules based on the recently issued passenger delay metrics, before the STB begins enforcement of the rules based on those metrics (also with a 6 month probationary period where STB will monitor metrics under the revised schedules but not take enforcement action).

The new schedule could be a result of that and could be the first of many.


----------



## Cal (May 3, 2021)

What does this mean for connections?


----------



## TheVig (May 3, 2021)

Cal said:


> What does this mean for connections?



Doing some dummy bookings departing CLT, and going to say CHI, Crescent 20 shows the old departure time of 146am. Looks Amtrak has got some tweaking to do. Lot of folks could miss connections or their originating departure altogether. Not good.


----------



## tricia (May 3, 2021)

I dunno about connections, but it might mean I'm no longer an Amtrak customer. When I need to drive more than 2 hours to get to an Amtrak station (either Toccoa or Greenville, SC), and they make the times for the one train a day each way even more awful than they were ... at some point, it's just too much. If this change is permanent, I'm afraid that point might be now.

It's not just me. What are they thinking of? Most of the ridership on this train is between Atlanta and the northeast, and they've now arranged that all the stops past Atlanta are at O-dark thirty. And you reach DC and points north well into the afternoon instead of the morning.


----------



## TheVig (May 3, 2021)

My return trips back to CLT from the northeast, are always on the Carolinian. Looks like they haven't messed with that schedule yet.

Under the new Crescent schedule, Crescent 20 will depart at 531am, the Carolinian will depart at 645am. Also we have state supported services. Heavy NS and CSX territory. One bad delay from either side, could cause things to get screwy fast. Crescent 19 still shows getting into Charlotte around 230am.


----------



## jis (May 3, 2021)

Looks like its end to end running time has been increased considerably, possibly in preparation for STB mediated OTP initiative (something that was to be expected) and the rest probably followed in order to keep it away from the Commission Hours in New York Penn Station, possibly among other things.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 3, 2021)

tricia said:


> It's not just me. What are they thinking of?


If my conjecture is correct, that this is the schedule that Amtrak and NS negotiated in response to newly enforceable passenger delay metrics, it is likely best they could do with NS while keeping reasonable call times at major points like New Orleans, Atlanta, and Washington.

Amtrak can't dictate schedules alone and NS knows they're going to be held responsible to reasonably keep to whatever schedule they agree to now by the STB. They know they can't just consistently blow Amtrak timekeeping off like they have in the past, so my guess is that was a pretty fraught negotiation.


----------



## tricia (May 3, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> If my conjecture is correct, that this is the schedule that Amtrak and NS negotiated in response to newly enforceable passenger delay metrics, it is likely best they could do with NS while keeping reasonable call times at major points like New Orleans, Atlanta, and Washington.
> 
> Amtrak can't dictate schedules alone and NS knows they're going to be held responsible to reasonably keep to whatever schedule they agree to now by the STB. They know they can't just consistently blow Amtrak timekeeping off like they have in the past, so my guess is that was a pretty fraught negotiation.



Atlanta's become pretty grim northbound for anyone wanting to keep appointments on day of arrival: Depart 11:29PM (IF it's on time, and who the heck wants to be hanging out in the ATL station at that hour), and arrive DC 2:12PM, with Philly and NY obviously later. Lose most or all of a workday to travel, whereas before this change you'd arrive DC 10AMish.

Southbound, it's not such a big change, and arguably arriving a bit later is better.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 3, 2021)

Guess that explains my later arrival in NOL in October - got the revised ticket today.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 3, 2021)

Well, it's likely the best they can do with NS and NS knowing a stick now exists with the regulatory delay metrics. Hopefully, with the new STB enforcement authority in place, the Crescent ought to become reasonably consistent in being within 15 minutes of 11:29 at Atlanta as this takes effect.

Again, if my conjecture is true, this change is likely the first of many. I would expect any trains operating over NS, CSX, and UP to see schedule shifts. BNSF seems generally able to handle existing schedules so I think those schedules will have less significant changes.

Amtrak is going to have its hands full making sure connections stay intact or get alternatives through this.


----------



## Cal (May 3, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Again, if my conjecture is true, this change is likely the first of many. I would expect any trains operating over NS, CSX, and UP to see schedule shifts. BNSF seems generally able to handle existing schedules so I think those schedules will have less significant changes.
> 
> Amtrak is going to have its hands full making sure connections stay intact or get alternatives through this.


This will be interesting.


----------



## jebr (May 3, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> BNSF seems generally able to handle existing schedules so I think those schedules will have less significant changes.



I wouldn't be so sure about this. The delays on the Builder coming into MSP from the west (which is roughly where BNSF hands off control to CP) have been noticeable the past few months. With a median delay of 54 minutes and an average delay of an hour and 17 minutes, it seems likely that BNSF will try and lengthen the schedule somewhat. I'm not sure which side they'll do it on - add a couple hours on the Seattle/Portland end and you've now broken the connection to the Coast Starlight. Throw it on the eastbound side and now CP has to agree to the change, plus you'll likely lose the connection to the Cardinal and possibly the Capitol Limited, and perhaps a regional train or two. No good answers there if BNSF doesn't believe they can run the trains on the current schedule.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 3, 2021)

The market I see hurting the most from this is the Atlanta-Washington market. As that was a hot overnight market. It worked really well. It was my preferred train for business in DC because I wouldn't have to wake up nearly as early as the Meteor.


----------



## acelafan (May 3, 2021)

Zephyr17 beat me to it, but "ASMAD" can give you some historical info on connecting trains. You just need the arriving train #, departing train # and station code. Here is the link:






ASMAD - Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database - Train Connections History Search


ASMAD - Amtrak Status Maps History and Archive



juckins.net





I am also disappointed with the Crescent schedule change...I used it for DC-ATL work travel as well.


----------



## bms (May 3, 2021)

Atlanta is the most important city on this route. The top city pairs by revenue are Atlanta–New York and Atlanta–Washington. I think it is a big mistake to have #20 arrive into Atlanta at 11:00 p.m. and depart at 11:29. That's about the most inconvenient possible time for travelers from the Northeast staying in an Atlanta hotel.


----------



## PaTrainFan (May 3, 2021)

Looking down the road for a possible trip this fall, I see no changes forthcoming on the Capitol, so at least as of now the NS isn't messing with that one. Selfishly, I do like the current schedule for the overnight to Chicago and have no issue with the 11:45 p.m. call time in Pittsburgh. And it is not unheard of to be early. The return at 5:05 a.m. is a tad early for me but I get why Amtrak wants it in DC just after noon.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 3, 2021)

The arrival time into New Orleans is 9:15 p.m. Departure northbound is at 9:15 a.m.


----------



## railiner (May 3, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> The market I see hurting the most from this is the Atlanta-Washington market. As that was a hot overnight market. It worked really well. ...


Agreed....this will surely hurt that market. If they had to add some padding to the schedule, they should have at least kept its NOL departure time intact...


----------



## zephyr17 (May 3, 2021)

jebr said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about this. The delays on the Builder coming into MSP from the east (which is roughly where BNSF hands off control to CP) have been noticeable the past few months. With a median delay of 54 minutes and an average delay of an hour and 17 minutes, it seems likely that BNSF will try and lengthen the schedule somewhat. I'm not sure which side they'll do it on - add a couple hours on the Seattle/Portland end and you've now broken the connection to the Coast Starlight. Throw it on the eastbound side and now CP has to agree to the change, plus you'll likely lose the connection to the Cardinal and possibly the Capitol Limited, and perhaps a regional train or two. No good answers there if BNSF doesn't believe they can run the trains on the current schedule.
> 
> View attachment 22148


Well, it is going to be interesting.

Amtrak has to renegotiate schedules with all host railroads that the host railroads agree will meet the new passenger delay metrics. Certainly many, if not most, schedules will be lengthened.

_Every _schedule on every host railroad in the country will ultimately have to be reviewed and renegotiated with the hosts. I would not be surprised if Amtrak is in the process of reviewing and ranking almost all their published connections, so they can open up some wiggle room by dropping some less used connections. If they are not approaching this is a comprehensive fashion they are foolish. Although that is a well established behavior by Amtrak management.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Amtrak is about to gain a tool they have long needed to enforce their statutory priority and timekeeping. The trade off may well be worth lengthening schedules and even sacrificing some connections. That it may be used as an opportunity for current management to further damage the viability of the long distance network through ineptitude or malice may sound paranoid, but I cannot discount the possibility. However, the damage the timekeeping issue by itself inflicts on the long distance services is already severe.

The payoff in a few years should be more reliable timekeeping, hopefully with most connections intact.


----------



## jebr (May 3, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Amtrak is about to gain a tool they have long needed to enforce their statutory priority and timekeeping. The trade off may well be worth lengthening schedules and even sacrificing some connections. That it may be used as an opportunity for current management to further damage the viability of the long distance network through ineptitude or malice may sound paranoid, but I cannot discount the possibility. However, the damage the timekeeping issue by itself inflicts on the long distance services is already severe.
> 
> The payoff in a few years should be more reliable timekeeping, hopefully with most connections intact.



Yeah, that's definitely the tradeoff. On the plus side, if the timekeeping is held to a high enough standard, Amtrak could tighten their standards for the timetabled connections while keeping similar or better numbers in terms of connections actually made. There's definitely a balancing act, though, and I'm not sure Amtrak got it right with the new Crescent timetable - even keeping the current departure from NOL at 7 AM, we could have a 9:15 PM departure from ATL and a just-before-noon arrival into WAS - which I think would be quite a bit better while keeping NS' desired padding.


----------



## NEPATrainTraveler (May 3, 2021)

Wow, not sure I would want to ride the Crescent on this new schedule. Well, I guess I will have to keep an eye on the schedules of the other LD trains I want to ride in case they have any changes.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 3, 2021)

NEPATrainTraveler said:


> Wow, not sure I would want to ride the Crescent on this new schedule. Well, I guess I will have to keep an eye on the schedules of the other LD trains I want to ride in case they have any changes.



Going northbound you actually should get some decent scenery especially on the left side of the train. I used to work a contract that was a scenic excursion one weekend of the year every year. So you'll pick up some good scenery. On the southbound in the summer you should pick up a bit of the upstate of South Carolina and the mountainous part of Georgia in daylight. The scenery actually improved with this trade off. It's only the business market that lost out.


----------



## Palmetto (May 4, 2021)

jebr said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about this. The delays on the Builder coming into MSP from the east (which is roughly where BNSF hands off control to CP) have been noticeable the past few months. With a median delay of 54 minutes and an average delay of an hour and 17 minutes, it seems likely that BNSF will try and lengthen the schedule somewhat. I'm not sure which side they'll do it on - add a couple hours on the Seattle/Portland end and you've now broken the connection to the Coast Starlight. Throw it on the eastbound side and now CP has to agree to the change, plus you'll likely lose the connection to the Cardinal and possibly the Capitol Limited, and perhaps a regional train or two. No good answers there if BNSF doesn't believe they can run the trains on the current schedule.
> 
> View attachment 22148



You have it backwards. It's CP that runs the train between Chicago and Hastings, MN, where it gets onto the BNSF for the rest of the way to the West coast.


----------



## Palmetto (May 4, 2021)

Here's something to consider: many airlines schedule once-a-day service to leave their terminals at o'dark thirty. I took Air New Zealand to Apia, Western Samoa one time from L.A. Arrival in Apia was at 2:30 AM. Going back to L.A. departure time was at 3 AM. I point this out because Amtrak is not the only one that has "poor" departure/arrival times. As always, the solution to this dilemma for Amtrak is service that occurs more than once a day. The host railroads won't like that, though.


----------



## jebr (May 4, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> You have it backwards. It's CP that runs the train between Chicago and Hastings, MN, where it gets onto the BNSF for the rest of the way to the West coast.



Yeah, that's my bad there. I was thinking of the eastbound Empire Builder (so coming from the west, not the east.) The statistics out of MSP are for the eastbound (which should reflect the trackage west of MSP.) I've corrected my post.


----------



## tricia (May 4, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> Going northbound you actually should get some decent scenery especially on the left side of the train. I used to work a contract that was a scenic excursion one weekend of the year every year. So you'll pick up some good scenery. On the southbound in the summer you should pick up a bit of the upstate of South Carolina and the mountainous part of Georgia in daylight. The scenery actually improved with this trade off. It's only the business market that lost out.



Not only the business market. Everyone who uses the train at stations from Atlanta to Charlotte will have to plan to board past midnight.


----------



## me_little_me (May 4, 2021)

tricia said:


> Not only the business market. Everyone who uses the train at stations from Atlanta to Charlotte will have to plan to board past midnight.


The new schedule really sucks! I don't know what they are thinking. Well, knowing about past decisions and lack of thinking...


----------



## tricia (May 4, 2021)

I'm baffled at the notion that Amtrak's schedules "need" to be reworked and made still longer so that host railroads can accommodate them. Don't they all already have a heckuva lot of padding? Certainly the Crescent does.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

tricia said:


> I'm baffled at the notion that Amtrak's schedules "need" to be reworked and made still longer so that host railroads can accommodate them. Don't they all already have a heckuva lot of padding? Certainly the Crescent does.


Yep, they do. This just shows that Amtrak isn't given priority enough if they have to extend the schedule even more. 

I just hope they don't mess with the CZ and other routes that the current schedule gives them good scenery.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 4, 2021)

Better departure time out of NOL for sure. That’s all I really care about. And a 915pm arrival isn’t too bad. If anything in the inbound dinner service on 19 won’t be as rushed. 

ATL customers will get used to the new schedule in time.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 4, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> Going northbound you actually should get some decent scenery especially on the left side of the train. I used to work a contract that was a scenic excursion one weekend of the year every year. So you'll pick up some good scenery. On the southbound in the summer you should pick up a bit of the upstate of South Carolina and the mountainous part of Georgia in daylight. The scenery actually improved with this trade off. It's only the business market that lost out.



While I personally would want to ride the new schedule to see the now visible scenery, I think not carefully thinking about the Atlanta-Washington-New York market is a mistake. The ridership west of Atlanta has been light for years. The only thing that could strengthen it IMHO would be a routing via Montgomery and mobile, adding two larger markets. But timing would suffers.


----------



## merkelman06 (May 4, 2021)

Right now they are not showing any connections northbound in CVS to the Cardinal or in WAS to the Capitol Limited or Silvers. All connections show up southbound though.


----------



## jis (May 4, 2021)

merkelman06 said:


> Right now they are not showing any connections northbound in CVS to the Cardinal or in WAS to the Capitol Limited or Silvers. All connections show up southbound though.


That is mostly because the timings southbound have not changed at WAS or CVS. All the changes are further south AFAICT. So they did not have to make any changes as far as connections go.

I suspect they have not programmed the connections from the northbound Crescent that are still feasible for the new timing yet. And being Amtrak, until someone points that out to them they probably won't do the work, or they will maybe get around to it eventually.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 4, 2021)

tricia said:


> I'm baffled at the notion that Amtrak's schedules "need" to be reworked and made still longer so that host railroads can accommodate them. Don't they all already have a heckuva lot of padding? Certainly the Crescent does.


Because it is part of the regulation finalized in December 2020 giving the STB authority to enforce passenger delay metrics. It is the only win the freight railroads got.

The basic passenger delay metric adopted is counting any passenger delayed more that 15 minutes at their destination station. The railroads wanted only endpoint times counted, or certain major intermediate points. Nope, any station, be it Chicago or Cut Bank.

The new reg has actual teeth.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 4, 2021)

jis said:


> That is mostly because the timings southbound have not changed at WAS or CVS. All the changes are further south AFAICT. So they did not have to make any changes as far as connections go.
> 
> I suspect they have not programmed the connections from the northbound Crescent that are still feasible for the new timing yet. And being Amtrak, until someone points that out to them they probably won't do the work, or they will maybe get around to it eventually.


Or they’re waiting to update time changes for those other trains.


----------



## saxman (May 4, 2021)

So are we to assume Amtrak is going to tweak on the schedules. Connections are of upmost importance for Amtrak's LD trains. As with any schedule change for an overnight train there are going to be winners and losers.

I made a rough spreadsheet of the new schedule:




Not much change going southbound. They start adding padding around Greensboro with an additional 10 minutes and eventually get to adding 90 minutes into New Orleans. 

Northbound. You get to Atlanta pretty late, but north of Charlotte, you start to get better times. The connections are actually better if you want to go into eastern North Carolina such as Raleigh. It's also a shorter time to wait for the Cardinal in Charlottesville. In DC, there's not really enough time to catch the Star, but plenty to catch the Meteor.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 4, 2021)

Now all they need to do is adjust the Sunset Limited schedules. Have #2 arrive NOL at 0730, and have #1 depart NOL at 2230. That way you could have same day connections in NOL between the Sunset and Crescent.
Wishful thinking probably...


----------



## jis (May 4, 2021)

For the Sunset, they will tend to preserve the Coast Starlight connection at LAX before they fix any other connections. That has been their stand for decades.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 4, 2021)

jis said:


> For the Sunset, they will tend to preserve the Coast Starlight connection at LAX before they fix any other connections. That has been their stand for decades.



Kind of a shame in a sense. You have multiple Surfliners plus the bus connections to the San Joaquin throughout the day. New city pairs like LAX/SAS/HOS-BHM/ATL/CLT would open up. But maybe the numbers don’t look as good for those compared to the Starlight connection.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 4, 2021)

jis said:


> For the Sunset, they will tend to preserve the Coast Starlight connection at LAX before they fix any other connections. That has been their stand for decades.


There was a pretty big gap on that when during the UP meltdown they changed the LA departure to 2 pm for a few years.

Notwithstanding the Starlight connection, I liked that schedule. Beaumont Pass in daytime, going along the Salton Sea at sunset, Pecos High Bridge in the afternoon.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> There was a pretty big gap on that when during the UP meltdown they changed the LA departure to 2 pm for a few years.
> 
> Notwithstanding the Starlight connection, I liked that schedule. Beaumont Pass in daytime, going along the Salton Sea at sunset, Pecos High Bridge in the afternoon.


Me too. I actually rode it during that time. However I didn't care much for the scenery at the time, unfortunately. I would love for the schedule to return to that. Seeing the approach into LA during daylight would be nice


----------



## bms (May 4, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> As always, the solution to this dilemma for Amtrak is service that occurs more than once a day. The host railroads won't like that, though.



I think the current Crescent schedule, offset by 12 hours, would make a nice ATL-WAS day train. Norfolk Southern would successfully oppose any new service unless Amtrak moved to a new station to eliminate the bottleneck at Peachtree Station. The official State Rail Plan recommends building Five Points Station downtown, but I doubt their legislature will fund that station anytime soon.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2021)

saxman said:


> So are we to assume Amtrak is going to tweak on the schedules. Connections are of upmost importance for Amtrak's LD trains. As with any schedule change for an overnight train there are going to be winners and losers.
> 
> I made a rough spreadsheet of the new schedule:
> 
> ...


One other thing I'll note: While a slight massage SB into Greensboro would be nice, this effectively gets you a partial "day train" from CLT northwards (the lack of which has been a sore point on that side of VA for some time). A move which had preserved the times on the south end there but which had moved the northern end a bit would not have been unwelcome given this choice.

As to the Star, I think the connection might move to Alexandria (which adds about 40-45 minutes to the pad (1:52 to 3:25 gives 90 minutes).


----------



## saxman (May 4, 2021)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Now all they need to do is adjust the Sunset Limited schedules. Have #2 arrive NOL at 0730, and have #1 depart NOL at 2230. That way you could have same day connections in NOL between the Sunset and Crescent.
> Wishful thinking probably...



The most important connection are the through cars from the Texas Eagle.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 4, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Here's something to consider: many airlines schedule once-a-day service to leave their terminals at o'dark thirty. I took Air New Zealand to Apia, Western Samoa one time from L.A. Arrival in Apia was at 2:30 AM. Going back to L.A. departure time was at 3 AM. I point this out because Amtrak is not the only one that has "poor" departure/arrival times. As always, the solution to this dilemma for Amtrak is service that occurs more than once a day. The host railroads won't like that, though.


Ah yes, Travelers to the Holy Land have long chronicled the experience of the famed EL Al 2 AM departures for various points in Europe and North America. I myself experienced two of these. One, in 1972, was a flight to Paris, and involved my being taken into a closed booth and hand-frisked. The security agent found a pocket knife I had forgotten about. He laughed and after telling me what a junky knife it was (he was probably correct), he put in in a box and checked it through to Paris. The second time was with my wife in 1989, for the 2 AM flight to New York. When they took us out to the plane, the door had been disassembled, and mechanics were busily working on it as we were boarded. Fortunately, except for turbulence that kept the fasten seat belt sign on most of the trip, the flight was uneventful.

I think these weird departure times were planned with the idea of facilitating onward connections. This was true for our 1989 flight to New York, as we had a connecting flight to BWI. The process for connecting flights involves your clearing customs and immigration, and then rechecking your bag for the domestic segment. As you can imagine, this takes a good amount of time, so the inbound flight really needs to arrive early in the day to ensure the maximum number of connections. I think we got into Paris around 6 or 7 AM, and our New York flight was similar. In that case, we not only needed to clear Customs and recheck our bags, we had to go to a completely different terminal at JFK. I don't think the BWI flight left until 10 or 11 in the morning. It's one reason why the next time I fly across the Atlantic, I'll probably just take British Airways from BWI, so I don't have to deal with the connection at JFK.


----------



## railiner (May 4, 2021)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Now all they need to do is adjust the Sunset Limited schedules. Have #2 arrive NOL at 0730, and have #1 depart NOL at 2230. That way you could have same day connections in NOL between the Sunset and Crescent.
> Wishful thinking probably...


Be careful what you wish for....they could establish that same day connection at New Orleans by _really_ slowing down the Sunset and adding a night to its trip.
Sort of like they did to the Canadian...


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 4, 2021)

hat I would do is build a new station in Atlanta near the former Terminal Station. Then shift the Crescent via Montgomery and Mobile. Followed by adding another train down the Silver Star route to Columbia, continuing on to Atlanta via Augusta, before going on to Meridian and Dallas


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 4, 2021)

tricia said:


> I'm baffled at the notion that Amtrak's schedules "need" to be reworked and made still longer so that host railroads can accommodate them. Don't they all already have a heckuva lot of padding? Certainly the Crescent does.



Add time to a schedule does not help the overall timekeeping. With the new enforcement, things might change or not. I am just not hopeful.


----------



## niemi24s (May 4, 2021)

FWIW, here's a pre-Covid Crescent timetable with all the new times added off to the sides:


No idea why it's so fuzzy.


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

niemi24s said:


> FWIW, here's a pre-Covid Crescent timetable with all the new times added off to the sides:View attachment 22162
> 
> No idea why it's so fuzzy.


Thank you! This is helpful


----------



## Cal (May 4, 2021)

railiner said:


> Be careful what you wish for....they could establish that same day connection at New Orleans by _really_ slowing down the Sunset and adding a night to its trip.
> Sort of like they did to the Canadian...


I wonder what that schedule would look like...


----------



## me_little_me (May 4, 2021)

Well, no more trips out of Atlanta or my closest station, Greenville, any more.

All I have left is Hinton, WV (3 days a week - ugh!) for going west. Nothing for going to the northeast that is overnight and the daytime trains are too long for us so now we'll make overnights of them with a relaxing hotel stay (at lower cost) halfway through rather than overnight in the train.


----------



## tricia (May 4, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Well, no more trips out of Atlanta or my closest station, Greenville, any more.
> 
> All I have left is Hinton, WV (3 days a week - ugh!) for going west. Nothing for going to the northeast that is overnight and the daytime trains are too long for us so now we'll make overnights of them with a relaxing hotel stay (at lower cost) halfway through rather than overnight in the train.



I feel your pain--and then some. Hinton's a half day drive from where I live. Greenville about as close as Toccoa (somewhat over 2 hours)--and with post-midnight calling times at those stations, I'm just not gonna be able to talk myself (or my husband) into going there anymore. Still unsure about whether I'll make the trip scheduled for July 4 weekend. If I do, it'll be alone, and I don't see myself taking the Crescent again after that.


----------



## JRR (May 4, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> The market I see hurting the most from this is the Atlanta-Washington market. As that was a hot overnight market. It worked really well. It was my preferred train for business in DC because I wouldn't have to wake up nearly as early as the Meteor.


If this is true, it makes the Greenville stop really late headed north the way I usually travel, it supposedly arrives around 11pm now but normally an hour or more late. Add 2 hrs to the time of departure it makes it very inconvenient. Coming back two hours later as mentioned n another post, actually better for Greenville.
Going to Nawlins, the new Schedule would be better, not so early am, but coming back not so much!

I guess we will wait and se how all this shakes out.


----------



## niemi24s (May 4, 2021)

While one solution to inconvenient times would be more (way more) than one train per day, Amtrak has no magic wand to _POOF!_ conjure up more train sets. Lacking the equipment, the only solution to keeping everybody happy is to operate the trains only during the convenient hours and let them sit on sidings during the inconvenient hours.

Kind of like how the Rocky Mountaineer operates, eh?


----------



## west point (May 5, 2021)

About connections
1. Capitol connections both ways are reasonable.
2. Not that much need to connect to silver trains
3. tightened up northbound to Cardinal however the faux trolley ride around Charlottesville is always enjoyable,
4. The northbound connection to Carolinian much better and you could say BHM - ATL & north passengers get easy access to to additional Capitol cities of Raleigh and Richmond . Southbound from Carolinian still sucks in a plain jane CLT station although maybe Greensboro might be better.

5. About BHM. Several thoughts
a. Times almost enough to go to football game - well not really
b. Amtrak almost has enough time there to have a cut off car(s) but north bound not really
c. The yearly work windows south of BHM could allow Crescent to turn at BHM instead of ATL

6. Now we get to the possible proposed new trains to ATL
a. Service to Montgomery could be a single train set. If Montgomery - Mobile was closed the the New Orleans possible train could leave NOL about 0700 -0800 go MOB _ MGM_ATLarrive ATL 2115-2200 and leave ATL about 1100 arrive NOL 2145.
b. ATL - Nashville lv ATL 0930 arr Nashville 1430 lv NVL 1530 ar ATL 2230 Close but still one train set.
c &d. Don't have time now Macon savannah augusta

None of this until ATL gets a new station


----------



## Anderson (May 5, 2021)

west point said:


> About connections
> 1. Capitol connections both ways are reasonable.
> 2. Not that much need to connect to silver trains
> 3. tightened up northbound to Cardinal however the faux trolley ride around Charlottesville is always enjoyable,
> ...


I will not diminish the insufficiency of Atlanta's current station, but I have to wonder...the main line is three tracks until the station, at which point one of the three breaks off as a dead-end spur. There's an extant bridge over I-75 (two tracks). Unfortunately, there's a Target in what looks suspiciously like an old yard area (the shape is _just_ right), but I wonder if it would be possible to route one of the tracks on that bridge back over to the main line to build in a bypass? (My guess is that you'd have to force out the increasingly out-of-place lumber yard to make it fit, which would likely kill the feasibility of this as an option, but I have to wonder. Of course, that also wouldn't be a _horrible_ location for a station (MARTA connectivity wouldn't be gained, but you'd at least get off the main line).


----------



## tricia (May 5, 2021)

Leaving aside the awful new calling times ATL-CLT, the new schedule averages about 43 MPH end-to-end. Is this really the best that Amtrak could negotiate with the rail owners?


----------



## Chatter163 (May 5, 2021)

niemi24s said:


> FWIW, here's a pre-Covid Crescent timetable with all the new times added off to the sides:
> No idea why it's so fuzzy.


Many thanks. This is indeed quite helpful.


----------



## fdaley (May 5, 2021)

It seems to me that this new northbound schedule partly reflects the reality of No. 20's actual performance on many trips. On nearly all of my rides on the Crescent in the past five years (before flex food made me swear off using it), the northbound run wound up hitting Birmingham about 4 p.m., Atlanta between 10 p.m. and midnight, Lynchburg at 8 or 9 a.m., Washington about noon or a little later, and New York between 4 and 6 p.m.

At Lynchburg, the northbound is due a few minutes before 6 a.m. but almost always arrives sometime after the weekday Roanoke train No. 176 (due out at 7:39). This morning, for example, the Crescent arrived into Lynchburg at 8:38.

So, if the new schedule is something Norfolk Southern is promising it can deliver with more reliability, it might be an improvement. For the middle-of-the-night stations, the worst thing is planning for a midnight or 1 a.m. departure and then not having the train show up till 3 or 4 a.m. (or in the case of Charlotte, 1:30 a.m. that becomes 4-5 a.m.) Of course, if we start with this new schedule and then add delays of 2-4 hours to it, it will be worse in every way.

The current schedule definitely would be better for travel from Atlanta to the Northeast, the biggest market for this train, if Amtrak could deliver it with any reliability. For the past few years, it hasn't.


----------



## niemi24s (May 5, 2021)

Chatter163 said:


> Many thanks. This is indeed quite helpful


Thanks for the kind words. Thought it would come in handy for those (like me) who cherish their dog-eared copies of the System Timetables that used to be published by Amtrak. 

I just hope there won't be too many such revisions to other routes - ferreting out all those times from Arrow is a real chore!


----------



## fdaley (May 5, 2021)

niemi24s said:


> Thanks for the kind words. Thought it would come in handy for those (like me) who cherish their dog-eared copies of the System Timetables that used to be published by Amtrak.
> 
> I just hope there won't be too many such revisions to other routes - ferreting out all those times from Arrow is a real chore!



I was going to say: Thanks for going to the effort of showing us in detail what Amtrak so far won't. With a major change to the schedule of this train less than a month away and clearly already set in their reservation system, wouldn't you think Amtrak would put up a copy of the revised schedule on their website? But of course, it is nowhere to be found. Nor does their "schedules" page appear to have even the current Empire, Keystone, Michigan or most other corridor schedules currently in effect.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 5, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> _Every _schedule on every host railroad in the country will ultimately have to be reviewed and renegotiated with the hosts.


So the pain of "winning" has only just begun and soon everyone will be in the same lousy boat.



saxman said:


> So are we to assume Amtrak is going to tweak on the schedules. Connections are of upmost importance for Amtrak's LD trains. As with any schedule change for an overnight train there are going to be winners and losers.


Norfolk Southern and Delta Air Lines seem to be the main beneficiaries of Amtrak's "successes" so far.



zephyr17 said:


> Well, it's likely the best they can do with NS and NS knowing a stick now exists with the regulatory delay metrics.


If this was really the best they can do then why bother?


----------



## niemi24s (May 5, 2021)

fdaley said:


> I was going to say: Thanks for going to the effort of showing us in detail what Amtrak so far won't. With a major change to the schedule of this train less than a month away and clearly already set in their reservation system, wouldn't you think Amtrak would put up a copy of the revised schedule on their website? But of course, it is nowhere to be found. Nor does their "schedules" page appear to have even the current Empire, Keystone, Michigan or most other corridor schedules currently in effect.


You're welcome! 

• The current 3X timetables can be found here: Train Schedules & Timetables | Amtrak
• The previous daily ones here: Train Schedules & Timetables | Amtrak


----------



## merkelman06 (May 5, 2021)

Looks like they are showing the connection to the Cardinal in CVS. Connection time is 3 hours. Still not showing connections in WAS to the Capitol limited or Silvers. It would be about a 2 hour connection to the Capitol Limited. Less than an hour for the Star and about 5 hours for the Meteor. Interested to see which will be guaranteed.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2021)

My guess is Star won't be guaranteed. The other two will be. But that is not a total loss loss since Raleigh can be gotten to via connection to the Carolinian at Charlotte or Greensboro, and even the points between Raleigh and Savannaeh (and on to Florida (Tampa especially) via Columbia can be gotten to by further connection at Raleigh to the Star.


----------



## Seaboard92 (May 5, 2021)

Actually I see where the move of the Crescent actually makes quite a bit of sense. Now this is a big picture item here. 

By moving the northbound you are putting some more time between the Roanoke Regional and the Crescent which gives a slightly better service time especially for CVS and points north. 

Lets say you add a Palmetto style day train from Atlanta to New York in theory you could do that with a very early departure on both ends ala today's Palmetto. This would give you a morning train on Charlanta corridor north, and an evening one south. Then to beef Charlanta up you can use two sets interlined with the Piedmont to get a Midday train on the corridor. With another stand alone set to do Charlanta in the morning southbound and evening northbound. So now you have a Piedmont style corridor hitting Charlotte, Gastonia, Spartanburg, Greenville, Clemson, Gainesville. Which is a really strong set of city pairs. 

Then lets look at something else that's doable. 

NS will throw a fit if the station stays where it is. But if we move it to where Terminal Station used to be which is now a parking lot, and some of the platforms I believe are still down there. But there is plenty of land available to put a grand new station that would be off the mainline which would appease the railroads. But NS will also throw a fit if the Crescent backs up the two mile move from that station into the large junction on the west side of town so here is my solution. 

The Crescent gets rerouted to run New Orleans-Mobile-Montgomery-Atlanta on CSX before joining the NS route on up to New York. Which would put it on the original route of the Crescent Limited. Remember the main all Southern routing was the Southerner when the A&WP, WofA, and L&N dropped the Crescent Limited Southern replaced the Southerner with the Southern Crescent. 

Then in order to keep Birmingham connected I would do this. I would put another about two hours earlier than the current Silver Star New York-Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Columbia. Have it take the NS R Line to Augusta where it would get on the CSX EX Georgia Railroad line to Atlanta. Now in theory you could also detour it down via NS via Macon but that would add some time. The continue west to Birmingham and Montgomery along the Crescent's current route before turning west to go onto Dallas-Fort Worth. If you wanted to you could in theory split this train in Meridian if you wanted to keep the four stations south in the network or you could end service to them. In theory I would like to put the eastbound/northbound to be about 3 hours behind the Star to give a bit better spread from Raleigh-NEC. 

I would then shove the Meteor back to 7 PM out of New York, so I could shift the Star into the 2PM/3PM Slot. Assuming I can get a Southwind from Chicago-Atlanta-Florida and put that in the current slot of the Star south of Jacksonville. Having the Southwind as a train leaving Miami around 5 PM. That gives you a three train corridor with a good spread throughout the day Jacksonville-Miami. 

This would then give you from Atlanta the following new direct one seat city pairs RVR, RGH, CLB, Augusta, DAL, FTW, JAN, PTB, Montgomery, MOB, and so many intermediate points. 

Then you solve the Atlanta issue and you could move the Crescent into it's older slot out of Atlanta northbound without having to deal with NS. Letting the new Crescent Star pick up that slot MEI-ATL


----------



## tricia (May 5, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> Actually I see where the move of the Crescent actually makes quite a bit of sense. Now this is a big picture item here.
> 
> By moving the northbound you are putting some more time between the Roanoke Regional and the Crescent which gives a slightly better service time especially for CVS and points north.
> 
> ...



All of this is highly hypothetical. The schedule change is real, this year, and will have real effects on the people who actually use the Crescent. Which is the ONLY Amtrak train that serves the entire southeast US outside the coastal corridor.


----------



## west point (May 6, 2021)

I have not been to the Terminal station / Union station complex for years. However the last time there removing the parking deck over the old Union station platforms would give a good station and allow for a balloon track to be built there much like the old Richmond Broad street station. That location would give access to all inbound tracks including Augusta.
Then there would be no back up moves and good rail service fairly close to MARTA five points station. The one problem that needs important fixing is the Howell CP where 2 different 2 MT of NS crosses 2 MT of CSX ( old western Atlantic ) . The best solution IMO would be for the CSX line to be lowered to go under the NS tracks. But that will take lot of dollars.


----------



## daybeers (May 6, 2021)

This is an absolutely ridiculous schedule change. If this is the “justice” that’s supposed to come from the current admin at USDOT, I don’t want it.


----------



## HammerJack (May 6, 2021)

Late to the party, but northbound is a 2h16m running time increase, while southbound is a 1h30m increase. What happened? Is lengthening schedules really the fix for late trains? We’ve seen freight companies agree to running time increases and then just gobble up the extra padding with no better handling of Amtrak. It happened with the Sunset. Even if it does result in on-time running, simply slapping an on-time sticker on a train that has been delayed 2+ hours en route is hardly a solution, in my opinion.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 6, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Because it is part of the regulation finalized in December 2020 giving the STB authority to enforce passenger delay metrics. It is the only win the freight railroads got.


So the freight railroads only won the right to dictate freight schedules for passenger trains? They must be ecstatic.



zephyr17 said:


> The new reg has actual teeth.


Guess that explains why tighter schedules are being chewed up and spat out.


----------



## jis (May 6, 2021)

daybeers said:


> This is an absolutely ridiculous schedule change. If this is the “justice” that’s supposed to come from the current admin at USDOT, I don’t want it.


I agree that it is ridiculous, but long back I had surmised this is what will happen. I would also point out that the current DOT has very little to do with this.

The requirement for being on time at each intermediate stop is the hammer that the freight hosts are driving this nail with. I think we would have been better off with requiring on time at specific so called "division points" which is what is done on many other railroads. Otherwise you just get the worst case cascading schedule all along the route.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 6, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> So the freight railroads only won the right to dictate freight schedules for passenger trains? They must be ecstatic.
> 
> 
> Guess that explains why tighter schedules are being chewed up and spat out.
> ...


The law underlying the regulation was passed in 2008 and the freight railroads have been fighting it tooth and nail ever since. The regulations took 12 years before getting finalized in December 2020 because the railroads fought it at every step. That is because it involves actual regulatory enforcement of Amtrak's statutory priority, which they have never before been subject to.

They took it to the Supreme Court twice. The first time they won, as the court found that Amtrak could not set the delay metrics itself. Congress modified the law and specified that the STB set the metrics. They took that all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.

They fought the metrics. The tried to get it so it was measured at endpoints only. They tried for specified, restricted points. In the introductory section of the final reg, the STB stated they found that the Congressional intent was to minimize the delay _passengers _experienced, not trains themselves. So the metric the STB adopted is basically any delay over 15 minutes of any passenger at their destination station counts. While the STB established the metric and not Amtrak as the first cut at law tried to do, it is pretty darned passenger focused.

If you think Amtrak ever "dictated" schedules to the freight railroads, you are out of your mind. Amtrak has always had to negotiate their schedules with their host railroads. But freight railroads could agree to almost any schedule that could plausibly be met, because they could ignore or override them as they pleased with very little threat consequence or sanction.

This regulation ends that. The schedules negotiated now are subject to enforcement action and penalty by the FRA and STB.

Finally, the "present administration" really has little to do with this. The 12 year fight over it ended in December 2020, prior to their taking office.

While you may sound coolly cynical, you are actually nihilistic. Amtrak finally has federal regulators with authority to enforce their statutory rights, which they have lacked since 1971. And you propose no realistic alternative, only complain that the enforceable schedule resulted in being lengthened. You prefer non enforceable schedules we've always had? That certainly has worked out well.

I allow for the possibility that the STB may not be diligent in enforcing it. We'll see how it works out, but Amtrak now can file complaints directly to the STB about how their trains are being handled at the hands of the freight railroads, and the STB has metrics established to measure the complaint in cold, hard numbers. I also find the fact that the freight railroads fought it hard for 12 years as indicative that they think it just may have some teeth they do not like.

I see this as an improvement over the long run. But complaining with no practical solution in mind is so cool.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 6, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> While the STB established the metric and not Amtrak as the first cut at law tried to do, it is pretty darned passenger focused.


Did anyone ask the passengers that live and work along this route what they wanted before dumping this new schedule on them? This looks more like a supply side assumption rather than passenger focused resolution.



zephyr17 said:


> Finally, the "present administration" really has little to do with this. The 16 year fight over it ended in December 2020, prior to their taking office. While you may sound coolly cynical, you are actually nihilistic. Amtrak finally has federal regulators with authority to enforce their statutory rights, which they have lacked since 1971. And you propose no realistic alternative, only complain that the enforceable schedule resulted in being lengthened. You prefer non enforceable schedules we've always had? That certainly has worked out well.


Amtrak could have negotiated slower schedules and extra padding without any help from courts and regulators. If the only way to prevent more delays is to make the schedules worse for passengers then we’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.



zephyr17 said:


> I allow for the possibility that the STB may not be diligent in enforcing it. We'll see how it works out, but Amtrak now can file complaints directly to the STB about how their trains are being handled at the hands of the freight railroads. I also find the fact that the freight railroads fought it hard for 16 years as indicative that they think it just may have some teeth they do not like.


With passenger trains running near freight train speeds the hosts will have less of a reason to worry about penalties and working age folks will have less of a reason to bother with Amtrak.


----------



## merkelman06 (May 6, 2021)

Connections are now showing up in Washington to the Capitol Limited and Silver Meteor. Schedule looks to arrive in Washington about 30 minutes earlier on Saturday and Sunday vs Monday thru Friday. Rush hour in NYP would be my guess as to why.


----------



## Cal (May 6, 2021)

merkelman06 said:


> Connections are now showing up in Washington to the Capitol Limited and Silver Meteor. Schedule looks to arrive in Washington about 30 minutes earlier on Saturday and Sunday vs Monday thru Friday. Rush hour in NYP would be my guess as to why.


That's a first. I've never seen a difference in weekday vs weekend schedule on LD trains.


----------



## bms (May 6, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> With passenger trains running near freight train speeds the hosts will have less of a reason to worry about penalties and working age folks will have less of a reason to bother with Amtrak.



It's striking how much worse the timetable has gotten since this route was handed over to Amtrak. In 1975, the northbound Southern Crescent had a 13 hour, 15 minute timetable from Atlanta to Washington, departing at 7:15 a.m. and arriving at 8:30 p.m. There was also a secondary day train between Atlanta and Washington. Population of the Atlanta area was only 1.4 million then and it's 5.9 million now.


----------



## acelafan (May 6, 2021)

I am "sort of" OK with lengthening the schedule if the train runs more on time, but I doubt NS will actually handle it any better. It's sad some of the freight RRs can't handle just 1 train in each direction, but I digress. 

I'm more disappointed they made #20 leave 2 hours later from NOL. Why not just lengthen the trip time to match what reality has shown...like they did with #19?? I must be missing something or did Amtrak just roll over and play dead with NS? The 11PM departure from Atlanta is terrible.


----------



## me_little_me (May 6, 2021)

What a joke! Hey, the Class 1s can demand enough hours longer between each station so Amtrak can't possibly be late unless it's their own fault and Amtrak, the freights, and the STB could be satisfied with that. Of course, nobody would take the train but who cares?

How can anyone justify that as a solution?


----------



## nferr (May 6, 2021)

acelafan said:


> I am "sort of" OK with lengthening the schedule if the train runs more on time, but I doubt NS will actually handle it any better. It's sad some of the freight RRs can't handle just 1 train in each direction, but I digress.
> 
> I'm more disappointed they made #20 leave 2 hours later from NOL. Why not just lengthen the trip time to match what reality has shown...like they did with #19?? I must be missing something or did Amtrak just roll over and play dead with NS? The 11PM departure from Atlanta is terrible.



The departure from NOL is WAY more convenient IMO. Hated that early morning departure.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (May 7, 2021)

bms said:


> It's striking how much worse the timetable has gotten since this route was handed over to Amtrak. In 1975, the northbound Southern Crescent had a 13 hour, 15 minute timetable from Atlanta to Washington, departing at 7:15 a.m. and arriving at 8:30 p.m. There was also a secondary day train between Atlanta and Washington. Population of the Atlanta area was only 1.4 million then and it's 5.9 million now.


That's progress???


----------



## railiner (May 7, 2021)

In general, 'corridor' services in the northeast, the northwest, the southwest, and to a lesser degree Chicago based, have improved quite a bit since the 1970's, but long-distance has suffered considerably...


----------



## tricia (May 7, 2021)

nferr said:


> The departure from NOL is WAY more convenient IMO. Hated that early morning departure.



I didn't like that early AM depature from NOL either--especially when the dining car crew refused to provide food or coffee before 9AM.

But pushing this so late that it arrives a half day later in DC is a much bigger problem, IMHO.


----------



## fdaley (May 7, 2021)

Yeah, Washington after 2 p.m. is a big step down from 10 a.m. And Atlanta after 11 p.m. is awful too, even though that's already the actual arrival time on many trips now. 

If there's really an improvement in reliability, that would be a good thing. My fear is that things happen and you still have trains that wind up being 2 hours late, and then the actual time at Atlanta becomes 1 to 2 a.m.


----------



## PaTrainFan (May 7, 2021)

This is the same mentality as the U.S. Postal Service: we'll extend delivery on your first class mail by two days and tell you to is "improved service" because it will arrive "on time."


----------



## me_little_me (May 7, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> This is the same mentality as the U.S. Postal Service: we'll extend delivery on your first class mail by two days and tell you to is "improved service" because it will arrive "on time."


Two days? I had 2 packages coming from 2 different cities in 2 parts of the country that showed they were being delivered the following day. Three days after the listed delivery day, that day was still showing on their web page and in their emails. The packages both showed up 7 days after the original delivery date. I filed a complaint, got a reply that the local postmaster rep would contact me (although they were not responsible) but never got a call or other contact.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Two days? I had 2 packages coming from 2 different cities in 2 parts of the country that showed they were being delivered the following day. Three days after the listed delivery day, that day was still showing on their web page and in their emails. The packages both showed up 7 days after the original delivery date. I filed a complaint, got a reply that the local postmaster rep would contact me (although they were not responsible) but never got a call or other contact.


Hail to the Trump appointee Postmaster General DeJoy! Afterall it was his brilliant idea to remove automatic sorting machines which he thought made the postal system too efficient for its own good, leaving aside the issue of postal ballots and attempts to manipulate electoral results and all that for the moment. 

Mods feel free to can this post


----------



## zephyr17 (May 7, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Did anyone ask the passengers that live and work along this route what they wanted before dumping this new schedule on them? This looks more like a supply side assumption rather than passenger focused resolution.
> 
> 
> Amtrak could have negotiated slower schedules and extra padding without any help from courts and regulators. If the only way to prevent more delays is to make the schedules worse for passengers then we’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.
> ...


Right, why bother? Regulatory enforceability of passenger schedules is useless. We shouldn't even bother. 

Just give up, eh? The very definition of nilhilism.

If you do not like it, propose a practical alternative.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2021)

I think it all depends on how well the enforcement works or not. If the train actually operates within 15 mins of schedule more often than not then the slight concession in the way of stretching out the schedule a bit would have been worth it. OTOH if it is just history repeating itself with the trains running the same 2 hours behind a 2 hour longer schedule then all this would be for a nought. Only time will tell.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 7, 2021)

This is the key part.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 7, 2021)

jis said:


> I think it all depends on how well the enforcement works or not. If the train actually operates within 15 mins of schedule more often than not then the sligth concession in the way of stretching out the schedule a bit would have been worth it. OTOH if it is just history repeating itself with the trains running the same 2 hours behind a 2 hour longer schedule then all this would be for a nought. Only time will tell.


It has never been tried before, so it is worth a shot in my book. 

Agree that the whole thing boils down to whether or not the new enforcement power is actually used. It will take a couple years to find that out. Especially because there is a 6 month probationary period where the STB will monitor performance under the new schedules and metrics but will not take enforcement action, so it'll be awhile before results are seen.

By the way, the RPA was pretty happy with the final reg. They got pretty much everything they wanted. They pressed hard for counting all passenger delay rather than train delay measured at endpoints or specified points.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 7, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Right, why bother? Regulatory enforceability of passenger schedules is useless. We shouldn't even bother. Just give up, eh? The very definition of nilhilism. If you do not like it, propose a practical alternative.


So Amtrak passengers will receive an even slower schedule and worse calling times at major population centers in exchange for greater certainty. Does that sound like an objectively better scenario to you? It sounds like we're just trading one problem for another to me. My alternative is to refuse the slower schedule and worse calling times and hold the hosts to current or better schedules. Isn't that the whole point of winning? Otherwise it's just capitulation.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 7, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> So Amtrak passengers now receive an even slower schedule and even worse calling times at major population centers in exchange for greater certainty. Does that really sound like an objectively better scenario to you? It sounds like we're just trading one problem for another to me. My alternative is to refuse the slower schedule and worse calling times and hold the hosts to current or better schedules. If that's not possible then I guess this court case wasn't that big of a deal after all.


Well, the whole idea behind having to renegotiate schedules with the new metrics coming into effect was essentially a due process issue, the railroads would have been bound to perform under changed conditions. Not allowing them to renegotiate would probably have completely undermined the ability to enforce it. The conditions under which the existing contracts were negotiated have changed significantly. Not allowing renegotiation would have given the railroads a legal opportunity to tank the whole thing, something they were and are dying to do.

If you think Amtrak or the Federal government has the right to dictate schedules, you are delusional. They are now, and always have been, the result of contract negotiations. The railroads are bound to provide access by law, that is about it.

Your "solution" has no basis. Neither Amtrak nor the Federal government at this point has the authority to do what you propose.

In the end a two hour slower, reliable schedule is better for Amtrak passengers than a faster, but wholly unreliable one.

Since this is probably the first of many, and part of a new regulatory regimen that is not going to change, perhaps we should rather focus on ensuring Amtrak maintains network connections and provide for more community input through this change, rather than wishing for the impossible.


----------



## tricia (May 7, 2021)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but wasn't the previous, longstanding schedule agreed to by the host railroads, not "dictated" by Amtrak? And weren't the host railroads bound to honor it?

This new schedule really does look more like capitulation than negotiation. Possibly abetted by lack of support for the long-distance network by the Amtrak management in charge.


----------



## neroden (May 7, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> I was originally going say possible NS trackwork, but given the duration, and a phantom booking I just tried for November, it appears to be a permanent change with the Crescent departing NOL at 9:15 am instead of 7:00 am.
> 
> The following is conjecture based on one fact. Under the new FRA/STB passenger delay rules, finalized last December, Amtrak and the railroads are to negotiate revised schedules based on the recently issued passenger delay metrics, before the STB begins enforcement of the rules based on those metrics (also with a 6 month probationary period where STB will monitor metrics under the revised schedules but not take enforcement action).
> 
> The new schedule could be a result of that and could be the first of many.


First of all, I think you're right. Secondly, I think this means Norfolk Southern is playing ball. The new schedule is, fundamentally, *reasonable*; it actually has better calling times at some cities; it isn't *absurdly* longer, though it is unpleasantly longer; and the places it is longer are places where there were actual congestion issues, not complete arbitrariness.

I expect other railroads to be *much less reasonable*. Lawsuits will probably be required to establish schedules with CN and CSX.


----------



## neroden (May 7, 2021)

tricia said:


> Not only the business market. Everyone who uses the train at stations from Atlanta to Charlotte will have to plan to board past midnight.


Someone had to get hit with that. And frankly, they managed to hit reasonable times for both Atlanta and for Charlotte. Getting Charlotte out of O-Dark-Thirty should actually help ridership. Even the NOL times are an improvement. Sucks to be Greensville, of course, but again, someone had to get hit with it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 7, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> If you think Amtrak or the Federal government has the right to dictate schedules, you are delusional. They are now, and always have been, the result of contract negotiations. The railroads are bound to provide access by law, that is about it.


If the government cannot punish freight hosts for negotiating in bad faith or failing to honor their obligations then what's the point of taking them to court?


----------



## neroden (May 7, 2021)

acelafan said:


> I am "sort of" OK with lengthening the schedule if the train runs more on time, but I doubt NS will actually handle it any better.


If they don't they will pay millions of dollars in fines or in damages to Amtrak, and possibly get their management replaced by the STB -- *and that is new*.



> It's sad some of the freight RRs can't handle just 1 train in each direction, but I digress.


Yes, it's sad.



> I'm more disappointed they made #20 leave 2 hours later from NOL.


That's an improvement coming from NOL.



> The 11PM departure from Atlanta is terrible.


Get over it. It's better than what we've been subjected to on the Lake Shore Limited, in both directions, at *Amtrak's own initiative*, for years, even though Amtrak itself admits that this is unprofitable and stupid.

If it arrives consistently on time, it'll be OK.


----------



## neroden (May 7, 2021)

So the big thing is this. The behavior of people who take scheduled transportation -- buses, trains, airplanes, etc. -- is documented to be that people plan their trips based on, IIRC, the 90th percentile travel time. (If I remember wrongly, then it's the 95th or 85th.) That means that if the train is late 10% of the time, they plan based on the schedule, but if it's late *more* than 10% of the time, *they plan based on the delayed schedule*.

If this schedule is actually run reliably, people will start actually.... relying on it. Rather than adding three hours to every expected trip time because of potential delays, which is what we all do now.

Which is why I think that adding less than three hours to the schedule, *and hitting it reliably*, is going to be perceived by the customers as a shorter schedule.

I fully expect the criminals at CN to make outrageous demands like adding 40 hours to the CONO's schedule, but NS seems to have worked out something with Amtrak which is not unreasonable. And as someone else pointed out, during the annual trackwork closure, it looks like Amtrak could probably reverse at Birmingham instead of Atlanta now, which would be a major improvement during February.


----------



## Palmland (May 7, 2021)

Well if we’re looking for a silver lining, for passengers heading west, the schedule makes a better connection (less waiting time) at Charlottesville for the Cardinal and Washington for the Capitol and still has a connection to upstate NY (western NY loses). Certainly it’s better too for those that like to enjoy all that NOLA has to offer. I still don’t like the fact that it’s schedule is so close to the Roanoke-Lynchburg train.

Consider the two night schedule of Southern’s schedule in the 50’s (it was routed via Montgomery slightly longer than via Birmingham)). It left NOL at 11pm. Time for a good dinner in town as well as a connection from today’s version of the Sunset. Overnight to Atlanta with arrival there at 1:45pm. Then good times for all stations in the Carolinas with Lynchburg arrival at 11:50pm. Overnight to NYP with 9am arrival.


----------



## jruff001 (May 8, 2021)

Palmland said:


> Consider the two night schedule of Southern’s schedule in the 50’s (it was routed via Montgomery slightly longer than via Birmingham)). It left NOL at 11pm. Time for a good dinner in town as well as a connection from today’s version of the Sunset. Overnight to Atlanta with arrival there at 1:45pm. Then good times for all stations in the Carolinas with Lynchburg arrival at 11:50pm. Overnight to NYP with 9am arrival.


OK, I am considering it. I can't come up with a business plan that has enough people who would choose to take two nights to get from NOL to NYC?? When you can fly that in like three hours; maybe four with a connection via ATL.


----------



## me_little_me (May 8, 2021)

neroden said:


> Someone had to get hit with that. And frankly, they managed to hit reasonable times for both Atlanta and for Charlotte. Getting Charlotte out of O-Dark-Thirty should actually help ridership. Even the NOL times are an improvement. Sucks to be Greensville, of course, but again, someone had to get hit with it.


C'mon! Charlotte already has the Carolinian as a day train. to NYP. There is no need to have an improved time for the overnight as Charlotte's "overnight" travel is not likely to increase as much as Atlanta's loss.

Georgia deserves what it gets but the people that use the train from Georgia do not.

Amtrak gave up everything. The enforcement of the schedule is a joke since it is so bad. Our trains will be running at no better speed because we are agreeing to make the already terrible freight-caused delays permanent. I don't know how anyone can justify that.


----------



## tricia (May 8, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> OK, I am considering it. I can't come up with a business plan that has enough people who would choose to take two nights to get from NOL to NYC?? When you can fly that in like three hours; maybe four with a connection via ATL.



There are plenty of folks who'd use a schedule like this for intermediate stops--overnight NOL to ATL, for example. I'd LOVE to have this option. Ideally, of course, there'd be at least two trains per day, each way, on this route, with different schedules.


----------



## tricia (May 8, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> C'mon! Charlotte already has the Carolinian as a day train. to NYP. There is no need to have an improved time for the overnight as Charlotte's "overnight" travel is not likely to increase as much as Atlanta's loss.
> 
> ....



Yes, THIS. And the departure from ATL is 11:30, not 11PM IIRC. If it's on time.


----------



## jiml (May 8, 2021)

neroden said:


> Get over it. It's better than what we've been subjected to on the Lake Shore Limited, in both directions, at *Amtrak's own initiative*, for years, even though Amtrak itself admits that this is unprofitable and stupid.


This is a valid observation outside the context of this thread and probably doesn't alter the opinions of those with a "horse" in the Crescent race. Not only is it an example where the endpoints are the primary consideration, but let's not forget that some stations on the route have the luxury of being overlooked by 2 trains instead of just one... Cleveland comes to mind.


----------



## bms (May 8, 2021)

neroden said:


> If this schedule is actually run reliably, people will start actually.... relying on it. Rather than adding three hours to every expected trip time because of potential delays, which is what we all do now.
> 
> Which is why I think that adding less than three hours to the schedule, *and hitting it reliably*, is going to be perceived by the customers as a shorter schedule.



Others know more than me about the laws related to Amtrak, but I believe the deal when joining Amtrak is that the freight railroads are required to allow the same level of passenger service as when they joined. If a road is now insisting on a longer schedule, does that mean they're not in compliance?


----------



## bms (May 8, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> OK, I am considering it. I can't come up with a business plan that has enough people who would choose to take two nights to get from NOL to NYC?? When you can fly that in like three hours; maybe four with a connection via ATL.





tricia said:


> There are plenty of folks who'd use a schedule like this for intermediate stops--overnight NOL to ATL, for example. I'd LOVE to have this option. Ideally, of course, there'd be at least two trains per day, each way, on this route, with different schedules.



In 1952 the Southern had five named trains running between New Orleans and the Northeast Corridor. I think an 11 p.m. departure makes sense as one of five choices, not so much as the only choice.


----------



## jruff001 (May 8, 2021)

bms said:


> Others know more than me about the laws related to Amtrak, but I believe the deal when joining Amtrak is that the freight railroads are required to allow the same level of passenger service as when they joined. If a road is now insisting on a longer schedule, does that mean they're not in compliance?


No, it would not necessarily mean that.

"Compliance" in this regard would mean that if there had been a DC - Atlanta train pre-Amtrak, the host RR would have to let Amtrak operate a DC - Atlanta train.

If Amtrak insists on a specific schedule, it would be free to discuss with the host RR (and pay for) the infrastructure changes that would be needed to provide that.


----------



## bms (May 8, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> No, it would not necessarily mean that.
> 
> "Compliance" in this regard would mean that if there had been a DC - Atlanta train pre-Amtrak, the host RR would have to let Amtrak operate a DC - Atlanta train.
> 
> If Amtrak insists on a specific schedule, it would be free to discuss with the host RR (and pay for) the infrastructure changes that would be needed to provide that.



Thanks!


----------



## Anderson (May 8, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> OK, I am considering it. I can't come up with a business plan that has enough people who would choose to take two nights to get from NOL to NYC?? When you can fly that in like three hours; maybe four with a connection via ATL.


(1) As it stands, taking the train sinks most of two days (all of one and a huge chunk of the other). Sinking only a sole day might well be an improvement.
(2) You presume that NOL-NYC is a large portion of the train's ridership. It's not _nothing_ but intermediate pairs are arguably more important. Rolling to a theoretical 2345 departure from NOL would provide a morning arrival into Birmingham and midday/afternoon into Atlanta. It would be a "daylight" train as far as perhaps Lynchburg, and then run overnight to Philly/NYC. I think such a train would be quite popular in North Carolina (daylight service CLT-ATL and overnight service to New York), and I wouldn't be surprised if (were it a second train on the run) it would prove to be quite popular from SW VA heading up north (since now you can get to NYC without killing most of a day on the train).


----------



## west point (May 9, 2021)

IMHO the departure time out of NOL is the crew comes in the night before and need its HOS off duty to go out the next morning.


----------



## daybeers (May 11, 2021)

On May 3rd, the LSL changed its schedule to lengthen several portions of the schedule, namely in NY. The dwell time on 48 has now increased from a painful 1 hour, 14 minutes to an absolutely ridiculous 1 hour, 39 minutes. Why would you ever need that much padding?!? I am currently on 48 running basically on time and I did receive a new e-ticket with the changed time but thought it was just track work. Impossible to tell unless looking at transit docs since the schedules are no longer on the website  I can’t believe I’m going to waste 1:39 of my life in Rensselaer. Not like there’s anything to do in that amount of time.


----------



## Rasputin (May 11, 2021)

daybeers said:


> On May 3rd, the LSL changed its schedule to lengthen several portions of the schedule, namely in NY. The dwell time on 48 has now increased from a painful 1 hour, 14 minutes to an absolutely ridiculous 1 hour, 39 minutes. Why would you ever need that much padding?!? I am currently on 48 running basically on time and I did receive a new e-ticket with the changed time but thought it was just track work. Impossible to tell unless looking at transit docs since the schedules are no longer on the website  I can’t believe I’m going to waste 1:39 of my life in Rensselaer. Not like there’s anything to do in that amount of time.


Try to think positively. Perhaps the Albany yard crew has finally passed Switching School and they just need a few more minutes to switch the Boston sleeper in and out from the rear of the train in with the New York sleepers. which of course is where it should be.

The extra time at Albany station will also allow passengers more time to make their selections at the Albany coffee shop. A wonderful oasis on the desert of the iron road.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2021)

daybeers said:


> On May 3rd, the LSL changed its schedule to lengthen several portions of the schedule, namely in NY. The dwell time on 48 has now increased from a painful 1 hour, 14 minutes to an absolutely ridiculous 1 hour, 39 minutes.


Here is my semi-educated guess....

This one would appear to be mainly to increase schedule reliability on MNRR I think. In the past schedule LSL was expected to arrive and depart POU one minute before the MNRR to GCT which is all stops to CRT. Which meant that if the LSL was even one minute late, MNRR would release their train and then LSL will get delayed running on the tail light of a stopping train. This change puts the LSL well behind the MNRR even if it is on time and being a little tardy has no effect unless it is so late as to interfere with the next hourly MNRR departure, at which point the delay would be charged to Amtrak and not MNRR. More possible unintended consequences of getting better enforceable schedule reliability.

Now of course Amtrak could have achieved the same by shortening the stop at ALB by 20 or so minutes, but ALB being able to switch an engine in less than hour is almost unthinkable I suppose.  Or they could have had it depart at its old time and just amble along and finally sit at the home signal of POU should it arrive there too early. Afterall Amtrak has nothing arriving at POU at around that time.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (May 11, 2021)

west point said:


> IMHO the departure time out of NOL is the crew comes in the night before and need its HOS off duty to go out the next morning.



Onboard service crew is based in NOL is it not? There is a crew base there for the City of New Orleans.

The conductors and engineers need a fixed rest break, but are they not also based out of NOL?

The location of these two sets of employees make or break the required time of departure. One thinks having them located at the terminal would make it much easier to have on-time departure. Late train no big deal for the T/E and OBS.


----------



## SubwayNut (May 11, 2021)

About the Lake Shore, isn't 48 still discharge only from Albany to NYP, so maybe it's were going to pad the schedule and might leave way early?


----------



## jis (May 11, 2021)

SubwayNut said:


> About the Lake Shore, isn't 48 still discharge only from Albany to NYP, so maybe it's were going to pad the schedule and might leave way early?


Discharge only from Hudson to NYP. You can ride the LSL from ALB to NYP or any intermediate stop. So it may not leave Albany way early. Besides even if it could, the Albany crew have a well earned reputation of making sure that it leaves late no matter how early it arrives.


----------



## daybeers (May 11, 2021)

SubwayNut said:


> About the Lake Shore, isn't 48 still discharge only from Albany to NYP, so maybe it's were going to pad the schedule and might leave way early?


Yes it is, but according to the history, it doesn’t leave early. Who knows why.



jis said:


> Discharge only from Hudson to NYP. You can ride the LSL from ALB to NYP or any intermediate stop. So it may not leave Albany way early. Besides even if it could, the Albany crew have a well earned reputation of making sure that it leaves late no matter how early it arrives.


The PDF schedule from 10/12/2020 shows discharge only from Albany south on 48. Arrow shows the same.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2021)

daybeers said:


> The PDF schedule from 10/12/2020 shows discharge only from Albany south on 48. Arrow shows the same.


Since I can book a ticket from Albany to New York on it on June 9th I assume that at least on June 9th what I said is true. Hey $126 in Roomette too when I last looked. To get the more trustworthy information I go into the booking system and try to pull up a test reservation.

I don't trust any of those PDF schedules any further than I can throw Flynn, which is not too far.


----------



## daybeers (May 11, 2021)

Must be a change with the daily schedule because when trying reservations before that date, the LSL isn’t an option.


----------



## fdaley (May 11, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Must be a change with the daily schedule because when trying reservations before that date, the LSL isn’t an option.



Make sure you try the right day of the week, given that it only operates SuTuFr. When I search for Albany to New York this Friday, #48 is an option, though coach allegedly is sold out.


----------



## daybeers (May 11, 2021)

fdaley said:


> Make sure you try the right day of the week, given that it only operates SuTuFr. When I search for Albany to New York this Friday, #48 is an option, though coach allegedly is sold out.


Ahhhhh, of course, thank you!


----------



## jis (May 11, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Ahhhhh, of course, thank you!


Indeed that is why I tried June 9th, which is after June 7th by when everything is daily. I was way too lazy to look up the days of availability in the three times a week schedule.


----------



## tricia (May 11, 2021)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Onboard service crew is based in NOL is it not? There is a crew base there for the City of New Orleans.
> 
> The conductors and engineers need a fixed rest break, but are they not also based out of NOL?
> 
> The location of these two sets of employees make or break the required time of departure. One thinks having them located at the terminal would make it much easier to have on-time departure. Late train no big deal for the T/E and OBS.



The Crescent has been leaving NOL northbound at 7AM for quite a few years, so obviously it's doable. Even though the southbound has often arrived late the night before.


----------



## OBS (May 11, 2021)

tricia said:


> The Crescent has been leaving NOL northbound at 7AM for quite a few years, so obviously it's doable. Even though the southbound has often arrived late the night before.


If I am not mistaken the hours of service laws changed in last year or so requiring longer layovers....this may have been a motivator....


----------



## west point (May 11, 2021)

Sorry but the Crescent operating crews are based out of Meridian for both NOL and ATL which the Meridian crews are qualified for both routes. Saves by keeping extra board smaller. So NOL inbound crews need rest before going out on #20.


----------



## Willbridge (May 11, 2021)

Much of the discussion above assumes that the VIA Rail alternative will develop, in which there is a race to the bottom of scheduling -- schedule is fattened and instead of leading to on-time operation it becomes a new target to try and miss. However, the opposite may also occur.

After Lazar Kaganovich (aka "the butcher of the Ukraine", aka "Iron Lazar") was put in charge of Soviet railways a number of division superintendents and others left for new opportunities and schedule adherence improved. However, when things are going right on long-distance trains, the dwells at division points result in a lot of extended smoke breaks and shopping. Don't let your kids off the train unless you need a stuffed panda.


----------



## HammerJack (May 12, 2021)

I was on an on-time 48 a few months ago at Albany. I flat out left the station and sat down at a restaurant for a late lunch. Made it back in time to watch the switching. Sure beats the cafe food! Lol


----------



## daybeers (May 15, 2021)

So now that the Crescent gets into NOLA past 9 PM, I imagine Lake Ponchartrain wouldn’t be too visible? Are there other options for getting to see it?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 15, 2021)

daybeers said:


> So now that the Crescent gets into NOLA past 9 PM, I imagine Lake Ponchartrain wouldn’t be too visible? Are there other options for getting to see it?


Take the Crescent northbound.


----------



## bms (May 15, 2021)

It looks like every train I take is going to be changed to a worse schedule soon enough. Now I feel really gullible for believing that new leadership might lead to improvements in the service.


----------



## daybeers (May 15, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Take the Crescent northbound.


Taking the CONO out.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 16, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Taking the CONO out.


I’m doing the same trip in October. It’s the reverse of what I did in 2019, so I’ve seen the lake - it was a neat ride across.


----------



## me_little_me (May 16, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I’m doing the same trip in October. It’s the reverse of what I did in 2019, so I’ve seen the lake - it was a neat ride across.


I've seen it lots of times but I still would love to see it although the likelihood is low since Crescent travel is no longer a viable option for us.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2021)

daybeers said:


> Taking the CONO out.


At least you will get to see the Bonnet Carré Spillway which quite often stops CONO in its tracks when it is opened during flood seasons. Maybe you will even get to see the Lake in the distance on the right hand side, and the spillway gates on the left hand side heading North on CONO.

How far along is the new rail trestle which they were supposedly working on?


----------



## flitcraft (May 16, 2021)

When we lived in New Orleans--more than thirty years ago--we used to hear about the Spillway on the news during flooding season. It was pronounced by the newsreaders "Bonnie Carry" and it wasn't till years later, looking it up online, that I learned its true spelling. (This is true of a lot of the main streets in New Orleans as well--Chartres is pronounced 'Charters' and Burgundy as 'bur GUND ee.' That's how we could spot the tourists.)


----------



## jis (May 16, 2021)

flitcraft said:


> When we lived in New Orleans--more than thirty years ago--we used to hear about the Spillway on the news during flooding season. It was pronounced by the newsreaders "Bonnie Carry" and it wasn't till years later, looking it up online, that I learned its true spelling. (This is true of a lot of the main streets in New Orleans as well--Chartres is pronounced 'Charters' and Burgundy as 'bur GUND ee.' That's how we could spot the tourists.)


Yeah the random choice of occasionally using something close to a French pronunciation and at other times some random anglicized pronunciation i New Orleans is quite interesting, to say the least.


----------



## niemi24s (May 16, 2021)

I've noticed many Americans have an aversion to the pronunciation of French names, such as the capital of South Dakota and river that flows through Minot ND. 

We seem to prefer the Huckleberry Hound versions.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 16, 2021)

niemi24s said:


> I've noticed many Americans have an aversion to the pronunciation of French names, such as the capital of South Dakota and river that flows through Minot ND.
> 
> We seem to prefer the Huckleberry Hound versions.


Why not?


----------



## Rasputin (May 16, 2021)

jis said:


> At least you will get to see the Bonnet Carré Spillway which quite often stops CONO in its tracks when it is opened during flood seasons. Maybe you will even get to see the Lake in the distance on the right hand side, and the spillway gates on the left hand side heading North on CONO.
> 
> How far along is the new rail trestle which they were supposedly working on?


When there is a New Orleans - Jackson bustitution you also get a nice view of the spillway and the railroad trestle. If you are lucky you may also see the equipment for your train deadheading from New Orleans to Jackson since the equipment does go across the trestle all the way to New Orleans, just without passengers. During our 2019 bustitution we almost saw the meet between 58 and 59 but I can't recall if this was north or south of the spillway.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 16, 2021)

There will be no more CONO bustitution since the new CN spillway bridge is opened.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 16, 2021)

daybeers said:


> So now that the Crescent gets into NOLA past 9 PM, I imagine Lake Ponchartrain wouldn’t be too visible? Are there other options for getting to see it?


The part of Lake Ponchatrain crossed by the Crescent from Slidell is the narrowest part of the lake and is only a 5 mile crossing. It's similar to the biew you get from the nearby I 10 crossing, which I did once, and it was pretty impressive. But I would think if you really want to get an idea of how big the lake is, stay in New Orleans an extra day, rent a car and drive over the Causeway, which is a 20+ mile crossing. Maybe some tour operators run bus tours across, I don't know that,but they should. 

If you drive back through Ponchatula and I 55, you'll see that most of I55 is a bridge crossing a swamp. In fact, it seems that the only way you can get to New Orleans is by crossing a bridge. It's kind of like the Manhattan of the South.


----------



## daybeers (May 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The part of Lake Ponchatrain crossed by the Crescent from Slidell is the narrowest part of the lake and is only a 5 mile crossing. It's similar to the biew you get from the nearby I 10 crossing, which I did once, and it was pretty impressive. But I would think if you really want to get an idea of how big the lake is, stay in New Orleans an extra day, rent a car and drive over the Causeway, which is a 20+ mile crossing. Maybe some tour operators run bus tours across, I don't know that,but they should.
> 
> If you drive back through Ponchatula and I 55, you'll see that most of I55 is a bridge crossing a swamp. In fact, it seems that the only way you can get to New Orleans is by crossing a bridge. It's kind of like the Manhattan of the South.


I'll be staying in NOLA for a few days, so I'll try to fit in a Turo car rental.


----------



## railiner (May 17, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Maybe some tour operators run bus tours across, I don't know that,but they should.


Back before Greyhound acquired Continental Trailways, the Causeway was Trailways’ regular route from New Orleans, north.
They did have this tragedy in the past…





Lake Pontchartrain, LA Bus Plunges Into Lake, June 1964 | GenDisasters ... Genealogy in Tragedy, Disasters, Fires, Floods







www.gendisasters.com


----------



## Everydaymatters (May 18, 2021)

I was looking at the scheduling for the TE to and from Bloomington/Normal on Sept. 23. I am curious why #2 is not shown??? The schedule shows #22 with a departure time of 7:00 a.m. If #2 was sold out, wouldn't that show up that way?


----------



## jis (May 18, 2021)

Everydaymatters said:


> I was looking at the scheduling for the TE to and from Bloomington/Normal on Sept. 23. I am curious why #2 is not shown??? The schedule shows #22 with a departure time of 7:00 a.m. If #2 was sold out, wouldn't that show up that way?


Since when does #2 go to Bloomington/Normal?


----------



## Trogdor (May 18, 2021)

jis said:


> Since when does #2 go to Bloomington/Normal?


Further, even if you’re thinking 422, keep in mind that is not a daily service.


----------



## lizpackslight (May 18, 2021)

daybeers said:


> So now that the Crescent gets into NOLA past 9 PM, I imagine Lake Ponchartrain wouldn’t be too visible? Are there other options for getting to see it?



Wait. The southbound Crescent schedule changed as well? I'm booked on it on 5/31 and I didn't get a revised ticket.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 18, 2021)

lizpackslight said:


> Wait. The southbound Crescent schedule changed as well? I'm booked on it on 5/31 and I didn't get a revised ticket.


I can’t remember when the new schedule takes place. It might be after 5/31.


----------



## lizpackslight (May 18, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I can’t remember when the new schedule takes place. It might be after 5/31.


Oh, I bet that's it. It probably changes in between my trip down and my trip back home.


----------



## Cal (May 18, 2021)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I can’t remember when the new schedule takes place. It might be after 5/31.


I believe it is after 5/31

Edited to make it clearer


----------



## jis (May 18, 2021)

Cal said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > I can’t remember when the new schedule takes place. It might be after 5/31.
> ...



No. not on 5/31. It changes on the day it goes daily, which 6/6/21.

All it takes is to check the schedule in a test booking on amtrak.com, instead of just believing random things and then propagating it as information.


----------



## Cal (May 18, 2021)

jis said:


> No. not on 5/31. It changes on the day it goes daily, which 6/6/21.
> 
> All it takes is to check the schedule in a test booking on amtrak.com, instead of just believing random things and then propagating it as information.


I meant I believe the change is after 5/31. Sorry if that wasn't clear


----------



## zephyr17 (May 18, 2021)

jis said:


> No. not on 5/31. It changes on the day it goes daily, which 6/6/21.
> 
> All it takes is to check the schedule in a test booking on amtrak.com, instead of just believing random things and then propagating it as information.


Would have been nice if they posted the old and new PDF schedules with the effective date for a schedule change like they used to.

Would nice if they posted PDF schedules in a clearly accessible place on their website.

But that would be customer friendly. Can't have that.


----------



## thully (May 18, 2021)

You can now see a schedule for a particular city pair and date range (within a week or so) by clicking the “Schedules” link on the Amtrak home page. It will then show the available trains between that origin/destination pair with depart/arrival times for those and all intermediate stops. Perhaps not as convenient as published timetables for all routes, but it is at least a bit better than just doing a test booking…


----------



## PaTrainFan (May 18, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Would have been nice if they posted the old and new PDF schedules with the effective date for a schedule change like they used to.
> 
> Would nice if they posted PDF schedules in a clearly accessible place on their website.
> 
> But that would be customer friendly. Can't have that.



No worries, RPA is on it! (please give more money)


----------



## me_little_me (May 18, 2021)

thully said:


> You can now see a schedule for a particular city pair and date range (within a week or so) by clicking the “Schedules” link on the Amtrak home page. It will then show the available trains between that origin/destination pair with depart/arrival times for those and all intermediate stops. Perhaps not as convenient as published timetables for all routes, but it is at least a bit better than just doing a test booking…


Yeah, like holding your breath for a second reduce your chance of catching Covid - for that second.

It's just garbage that Amtrak management does not provide online TRAIN SCHEDULES. Giving that info for one single pair of cities for one single day does not constitute a schedule. It constitutes a deliberate attempt to discourage passengers from traveling.


----------



## Everydaymatters (May 18, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> Further, even if you’re thinking 422, keep in mind that is not a daily service.


My bad. Yes, I was thinking 422.


----------



## Rasputin (May 26, 2021)

Do I understand that the Crescent is going to be departing New Orleans at 9 a.m. which is the same time that the Sunset departs New Orleans? That ought to make for a lot of confusion.


----------



## Palmetto (May 26, 2021)

9:15 AM, arrive Atlanta at 11:00 PM, if on time.


----------



## Cal (May 26, 2021)

Rasputin said:


> Do I understand that the Crescent is going to be departing New Orleans at 9 a.m. which is the same time that the Sunset departs New Orleans? That ought to make for a lot of confusion.


That will indeed be interesting


----------



## me_little_me (May 26, 2021)

Rasputin said:


> Do I understand that the Crescent is going to be departing New Orleans at 9 a.m. which is the same time that the Sunset departs New Orleans? That ought to make for a lot of confusion.


What will that poor rent-a-cop do who tries to throw his weight around? His head will explode!

He insists that everyone have their ID out for the conductor but the conductor has only wanted to see my ticket or Q code IMHE. To look at all those IDs right before boarding would drive him/her nuts.


----------



## west point (May 27, 2021)

Wonder with the very close departures wonder which train will get routed on the wrong line at CP Carrollton ave.


----------



## jis (May 27, 2021)

west point said:


> Wonder with the very close departures wonder which train will get routed on the wrong line at CP Carrollton ave.


Sunset is at 9am and the Crescent is at 9:15am. If the dispatcher cannot route two trains properly 15 minutes apart they should consider going into the sidewalk peanut vending business or something like that instead.


----------



## jiml (May 27, 2021)

jis said:


> Sunset is at 9am and the Crescent is at 9:15am. If the dispatcher cannot route two trains properly 15 minutes apart they should consider going into the sidewalk peanut vending business or something like that instead.


Amtrak management?


----------



## jis (May 27, 2021)

jiml said:


> Amtrak management?


Amtrak dispatchers in general are actually amazingly good.


----------



## me_little_me (May 27, 2021)

jis said:


> Amtrak dispatchers in general are actually amazingly good.


I think what was meant by jiml was that if they are that incompetent as to be unable to correctly route 2 trains 15 minutes apart, they could also move into Amtrak management in lieu of becoming peanut vendors - which probably has higher qualification requirements and also licensing rules. At least, that's my guess.


----------



## jruff001 (May 27, 2021)

Ba-dump-bump. Whomp whomp.

Yet another tedious joke about the supposed incompetence of Amtrak's management.

(And for the record, no, I am not, nor have I ever been, in Amtrak's management.)

Doesn't Amtrak management throughout the years get ANY credit for keeping some semblance of a long distance network going against all odds for 50 years, despite the headwinds of freight/host RR hatred, Congressional budgetary restraints and cheap airfares?

[Yes, I know Flexible Dining is gross, and the Pacific Parlor Car is sorely missed despite impossibly high maintenance costs, and OBS crew are often unacceptably rude, and all that. But talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees!]


----------



## neroden (May 28, 2021)

Sure, Claytor gets credit. So does Boardman.

CURRENT management? I could do better. Not kidding. FFS, every railroad in the world *except Amtrak* publishes timetables. This is spectacular incompetence.

The latest round of layoffs & buyouts seems to have lost a lot of the competent people.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 28, 2021)

Just to put an underline on the Crescent schedule change that kicked this whole thread off, Amtrak did put out a service advisory on the schedule change:









Amtrak Advisory | Roanoke Train 156 and Crescent Service Schedule Changes







www.amtrak.com





The service advisories are a bit buried
Site Tools/Service Alerts and Notices/Passenger Advisories.

The good news appears to be that yummy flex dining breakfasts will still be served departing New Orleans.


----------



## jruff001 (May 28, 2021)

neroden said:


> FFS, every railroad in the world *except Amtrak* publishes timetables.


SNCF does not publish a printed system timetable.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 28, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> SNCF does not publish a printed system timetable.


But does it publish PDFs online for individual lines? Apples to apples.

Amtrak has not published a printed system timetable for several years either. That isn't what current controversy here is about


----------



## chrsjrcj (Jun 2, 2021)

Boredom plus too much free time at work led me to edit the previous Crescent pdf schedule with the new times. The font is different so text will look a little odd in some places. This was mostly a project to keep me occupied, but maybe some people will find it useful.


----------



## acelafan (Jun 2, 2021)

Thank you, chrsjrcj, for making that updated Crescent timetable. It's now part of the Amtrak Timetable Archives....your work is very appreciated!


----------



## lizpackslight (Jun 10, 2021)

Cal said:


> That will indeed be interesting


It made for a pretty crowded station. I felt for the agent who called for boarding. She had no mic and had to yell instructions through her mask. It went fine, though. I saw only one person almost miss the Sunset and have to run for it.


----------



## saxman (Jun 10, 2021)

At least NOL has different boarding "gates."


----------



## lizpackslight (Jun 10, 2021)

saxman said:


> At least NOL has different boarding "gates."


----------



## merkelman06 (Jun 10, 2021)

NS does not handle the train any different with the new schedule vs the old, at least the first few days. Since going into effect on 6/6, it still loses an hour or more between MEI and BHM and has been an hour late or more into NOL every day since going daily. Of course we knew changing the schedule and added padding was not gonna help. Should have just left it on the old schedule if it’s not gonna make any difference.


----------



## bratkinson (Jun 10, 2021)

Maybe about 10 years ago, Trains Magazine had a lengthy article about passenger train scheduling. The author had much input from the Amtrak 'schedule guru', who was near retirement at that time.

I got two major takeaways from the article:

1. Going back to early Amtrak, passengers much prefer a slow train that is usually on time vs a fast train that is rarely on time. Other than repeat passengers or railfans that remember such and such a train used to be scheduled for 18 hours and now it's 19 hours, few passengers would realize it's slower than it used to be.

2. A general 'rule' about schedules is that the train will 'consume' all the time in the schedule and then some. Lengthening the schedule does NOT mean it will be on time more often. Instead, it means conductors need not be so 'urgent' to get passengers off and on at each top. So the Crescent will become like the Lakeshore Ltd where 15-20 minute stops are normal at smaller stations. The same is true in business for most projects...projects will 'expand' to fill whatever time is allotted to them. In my contract programming days, we called it 'scope creep'.


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2021)

Norfolk Southern had better talk to its dispatchers; I sense a lawsuit coming next year if they don't start dispatching the train on time.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 12, 2021)

neroden said:


> Norfolk Southern had better talk to its dispatchers; I sense a lawsuit coming next year if they don't start dispatching the train on time.


Or STB enforcement action once the 6 month monitoring only "grace" period is up.

At first glance, this may be shaping up to be the test whether the STB and FRA are willing to actually use their new passenger delay enforcement powers


----------



## IndyLions (Jun 12, 2021)

Isn’t there some sort of 6 months grace period before enforcement happens? Management could be telling the dispatchers to ignore passenger train priority for a while.

Or maybe they’re just unable to manage a network full of 3 mile trains because it’s impossible (and should never be allowed). 

Probably the latter…


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 12, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Or STB enforcement action once the 6 month monitoring only "grace" period is up.
> 
> At first glance, this may be shaping up to be the test whether the STB and FRA are willing to actually use their new passenger delay enforcement powers


What enforcement actions does the STB have available?


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 12, 2021)

bratkinson said:


> The author had much input from the Amtrak 'schedule guru', *who was near retirement at that time*.




That’s news to me.


----------



## OBS (Jun 12, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> That’s news to me.


I think he is referring to the article many years ago featuring James Larson (spelling?)


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 12, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> What enforcement actions does the STB have available?


Probably fines, but the STB has a wide range of options. The problem was until now, no regulator had any authority to take enforcement action for Amtrak passenger delay, despite Amtrak's statutory right to priority.

The railroads fought this since 2008 when the law was passed and after it was upheld at the Supreme Court, then fought the passenger delay metric the STB proposed (all passengers delayed 15 minutes or more at their destination station). We are now in the 6 month "grace" period on the Crescent where the STB will monitor, but not take enforcement actions.

The RRs fought this hard for 12 years. Hopefully, the FRA and STB will take enforcement actions showing it was worthy of the fight.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 12, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Isn’t there some sort of 6 months grace period before enforcement happens? Management could be telling the dispatchers to ignore passenger train priority for a while.
> 
> Or maybe they’re just unable to manage a network full of 3 mile trains because it’s impossible (and should never be allowed).
> 
> Probably the latter…


Yes, there is a 6 month period once the newly negotiated schedule comes into effect where the STB will monitor, but not take enforcement action.

Hopefully, after 6 months, if this keeps up, the STB will go to NS and say the results are bad, and going forward you will have x fine every day the passenger delay exceeds y.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 12, 2021)

OBS said:


> I think he is referring to the article many years ago featuring James Larson (spelling?)


I recognize the name from cc's on my correspondence with Art Lloyd (Western Amtrak PR and politics) in the early years of Amtrak. I think that James Larson was part of the inner circle at Amtrak of top managers who wanted to make a success of rail passenger service (see attached).

They've had some other good people in planning and scheduling but then there's a change at the top and people walk or are pushed out. David Gunn brought in well-regarded John Tucker from SEPTA. John's legacy was the addition of one round-trip to the Chicago--Milwaukee service while using one less train-set. He was gathering info for more (he interviewed me in Denver for almost two hours on Western lines), but he died before he could try making changes. I could mention more names but I think they're still doing consulting work.

And, yes, too much fat in a schedule will not cure schedule adherence issues. I experimented with gradually doing that on a bus route and had several bad results.


----------



## railiner (Jun 12, 2021)

Jim Larson, was Amtrak's vice president of operation's. I had the good fortune to be permitted to ride a couple of "test train's" he ran back in the '80's when I was an employee. I wasn't aware of just what his involvement was in constructing schedules, other than overseeing them. He came to Amtrak from the C&NW, and with his creds, was a well-respected liason between Amtrak, and the host freight railroads.
I came across this publication attributed to him...click on the different images...





__





The Art of Scheduling Trains The Impact of Delays and The Art of Schedule Analysis: AMTRAK, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, James L. Larson: Amazon.com: Books


The Art of Scheduling Trains The Impact of Delays and The Art of Schedule Analysis [AMTRAK, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, James L. Larson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Art of Scheduling Trains The Impact of Delays and The Art of Schedule Analysis



www.amazon.com


----------



## Palmland (Jun 13, 2021)

railiner said:


> I came across this publication attributed to him...click on the different images...


Too bad this isn’t available. I suspect current day Amtrak could learn a lot from it. The phrase ‘those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it‘ comes to mind.

i wonder if Amtrak has hired any railroad dispatchers. I suspect many old heads are frustrated with their jobs now and could provide some insight and useful suggestions if hired by Amtrak.


----------



## railiner (Jun 13, 2021)

Palmland said:


> i wonder if Amtrak has hired any railroad dispatchers.


I guess you mean, besides the ones that dispatch their owned tracks?


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 13, 2021)

OBS said:


> I think he is referring to the article many years ago featuring James Larson (spelling?)



That would have been far more than 10 years ago. From what I can tell, he retired in 1998, 12 years before I started there.


----------



## railiner (Jun 13, 2021)

More on JL Larson...





__





National Railroad Passenger Corporation / Amtrak : James L. Larson Operations and Planning files






oac.cdlib.org


----------



## Palmland (Jun 13, 2021)

railiner said:


> I guess you mean, besides the ones that dispatch their owned tracks?


Yes, hire a few in their operating department to work with freight railroads and keep them honest on developing schedules and measuring performance.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 13, 2021)

Palmland said:


> Yes, hire a few in their operating department to work with freight railroads and keep them honest on developing schedules and measuring performance.



Amtrak already works closely with the freight railroads in developing schedules. Any schedule change over a host railroad has to be approved by that railroad, which, in theory, represents that railroad’s acceptance of responsibility to operate the train according to said schedule. Anything that doesn’t work operationally should already be identified by the host railroad prior to their approval.

I’m not sure what you think would be accomplished by hiring former freight railroad dispatchers that couldn’t already be accomplished by the freight railroads upholding their end of the bargain that they agree to whenever they approve a schedule change.


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2021)

I get the impression that the core problem in this scheduling and OTP struggle is that in reality significantly more that 50% of the operations on many freight lines are what in airline dispatching parlance would be characterized as "Irregular Operations". Given the limited track resources for the demand that is placed on them together with essentially very loosy-goosy operating plan, if there is one at all, is it surprising that it is hard to keep anything on schedule according to what in reality is a non-existent plan? None of this is really accidental. It is a calculated tradeoff.


----------



## neroden (Jun 13, 2021)

jis said:


> I get the impression that the core problem in this scheduling and OTP struggle is that in reality significantly more that 50% of the operations on many freight lines are what in airline dispatching parlance would be characterized as "Irregular Operations". Given the limited track resources for the demand that is placed on them together with essentially very loosy-goosy operating plan, if there is one at all, is it surprising that it is hard to keep anything on schedule according to what in reality is a non-existent plan? None of this is really accidental. It is a calculated tradeoff.


The repeated complaints from freight shippers that their cars aren't arriving on time do tend to point to total, utter incompetence at most of the Class I railroads -- at least CSX, NS, and CN. It seems like on many lines they are not running anything resembling regular operations of a railroad. This is actually why I support nationalization; it's not just for passenger service, it's needed for freight service too.


----------



## Palmland (Jun 13, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> I’m not sure what you think would be accomplished by hiring former freight railroad dispatchers that couldn’t already be accomplished by the freight railroads upholding their end of the bargain that they agree to whenever they approve a schedule change.


It’s not necessary if you believe Amtrak has the necessary competence to negotiate effectively with the railroad. The more you understand about the business and concerns of the company you are negotiating with the easier it should be to anticipate objections, prepare a rebuttal, and come to a mutual agreement on the issue at hand. I’m not sure Amtrak with their recent house cleaning still has that competence.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jun 13, 2021)

neroden said:


> The repeated complaints from freight shippers that their cars aren't arriving on time do tend to point to total, utter incompetence at most of the Class I railroads -- at least CSX, NS, and CN. It seems like on many lines they are not running anything resembling regular operations of a railroad. This is actually why I support nationalization; it's not just for passenger service, it's needed for freight service too.



Wasn't "precision scheduled railroading" supposed to take care of this? (I say this with sarcasm intended.)


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 13, 2021)

After reading this post thoroughly, are we really supposed to believe that Amtrak will be adding the new "corridor" routes" proposed? Apparently there isn't enough rail space to efficiently run what is already there.


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2021)

Palmland said:


> It’s not necessary if you believe Amtrak has the necessary competence to negotiate effectively with the railroad. The more you understand about the business and concerns of the company you are negotiating with the easier it should be to anticipate objections, prepare a rebuttal, and come to a mutual agreement on the issue at hand. I’m not sure Amtrak with their recent house cleaning still has that competence.


Most of the Class Is -- specifically NS and CSX -- don't seem to know their own business or understand what their customers want. CSX has been going through many cycles of mismanagement to cook the quarterly earnings reports in order to juice the CEO's take-home pay, while NS got obsessed with a non-functional "automated dispatching" system. 

It is quite hard to come to a mutual agreement with incompetent lunatics whose concerns make no sense, who are trying to get out with a golden parachute, whose concerns have nothing to do with business. BNSF is in the hands of a long-term owner who wants to run a railroad -- with BNSF, it should be easy to come to terms with them.

With CSX, only "We will buy this railroad from you" seems to work, at least in the last 30 years (and I'm saying this having watched CSX behavior for over 30 years); the same was true with CN under Hunter Harrison, and is probably still true; while NS seems easier to deal with, again, "We will buy this railroad from you" seems to be the negotiating tactic they respond best to.


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> After reading this post thoroughly, are we really supposed to believe that Amtrak will be adding the new "corridor" routes" proposed? Apparently there isn't enough rail space to efficiently run what is already there.


Scranton to New York is fresh, government-owned right-of-way. Should be able to make it happen.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 14, 2021)

neroden said:


> The repeated complaints from freight shippers that their cars aren't arriving on time do tend to point to total, utter incompetence at most of the Class I railroads -- at least CSX, NS, and CN. It seems like on many lines they are not running anything resembling regular operations of a railroad. This is actually why I support nationalization; it's not just for passenger service, it's needed for freight service too.


So you want some Amtrak-like entity to run the freight railroads? Because the government would do a better job?


----------



## west point (Jun 14, 2021)

Freight RR dispatchers appear to be overloaded. Look at how many dispatchers on the WASH - NYP Amtrak RR as compared to almost any route. A dispatcher IMHO should only have to be busy 50% of time during normal operations. That way when the abnormal situation begins to occur which will happens several times a shift the dispatcher will have time to rectify the situation. No train should ever have to wait 5 minutes or more to get an answer from a dispatcher..


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 14, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> So you want some Amtrak-like entity to run the freight railroads? Because the government would do a better job?


Actually, the government probably would do a better job than these bloated corporate entities that are being managed so that the CEOs and other top executives can juice up their take-home on the basis of short-term quarterly financial performance. It's a telling point that the U.S. Armed Forces aren't privatized, even though throughout history mercenary armies have been a very profitable business.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 15, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> So you want some Amtrak-like entity to run the freight railroads? Because the government would do a better job?



It’s interesting to see how strong certain dogma can run that, even in the face of abject failure by the private sector in certain areas important to society (i.e. transportation), the automatic response is to imply the government couldn’t do better.

The main reason the government does poorly at certain things is because people vote for politicians whose main objective is to ensure the government does poorly at those things in order to prove their foregone conclusion that the government can’t properly do certain things. Otherwise, it’s all just people, and they don’t magically change their DNA based on the organizational structure they fall under.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 15, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> It’s interesting to see how strong certain dogma can run that, even in the face of abject failure by the private sector in certain areas important to society (i.e. transportation), the automatic response is to imply the government couldn’t do better.


To be clear, I didn't mean to imply the government necessarily couldn't do better.

I was responding to what I thought was an odd comment here where the dogma seems to be that Amtrak management sucks and if only private companies ran long distance trains in the U.S. there would be more of them, better service and (of course, the holy grail of this website) REAL DINING CARS! (And all that would be profitable, naturally.)

But when freight trains interfere with Amtrak schedules, suddenly the whole transportation sector is an abject failure warranting a government takeover.


----------



## neroden (Jun 15, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> So you want some Amtrak-like entity to run the freight railroads? Because the government would do a better job?



Frankly, yes.

I mean, BNSF is doing fine, leave it be. But CSX... ye gods, have you seen the freight shipper complaints? The last time they were getting good service in the Northeast, it was when the track was owned by something called... oh right... CONRAIL.

If you haven't heard of it, Conrail was an Amtrak-like entity to run the freight railroads in the Northeast because the government could do a better job than private industry (which had gone bankrupt).

From the moment Conrail was privatized, freight service went downhill, and when it was broken up by NS and CSX, service REALLY went downhill. Should have stayed in public hands.


----------



## neroden (Jun 15, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> To be clear, I didn't mean to imply the government necessarily couldn't do better.
> 
> I was responding to what I thought was an odd comment here where the dogma seems to be that Amtrak management sucks and if only private companies ran long distance trains in the U.S. there would be more of them, better service and (of course, the holy grail of this website) REAL DINING CARS! (And all that would be profitable, naturally.)
> 
> But when freight trains interfere with Amtrak schedules, suddenly the whole transportation sector is an abject failure warranting a government takeover.


You're hearing two different groups of people.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 17, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> I was responding to what I thought was an odd comment here where the dogma seems to be that Amtrak management sucks and if only private companies ran long distance trains in the U.S. there would be more of them, better service



Perhaps Amtrak Management sucks, but, if Amtrak isn't exactly a "private company," it's not a government agency, either. It's a sort of private company that happens to be owned by the government. Amtrak employees aren't civil servants, and the company is subject to all the regulations that a privately-owned railroad is subject to. 

The reason it exists is because private railroads, funded by private capital, weren't able to provide profitable passenger service. Yet it's a reasonable political consensus across party lines that some sort of passenger rail is a needed public good. Thus, Amtrak was created, funded with capital from the taxpayers. (And this was done during a Republican presidential administration, by the way.) The likely kind of "privatization" that one might see for passenger rail would be for the government to pay a contractor to run the trains. Is that really all that different from Amtrak? The main difference is that any private investors who would be willing to do this would want a high rate of return on their investment. Under public ownership, the objective is to provide a public service. In an economical way, yes, but the managers at Amtrak, whatever their faults, are not running the operation to make themselves rich.


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 17, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> It’s interesting to see how strong certain dogma can run that, even in the face of abject failure by the private sector in certain areas important to society (i.e. transportation), the automatic response is to imply the government couldn’t do better.
> 
> The main reason the government does poorly at certain things is because people vote for politicians whose main objective is to ensure the government does poorly at those things in order to prove their foregone conclusion that the government can’t properly do certain things. Otherwise, it’s all just people, and they don’t magically change their DNA based on the organizational structure they fall under.


I disagree. My experience in government (i.e. the military) is that there is a lack of "profit motivation" in government that is not necessarily better in private industry when run by executives who think only of themselves and not the company. So bad government operations occur where management doesn't think about ways it can do better because there is no financial incentive to do so and bad corporate operations occur when management only thinks short term for their personal betterment (quarterly) rather than long term for the good of the company (investing in improvements, people and customers).
Good government exists. Good private ownership exists. Neither is what the people at the top of most government agencies or private corporations want. It has little to do with the fact that some politicians want government operations to look bad.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 18, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> I disagree. My experience in government (i.e. the military) is that there is a lack of "profit motivation" in government that is not necessarily better in private industry when run by executives who think only of themselves and not the company. So bad government operations occur where management doesn't think about ways it can do better because there is no financial incentive to do so and bad corporate operations occur when management only thinks short term for their personal betterment (quarterly) rather than long term for the good of the company (investing in improvements, people and customers).
> Good government exists. Good private ownership exists. Neither is what the people at the top of most government agencies or private corporations want. It has little to do with the fact that some politicians want government operations to look bad.



My experience in government (transportation) is that there are plenty of folks in lower and middle levels of the organization that have enough interest and enthusiasm to do things right, innovate, etc., but who can't get anything done because upper levels are too busy worrying about what Politician X is going to think and/or how it's going to look to his/her constituents. And there are plenty of edicts from on high that are forced to be implemented because of a political mandate that makes zero logical sense, and everybody knows it makes zero sense, but generally everyone feels powerless to do anything about it (the dining car mess over the past few years at Amtrak is a perfect example, but by no means the only one). Granted, it's not always an intentional "make government look bad" move by every politician (though there is absolutely plenty of it). Some of it is just politicians asserting their influence because they want to feel important. But that's not significantly different from companies with bad management (of which there are plenty).

It's just a fallacy that profit motive is what drives people to do good things, rather than a personal sense of accomplishment and pride.


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 18, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> It's just a fallacy that profit motive is what drives people to do good things, rather than a personal sense of accomplishment and pride.


Profit is a big motive. For he higher ups, they want to be shown what will be the benefit (in $$) of doing something. That means middle management is going to have to present a proposal in that light and the lower ranks are going to have to convince those middle managers that they should propose a change to the uppers on the grounds that it benefits financially.

And if people are incentivized to think $$, even the lower ranks will come up with good ideas that save money, do things more efficiently and improve customer experience (which relates to improving the bottom line). In the old days at my company, profit sharing was a strong motive and often in our field office, there were comments from us at the bottom that the managers were being wasteful when we would say "You are spending my profit sharing". In government and bad companies, I found that concept lacking so waste was tolerated because nobody cared.

Just look at Amtrak's failure to sufficiently monetize their diners and cafes by running out of items to sell in cafes and denying coach passengers access to diners- even before Covid. Did nobody care enough to say "We can make more money if we have more to sell!" instead of accepting the failure? There is no incentive for an employee with no profit-sharing or other financial incentive to push against lazy management and no incentive for middle management to confront upper management in spite of politicians who just want to point out the increasing subsidies as a stick to push for elimination. Had upper management made more effort to assign a better portion of fares towards dining and really pushed to always have things to sell on board, in stations and online, they would have had a better chance to keep the Micas of the world away. As it was, they took away coach diner income, carried even less in the cafe and "proved" Mica's point. Worse, the execs pull the rug out from their congressional supporters.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 18, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Profit is a big motive. For he higher ups, they want to be shown what will be the benefit (in $$) of doing something. That means middle management is going to have to present a proposal in that light and the lower ranks are going to have to convince those middle managers that they should propose a change to the uppers on the grounds that it benefits financially.
> 
> And if people are incentivized to think $$, even the lower ranks will come up with good ideas that save money, do things more efficiently and improve customer experience (which relates to improving the bottom line). In the old days at my company, profit sharing was a strong motive and often in our field office, there were comments from us at the bottom that the managers were being wasteful when we would say "You are spending my profit sharing". In government and bad companies, I found that concept lacking so waste was tolerated because nobody cared.
> 
> Just look at Amtrak's failure to sufficiently monetize their diners and cafes by running out of items to sell in cafes and denying coach passengers access to diners- even before Covid. Did nobody care enough to say "We can make more money if we have more to sell!" instead of accepting the failure? There is no incentive for an employee with no profit-sharing or other financial incentive to push against lazy management and no incentive for middle management to confront upper management in spite of politicians who just want to point out the increasing subsidies as a stick to push for elimination. Had upper management made more effort to assign a better portion of fares towards dining and really pushed to always have things to sell on board, in stations and online, they would have had a better chance to keep the Micas of the world away. As it was, they took away coach diner income, carried even less in the cafe and "proved" Mica's point. Worse, the execs pull the rug out from their congressional supporters.



I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this. NS and CSX (and CN) are operational disasters because “profit motive” led execs to cut back on everything in the interest of improving the short-term income statement.

The only thing that will keep the Micas of the world away are not voting them into office. They are not seriously interested in fiscal responsibility. They have a dogmatic view of the world and do what they can to see it through.

Amtrak has had many experiments with food service, including some that improved the offerings (for a few years, the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight each offered upgraded service with the justification that the improvements would yield net revenue increases greater than their expense increases). The original concept of the Cross Country Cafe car was to offer a continuous daytime meal service with a revamped menu that was better than cafe car offerings but not as formal as the dining car (I was even a passenger on a test run of the service early in its development). Various other things have been done, all without “profit motive.”

The Pacific Parlour Car was added to the Starlight for a couple of decades by employees at Amtrak interested in offering good service, without any profit motive (there’s clearly no “profit sharing” at Amtrak, and performance bonuses are given at the judgment of the managers, and financial performance of their specific initiatives isn’t necessarily a requirement).

A lot of that stuff got trashed fairly quickly in recent years by legislative mandates, and/or upper management installed by a politically appointed board who were trying to adhere to said mandates.

The Micas of the world don’t give a damn about whether or not any of those experiments are a success. The requirement that food service losses go to zero means even if those things cut losses in half, it would still be a failure and be in violation of a legislated mandate. And that was the whole point of the mandate.


----------

