# Flynn on Amtrak



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 16, 2021)

The CEO of Amtrak Thinks Americans Are Ready for Trains Again


----------



## tricia (Mar 16, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> The CEO of Amtrak Thinks Americans Are Ready for Trains Again



A few quotes from this interview, specifically about long-distance service:

*...Does that require moving resources away from the money-losing long-distance routes that run across the country?*

No. Many of the communities we serve have limited alternatives for transportation other than driving a car. The administration and the Hill have prioritized long-distance services because they believe that while it may be losing money, the larger economic benefit is greater than the cost of providing service on the long-distance routes. And I support that....

...*There’s been a return of low-cost sleeper trains in Europe, where they’re catching on with young people who don’t want to fly, and maybe want the romance of the experience or something like that. Is that something that you have looked at for Amtrak?*

Right now, our sleepers are essentially fully utilized. I told you that our ridership is in the low 20s right now, compared to pre-COVID times. But our sleepers, when we look at our long-distance trains, we’re actually operating not at 20 percent of demand, we’re operating at 34 to 35 percent of normal on three-day-a-week service down from seven. Several months ago, we had to bring sleeper cars out of storage and put them in service because our sleepers are simply sold out. Travelers like the sleeper product. They find it to be a good deal and they like the fact they can get in a sleeper car and close the door.

We have some overnight trains on the Northeast Regional, from Boston down through to D.C. We’re putting some sleeper cars on those overnight trains right now to see what the rider acceptance would be of that product as well....

...*If you had one single ask from Washington that would make some of the stuff you’re talking about possible, what would it be?*

Sure. It’s really three things. But they’re all interrelated. It’s the funding that’s really required on core essential infrastructure across our country. It’s the ability to exercise the right of access that exists by statute for Amtrak—I’ll call that fair access. And then it’s that the preference for passenger over freight be realized. Everyone likes a three-legged stool analogy.


----------



## Cal (Mar 16, 2021)

This looks hopeful


----------



## Exvalley (Mar 16, 2021)

He didn't really answer the question about low cost sleepers.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> He didn't really answer the question about low cost sleepers.



In the Amtrak world, the Roomette is the low cost sleeper. I don’t think that is changing anytime soon.


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2021)

I suspect that fleet renewal of many hundreds of Coaches is such a pressing matter right now that significant additional Sleepers will have to wait a while, unless Congress decides to fund such an addition separately. I think Congress will find it hard to do so while Coaches are falling apart.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 16, 2021)

“ Travelers like the sleeper product. They find it to be a Travelers like the sleeper product. They find it to be a good deal and they like the fact they can get in a sleeper car and close the door. l and they like the fact they can get in a sleeper car and close the door.”

“Good deal” isn’t what comes to my mind.... I don’t think we need slumber coaches just get rid of the top 3 fare buckets and fill the trains.


Exvalley said:


> He didn't really answer the question about low cost sleepers.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> In the Amtrak world, the Roomette is the low cost sleeper. I don’t think that is changing anytime soon.



Some of us here would like to see the return of the Slumbercoach concept. It offered a private accomodation + a surcharge over the coach fare. Not as comfortable as a roomette, but,it was passable, IMO.


----------



## Palmland (Mar 16, 2021)

jis said:


> I suspect that fleet renewal of many hundreds of Coaches is such a pressing matter right now that significant additional Sleepers will have to wait a while, unless Congress decides to fund such an addition separately. I think Congress will find it hard to do so while Coaches are falling apart.


Perhaps Amtrak should consider modifying some of those 70 underutilized baggage cars. I would think it would be a lot less expensive to modify by adding maybe 50/60 seats rather than buy new one.

I don’t know if you could add windows without compromising the structural integrity. Every time I looked inside one at a station they were almost empty, and that was before package service was ended. Perhaps the modified cars could be called combines!


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Some of us here would like to see the return of the Slumbercoach concept. It offered a private accomodation + a surcharge over the coach fare. Not as comfortable as a roomette, but,it was passable, IMO.



I’m just saying realistically, Amtrak considers roomettes the budget sleeper option. Besides, it would be a crazy amount of money to design and order yet another type of car for the fleet.

In a perfect world, yes let’s get slumbercoaches and tail cars and domes back... but realistically we need more trains period and to better use the equipment we already have (diners etc.)


----------



## Mailliw (Mar 16, 2021)

Well, converting baggage cars to budget sleeping cars would at least provide nice dark berths.


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 16, 2021)

I like the roomette configuration with the beds next to the window. I don’t know if Siemens can create a single level sleeper that is similar to a viewliner sleeper as well as a diner that can provide full meal service. That would be great for standardization. The superliners are going to need to be replaced at some point. 

Possibly an intermediate step to replacing the superliners would be a complete overhaul of the interior along with the toilets, showers and hvac systems. This could be done at beach grove.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> I like the roomette configuration with the beds next to the window. I don’t know if Siemens can create a single level sleeper that is similar to a viewliner sleeper as well as a diner that can provide full meal service. That would be great for standardization. The superliners are going to need to be replaced at some point.
> 
> Possibly an intermediate step to replacing the superliners would be a complete overhaul of the interior along with the toilets, showers and hvac systems. This could be done at beach grove.



What? The Viewliner II’s are barely in service and you want to replace them? Lol


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What? The Viewliner II’s are barely in service and you want to replace them? Lol


I think he wants to augment the fleet rather than replace anything.

As I said elsewhere, I don;t think that will happen until the Amfleet I replacement is in the bag, minimally, and possibly not until even the Amfleet IIs and some portion of the Superliner fleet is taken care of first.


----------



## jiml (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> In the Amtrak world, the Roomette is the low cost sleeper. I don’t think that is changing anytime soon.


That's how I read his answer too. Essentially saying they're not having trouble selling what they have and the product is already popular. It sounds like more of the same would be preferred to a new type. Sometimes a non-answer is an answer.


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 16, 2021)

My intent was to augment not replace. I like the viewliner sleepers. Imho this is Amtrak’s best opportunity in years to update/ overhaul its fleet. 

Yes, the Amfleet 2 cars need to be replaced or overhauled with completely new interiors, bathrooms and hvac. It would be best to do both. 

We need more sleepers/diners for east coast operations. Every overnight train should be daily and operate with a viewliner diner. With full dining service.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 16, 2021)

I got a few things out of the quotes posted:

1) He sees the value of the long-distance service, even if it never becomes "profitable." (He talked about the value of the economic benefit of the train service to the communities served being more than the cost of the subsidy.) That said, he said nothing about the desirability of expanding the long-distance network. Of course, right now they're in survival mode and they may just be focusing on keeping what they have running.

2) If they're selling out sleepers, then as far as he's concerned (at least in the short term), there's really no reason for him to change the product or its pricing, even if some of us think they're overpriced. If they're being sold out, there must be other people who think they're a good value.

3) For the final point, he sees his main challenge as being able to run the trains reliably on time. Thus the emphasis on infrastructure, right of access, and ensuring Amtrak priority from the host railroads. All of the new fancy equipment you can buy and exquisite customer service and tasty food won't make passenger rail a viable transportation alternative if it's unreliable and can't keep to schedule. 

4) He could have said more about increasing the priority for fleet renewal of the long-distance fleet, but consider that new locomotives for the long-distance fleet are already in the pipeline. This alone should improve train reliability, at least from Amtrak's side. However, they really do need to replace the Superliners and the Amfleet 2 coaches and cafe cars.


----------



## jruff001 (Mar 16, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> He didn't really answer the question about low cost sleepers.


I think he did. He said the sleepers are pretty full at current fares, so why lower them.


----------



## Sidney (Mar 16, 2021)

I was on 27 from Chicago to Portland in January. in my car every roomette was sold. Only one bedroom was occupied the entire trip. I mentioned that to my attendant. She said it's because of the high price. I would imagine for a $100 upcharge a lot of people would have loved to upgrade. Yet,that isn't done. I do remember the days when you could get an unsold sleeper on board through the conductor. Done it several times.


----------



## Mailliw (Mar 16, 2021)

That sounds like an possible argument for augmenting existing sleeping cars will all-roomette (+ADA Bedroom) cars. Roomettes are also a good configuration for premium day travel.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Mar 16, 2021)

Palmland said:


> Perhaps Amtrak should consider modifying some of those 70 underutilized baggage cars.



Don't agree; there is a need to increase checked baggage service. If that would happen, those baggage cars would be needed.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> That sounds like an possible argument for augmenting existing sleeping cars will all-roomette (+ADA Bedroom) cars. Roomettes are also a good configuration for premium day travel.



I don’t think it’s an issue with Viewliners (only 2 bedrooms per car).

I’m guessing it’s mostly the type of travelers that are currently traveling on the western trains. There are quite a few international tourists who travel on the western trains usually, and they are happy to spend $$$ for a bedroom. When the pandemic is over, they will return.


----------



## TheVig (Mar 16, 2021)

Sleeper option for peasants and the budget conscious. Trans-Siberian style.


----------



## Cal (Mar 16, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> Possibly an intermediate step to replacing the superliners would be a complete overhaul of the interior along with the toilets, showers and hvac systems. This could be done at beach grove.


I completely agree. To me, the Viewliner II sleepers are perfect, it's using the same design but with a much-needed facelift. I wish we could just renovate the Superliners to match the Viewliner II's, maybe without the sink.


----------



## Palmland (Mar 16, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Don't agree; there is a need to increase checked baggage service. If that would happen, those baggage cars would be needed.


I wasn’t suggesting converting them to all coach. Rather, I suggested they modify them to still carry baggage, like baggage-dorms, but install some coach seating. In the past they were referred to as combines.

Many of the pre Amtrak trains did this as does Amtrak. Modification to include coach seating would be a lot easier than retro fitting as bag-dorms and would gain some much needed revenue with the increased coach capacity.


----------



## jiml (Mar 16, 2021)

Cal said:


> I completely agree. To me, the Viewliner II sleepers are perfect, it's using the same design but with a much-needed facelift. I wish we could just renovate the Superliners to match the Viewliner II's, maybe without the sink.


Even most Euro sleepers that do not include in-room toilets have sinks. This avoids occupying the few bathrooms for simple tasks like hand-washing or shaving. I would not be an advocate of removing that capability.


----------



## jiml (Mar 16, 2021)

Steve4031 said:


> Possibly an intermediate step to replacing the superliners would be a complete overhaul of the interior along with the toilets, showers and hvac systems. This could be done at beach grove.


I think you've mentioned this before (or at least someone has) and it makes total sense. There is nothing wrong with the cars themselves; they're based on a design (Budd stainless steel) that has lasted way longer on other railroads with refurbishment (VIA, Australia, tourist roads) and Amtrak could buy themselves up to 10 years this way.


----------



## me_little_me (Mar 16, 2021)

Misleading thread title. I thought I was going to be reading that Flynn actually rode on one of his long distance trains and ate one of the "flex" meals.

Fat chance.


----------



## Cal (Mar 16, 2021)

jiml said:


> I think you've mentioned this before (or at least someone has) and it makes total sense. There is nothing wrong with the cars themselves; they're based on a design (Budd stainless steel) that has lasted way longer on other railroads with refurbishment (VIA, Australia, tourist roads) and Amtrak could buy themselves up to 10 years this way.


I have mentioned it ;D 



jiml said:


> Even most Euro sleepers that do not include in-room toilets have sinks. This avoids occupying the few bathrooms for simple tasks like hand-washing or shaving. I would not be an advocate of removing that capability.


I know, but that would require a bit of changing the plumbing in the superliners, and I don't love how it makes the other seat thinner. So I would be OK without it


----------



## Cal (Mar 16, 2021)

Do you think that the Viewliner II sleepers are up to par with European sleepers? Or still a bit worse


----------



## toddinde (Mar 16, 2021)

This is always an interesting discussion. I rode Slumbercoaches when I was young, and liked them. I think the concept is a tad dated. I’ve ridden sections which are just Superliner/Viewliner roomettes without walls. I’ve traveled throughout Europe in couchettes. The fundamental problem I think is that there are two totally different interests at work here. Some people want to be walled off from the masses in their own room, and some people just want to lie flat and don’t care. I don’t think there is a profitable market for a discount sleeper product. I think the sleeper product should be upscale. I see nothing inherently wrong with the current offerings although the European night trains should be studied. CN had an intermediate coach product called day/nighters which were leg rest coaches. Perhaps an upscale coach product would be an idea. But the slumbercoach is a neat museum piece in my view, nothing else.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 16, 2021)

Palmland said:


> I wasn’t suggesting converting them to all coach. Rather, I suggested they modify them to still carry baggage, like baggage-dorms, but install some coach seating. In the past they were referred to as combines.
> 
> Many of the pre Amtrak trains did this as does Amtrak. Modification to include coach seating would be a lot easier than retro fitting as bag-dorms and would gain some much needed revenue with the increased coach capacity.


Just order more cars. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 16, 2021)

TheVig said:


> Sleeper option for peasants and the budget conscious. Trans-Siberian style.


That will have as much appeal to the American consumer as New Coke.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 16, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Some of us here would like to see the return of the Slumbercoach concept. It offered a private accomodation + a surcharge over the coach fare. Not as comfortable as a roomette, but,it was passable, IMO.


Too small. Claustrophobic. And all it does is take people who would have bought a roomette and let them save a few bucks, but have a worse experience. I think they’re a loser, but that’s my opinion, and that doesn’t mean I’m right.


----------



## TC_NYC (Mar 16, 2021)

toddinde said:


> That will have as much appeal to the American consumer as New Coke.


But what has wide appeal for consumers forking over $5,000 for people traveling to Europe in Business Class is a product like this. Amtrak should install these seats into Amfleets and sell it as a "business class" in between the huge price gap between Sleepers and Coach.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 16, 2021)

I covered a lot of miles in Slumbercoach rooms in my 20s and loved them. In those days, my travel budgets were a lot leaner, so in most cases if they hadn't been available, I likely would have ridden in coach rather than upgrading to a roomette, which usually was at least twice the price. Or I would have traveled less often.

At 50-something now, I don't think I would love riding in them anymore. But I do think that, particularly on the eastern, one-night routes, there's still a segment of people by age/economic status that would be willing to pay an extra $100 to $150 for an accommodation that lets them lie down flat -- but who wouldn't spring for an extra $300 or $400 for a roomette. 

That said, I don't think designing a new economy sleeper is nearly as high a priority as replacing/rehabbing and expanding the existing fleet and car types to maintain and grow the current route network -- and especially to support development of more short-haul corridors.


----------



## jiml (Mar 16, 2021)

toddinde said:


> But the slumbercoach is a neat museum piece in my view, nothing else.


That's really the argument in a "nutshell". All us older folks who remember "how things used to be" want certain aspects restored, but slumbercoaches aren't on my list. They were fine for the time, but I suspect they wouldn't be around today solely on current egress requirements before even getting to their other issues. Some sort of lay-flat seat as an upgrade to coach (overnight business class?) is a great idea and the first place to add it is the newly restored overnight service on the NEC.


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 16, 2021)

jiml said:


> I think you've mentioned this before (or at least someone has) and it makes total sense. There is nothing wrong with the cars themselves; they're based on a design (Budd stainless steel) that has lasted way longer on other railroads with refurbishment (VIA, Australia, tourist roads) and Amtrak could buy themselves up to 10 years this way.



I did mention it. Probably others too. 

There was a question comparing viewliner sleepers to European sleepers. I find Amtrak’s to be superior.


----------



## sttom (Mar 16, 2021)

toddinde said:


> This is always an interesting discussion. I rode Slumbercoaches when I was young, and liked them. I think the concept is a tad dated. I’ve ridden sections which are just Superliner/Viewliner roomettes without walls. I’ve traveled throughout Europe in couchettes. The fundamental problem I think is that there are two totally different interests at work here. Some people want to be walled off from the masses in their own room, and some people just want to lie flat and don’t care. I don’t think there is a profitable market for a discount sleeper product. I think the sleeper product should be upscale. I see nothing inherently wrong with the current offerings although the European night trains should be studied. CN had an intermediate coach product called day/nighters which were leg rest coaches. Perhaps an upscale coach product would be an idea. But the slumbercoach is a neat museum piece in my view, nothing else.


One thing I've said when this subject comes up is that a lie flat seat is more about market expansion than cannibalization of existing demand. Right now, Amtrak has little value to me for long distance trips. I would take the train to LA, Portland, or Denver, but at the present moment, the cost of a sleeper one way is as much as a round trip flight across the country. A lie flat seat for ~$150 for the above mentioned trips would be competitive with flying. Right now, instead of taking Amtrak I pay Southwest ~$150 to fly plus the cost of a couple pre flight drinks to deal with the anxiety of taking off. So that's Southwest up 150 and Amtrak up 0. Will some people choose a lie flat chair over a sleeper? Yes. Will everyone in a roomette downgrade? No. Amtrak has no problem filling sleepers up and if anything, not having to use roomettes as a form of transportation will give Amtrak the latitude to make the sleepers more upscale as you put it since people just riding the train for the sake of transportation will have an option.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

sttom said:


> One thing I've said when this subject comes up is that a lie flat seat is more about market expansion than cannibalization of existing demand. Right now, Amtrak has little value to me for long distance trips. I would take the train to LA, Portland, or Denver, but at the present moment, the cost of a sleeper one way is as much as a round trip flight across the country. A lie flat seat for ~$150 for the above mentioned trips would be competitive with flying. Right now, instead of taking Amtrak I pay Southwest ~$150 to fly plus the cost of a couple pre flight drinks to deal with the anxiety of taking off. So that's Southwest up 150 and Amtrak up 0. Will some people choose a lie flat chair over a sleeper? Yes. Will everyone in a roomette downgrade? No. Amtrak has no problem filling sleepers up and if anything, not having to use roomettes as a form of transportation will give Amtrak the latitude to make the sleepers more upscale as you put it since people just riding the train for the sake of transportation will have an option.



But you’re assuming that IF Amtrak had slumbercoaches the price would only be $150 extra. VIA doesn’t charge dramatically different prices for a section vs. a roomette.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> But you’re assuming that IF Amtrak had slumbercoaches the price would only be $150 extra. VIA doesn’t charge dramatically different prices for a section vs. a roomette.



Actually, by taking a section on our last trip on the Canadian, I think we saved nearly $1,000 over the price of a bedroom. Either one, though, is far more than the coach fare.

And the bed in a VIA section is way nicer than those narrow Slumbercoach beds.


----------



## sttom (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> But you’re assuming that IF Amtrak had slumbercoaches the price would only be $150 extra. VIA doesn’t charge dramatically different prices for a section vs. a roomette.



And OBB charges 44€ for a bed in a 4 person couchette. What one company markets a product for and charges in turn has nothing to do with the behavior of a company it doesn't compete with. If there is demand for something similar to how Via treats is sections, then that is a different discussion entirely. Via treats sections in a similar manner that it's predecessors treated sleeping accomodations which is that they are all first class, but some are more first class than others and sections were that low tier. What people like me are asking for is something in-between first class and being treated like cattle.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

sttom said:


> What people like me are asking for is something in-between first class and being treated like cattle.



Well... what you are asking for is a sleeper with a lower price. You want the sleeper, you just don’t want to pay for it.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well... what you are asking for is a sleeper with a lower price. You want the sleeper, you just don’t want to pay for it.



Well, an intermediate class could be more toward coach than sleeper -- something like the CN/VIA Dayniter, but perhaps with seats that reclined to flat. Amtrak has acknowledged that there's room for something between coach and sleeper by adding business class to some of the overnight runs, but I'm not sure that the current BC cars are enough different from coach to be worth the extra for an overnight trip.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 16, 2021)

fdaley said:


> Well, an intermediate class could be more toward coach than sleeper -- something like the CN/VIA Dayniter, but perhaps with seats that reclined to flat. Amtrak has acknowledged that there's room for something between coach and sleeper by adding business class to some of the overnight runs, but I'm not sure that the current BC cars are enough different from coach to be worth the extra for an overnight trip.



Oh I agree there is room for a proper business class. I don’t think lie-flat seats are necessary for that. Most domestic overnights don’t provide that in first class. 

Ideally it would be reserved 2x1 seating.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Mar 16, 2021)

Now that the subject of sleepers has come up (and forgive if this has been discussed elsewhere in the forum), but is it possible that Amtrak is leaving money on the table by not offering a single berth option?

I ask because I look to the new OBB Nightjet sleepers currently being built by Siemens, for use in 2022. Most particularly, I'm looking at the new mini-suites, which could be the answer for a single berth option. When discussing the new Nightjet sleepers, a representative from OBB mentioned that their customers have evolved, and are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping in an open couchette compartment, which prompted the development of the mini-suite. The new sleepers will eliminate the open couchette altogether, in favor of the mini-suites, a two bed cabin with toilet and shower, and a couchette-like family bedroom.


The idea of spending most of your journey in a mini-suite cocoon might not be really appealing on a route in which one would spend two nights aboard, but there are plenty of existing routes, and possibly new ones, in which this option makes sense.

These sleepers are built from Viaggio coaches, so it should not be too terribly difficult to translate the design for Venture coaches, which are only now beginning to ply the rails in the Midwest.

Would it benefit Amtrak to request one or two of these sleepers be built and tested with customers before a decision is finally made on what Superliner replacements might look like, when that decision is made, possibly years down the road? If Amtrak tested and gave the concept a "thumbs down", I can see them selling the tester units to the Midwest, where they could try an overnight sleeper service on the Chicago-Twin Cities route. With the travel time for the additional round trip slated to take 8 hours, a neatly designed, price competitive, _private _sleeping space might prove a winner.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 17, 2021)

I would love to see more options in type/arrangement of sleeper accommodations. The roomette-or-bedroom choice is sometimes a bit limiting for families.

One of the reasons we take sections on VIA is that we can book two lowers and an upper for a family of three, whereas a VIA bedroom sleeps a maximum of two. You could solve this by booking two bedrooms for a suite, but then you're really upping the cost. They still have drawing rooms in some cases, and we loved taking those on the Ocean before the Renaissance cars arrived, but there's usually not more than one per train so they sell out, much like the family bedrooms on Amtrak. And of course, the latter aren't so useful after children reach their pre-teen years.


----------



## neroden (Mar 17, 2021)

jis said:


> I suspect that fleet renewal of many hundreds of Coaches is such a pressing matter right now that significant additional Sleepers will have to wait a while, unless Congress decides to fund such an addition separately. I think Congress will find it hard to do so while Coaches are falling apart.



I actually think the question is up in the air awaiting the decision on what to do to replace the bilevel (Superliner) fleet.

Right now, they probably have just about enough sleepers for the existing single-level trains, even with rising demand, and enough for the Night Owl (starting soon) and a daily Cardinal. Even if they wanted a "few" more, it usually doesn't make sense to make a small order -- unless they want 25 more sleepers, it's hardly worth ordering. (Though if Canada orders some, they might piggyback.)

But when they go to replace all the bilevel coaches, I expect they'll replace the sleepers at the same time. If they switch some or all of them to single-level, this may mean a large single-level sleeper order, which could also include additional sleepers for the eastern trains.


----------



## neroden (Mar 17, 2021)

MisterUptempo said:


> Now that the subject of sleepers has come up (and forgive if this has been discussed elsewhere in the forum), but is it possible that Amtrak is leaving money on the table by not offering a single berth option?
> 
> I ask because I look to the new OBB Nightjet sleepers currently being built by Siemens, for use in 2022. Most particularly, I'm looking at the new mini-suites, which could be the answer for a single berth option. When discussing the new Nightjet sleepers, a representative from OBB mentioned that their customers have evolved, and are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping in an open couchette compartment, which prompted the development of the mini-suite. The new sleepers will eliminate the open couchette altogether, in favor of the mini-suites, a two bed cabin with toilet and shower, and a couchette-like family bedroom.
> View attachment 21185
> ...



I'm surprised at the complete lack of windows in that design, but other than that, it seems OK. I'd be fine in a cocoon with a *view*...


----------



## west point (Mar 17, 2021)

Several items.
1. Although forgotten by some and not know by others === The original order from CAF for 130 V-2s was 25 Bag dorms ;; 25 sleepers; 25 diners, and 55 baggage cars. Order of delivery was Baggage, then Bag - Dorms, Diners and then Sleepers. Just before cut off of the 11th Bag dorm start construction the order was changed to 10 Bag - dorms and 70 baggage. That allowed for compete retirement of Heritage baggage that were becoming incapable of addition rehab. 
2. Framing of Baggage cars is such that they cannot be converted to coaches, bag - Dorms, or sleepers.
3. CAF appears that it did not secure delivery of parts for construction in a timely manner which is the reason for the very slow deliveries. That stretches out to over 10 years from order to final deliveries late this calendar year. Amtrak is rumored that it also has a shortage of parts for the V-2s
4. It is rumored that the as built plans for the V-2s are the property of Amtrak.
5. Several business pubs are stating that manufacturers are having difficulty in getting parts from vendors of all disciplines. Note the world wide chip shortage especially for auto companies The only way Amtrak can get the needed addition sleepers built quickly IMHO would be for the president invoke the defense production act to move all parts for additional sleepers to the front of the line.
6. In light of reason #5 Amtrak must rebuild every sidelined car still available but the parts problem may hinder that as well ? That is both Amfleets and Superliners.
7. As for rebuilding the P-40 and P-42s the parts shortage is there as well especially those locos traction motor trucks.


----------



## railiner (Mar 17, 2021)

west point said:


> Several items.
> 1. Although forgotten by some and not know by others === The original order from CAF for 130 V-2s was 25 Bag dorms ;; 25 sleepers; 25 diners, and 55 baggage cars. Order of delivery was Baggage, then Bag - Dorms, Diners and then Sleepers. Just before cut off of the 11th Bag dorm start construction the order was changed to 10 Bag - dorms and 70 baggage. That allowed for compete retirement of Heritage baggage that were becoming incapable of addition rehab.
> 2. Framing of Baggage cars is such that they cannot be converted to coaches, bag - Dorms, or sleepers.
> 3. CAF appears that it did not secure delivery of parts for construction in a timely manner which is the reason for the very slow deliveries. That stretches out to over 10 years from order to final deliveries late this calendar year. Amtrak is rumored that it also has a shortage of parts for the V-2s
> ...


It’s time for the US to get back into manufacturing. That is what really “made us great”. Look how it’s transformed China...


----------



## MisterUptempo (Mar 17, 2021)

neroden said:


> I'm surprised at the complete lack of windows in that design, but other than that, it seems OK. I'd be fine in a cocoon with a *view*...


Actually, there is a window for each berth. I should have included this photo as well-


----------



## jimdex (Mar 17, 2021)

Palmland said:


> I wasn’t suggesting converting them to all coach. Rather, I suggested they modify them to still carry baggage, like baggage-dorms, but install some coach seating. In the past they were referred to as combines.
> 
> Many of the pre Amtrak trains did this as does Amtrak. Modification to include coach seating would be a lot easier than retro fitting as bag-dorms and would gain some much needed revenue with the increased coach capacity.


Where would you put crew members if you eliminated the dorm space? If you're just shifting them to other rooms on the train, that doesn't really expand passenger capacity.


----------



## IndyLions (Mar 17, 2021)

TC_NYC said:


> But what has wide appeal for consumers forking over $5,000 for people traveling to Europe in Business Class is a product like this. Amtrak should install these seats into Amfleets and sell it as a "business class" in between the huge price gap between Sleepers and Coach.


I think I read somewhere that those pods cost a crazy amount of money (like 50-100 grand each?) I don’t think I could see Amtrak forking over that much on an intermediate product…if they do it won’t be at bargain prices.


----------



## jis (Mar 17, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> I think I read somewhere that those pods cost a crazy amount of money (like 50-100 grand each?) I don’t think I could see Amtrak forking over that much on an intermediate product…if they do it won’t be at bargain prices.


They are also relatively high maintenance items. But they are worthwhile for the airlines because they bring in a lot of money and competitive advantage. I have never been sure if Amtrak could make a plausible business case for them, though personally I'd love them, even though, my favorites are the enclosed pods rather than just lie flat seats.


----------



## Mailliw (Mar 17, 2021)

MisterUptempo said:


> Actually, there is a window for each berth. I should have included this photo as well-
> View attachment 21190


I'd love these. The NEC would be a great place to try them out. Amtrak would just need to replace the family compartment with an ADA Bedroom.


----------



## Ziv (Mar 17, 2021)

Since 2011 or 2012 there has been a slight increase every year in manufacturing jobs. 2019 was the best year since 1988. Lower energy costs here in the US has helped quite a bit and the trade war with China didn't hurt. 








U.S. enjoys best manufacturing jobs growth of the last 30 years


Some food for thought: the U.S. had as many people working in the manufacturing sector in December as it did 69 years ago.




www.marketwatch.com







railiner said:


> It’s time for the US to get back into manufacturing. That is what really “made us great”. Look how it’s transformed China...


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 17, 2021)

On a related note on fares, anyone have an idea when Amsnag will be operational again? Someone on here might have said it was down due to the tri weekly schedule? As I wrote on here before I scrapped our summer trip due to high fares. So I thought I’d look at Christmas since were 9 months out and trains are daily again. I wanted to vomit when I saw the fares that week.

One way Galesburg to Fullerton easy trip on the SWC . My wife and I along with our 3 year old and 1 year old (who is still free). 229,000points!!!! or 2100 dollars *one way* for a family room. Or slightly less for 2 roomettes. We did this exact same trip when we only had one child in 2018 on Dec 23rd for $629 dollars one way booking about 6 months out. Long story short booked United again 12/23-12/30 for 230RT. I know lower fares exist and we’ll bite the bullet look around and pay 1400 one way for a off peak trip this year eventually.

Imagine how many potential first time riders will never check Amtrak again after seeing one of these out of touch with reality fares.


----------



## Cal (Mar 17, 2021)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> On a related note on fares, anyone have an idea when Amsnag will be operational again? Someone on here might have said it was down due to the tri weekly schedule? As I wrote on here before I scrapped our summer trip due to high fares. So I thought I’d look at Christmas since were 9 months out and trains are daily again. I wanted to vomit when I saw the fares that week.
> 
> One way Galesburg to Fullerton easy trip on the SWC . My wife and I along with our 3 year old and 1 year old (who is still free). 229,000points!!!! or 2100 dollars *one way* for a family room. Or slightly less for 2 roomettes. We did this exact same trip when we only had one child in 2018 on Dec 23rd for $629 dollars one way booking about 6 months out. Long story short booked United again 12/23-12/30 for 230RT. I know lower fares exist and we’ll bite the bullet look around and pay 1400 one way for a off peak trip this year eventually.
> 
> Imagine how many potential first time riders will never check Amtrak again after seeing one of these out of touch with reality fares.


Did it change when you took your 1 year old out?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Mar 17, 2021)

1 year old was free and 3 was listed as 1/2 fare, hence why I think it’s insane. It‘s not only Christmas week but most of summer at this point. I’ve played around with it a lot. For now it is what it is. We’ve beaten the price of sleepers to death and I apologize I’ve been a big part of it. On a interesting side note coach for us on those dates is $1700 or 185,000 points for a round trip... even more of a head shaker to me..


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 17, 2021)

Cal said:


> I completely agree. To me, the Viewliner II sleepers are perfect, it's using the same design but with a much-needed facelift. I wish we could just renovate the Superliners to match the Viewliner II's, maybe without the sink.


I happen to like the presence of the sink in the room. If they re-do or replace the Superliners, I'd like to see them include a sink.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 17, 2021)

jiml said:


> This avoids occupying the few bathrooms for simple tasks like hand-washing or shaving.


or brushing your teeth.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 17, 2021)

fdaley said:


> but who wouldn't spring for an extra $300 or $400 for a roomette.



I did a dummy booking a few weeks ago. Baltimore to Chicago was about $350 in a roomette; coach fare was about $150. Thus, the upcharge for the roomette was about $200.


----------



## Cal (Mar 17, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I happen to like the presence of the sink in the room. If they re-do or replace the Superliners, I'd like to see them include a sink.


It is convenient, however again, that would require a change in the plumbing for the superliners.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 17, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I did a dummy booking a few weeks ago. Baltimore to Chicago was about $350 in a roomette; coach fare was about $150. Thus, the upcharge for the roomette was about $200.



I’m not seeing a roomette on the Lake Shore nyp-chi for less than $300 over the cheapest coach fare and I’ve tried multiple dates.

Nyp to Atlanta I found one for $276
And NYP to Orlando is $358.


----------



## fdaley (Mar 17, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I did a dummy booking a few weeks ago. Baltimore to Chicago was about $350 in a roomette; coach fare was about $150. Thus, the upcharge for the roomette was about $200.



The sleeper charges on the Capitol are much more reasonable at the low buckets than what I'm used to on the Lake Shore. I think there is a mid-level roomette bucket on the LSL that Amtrak almost never goes below, even if no rooms have sold.

On my last solo trip to Chicago (pre-pandemic), I went via Pittsburgh and took a bedroom on the Capitol for less than what a roomette would have cost on the Lake Shore. (The schedule also allowed me to skip the nasty flex meals altogether; unfortunately, there is no route that makes this possible going east.)


----------



## Mailliw (Mar 17, 2021)

I'm going to Chicago this summer on the Capitol Limited and by taking a layover in Pittsburgh I got a bedroom for just $6 more than a roomette on the same train. Of course I jumped on that.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 17, 2021)

Cal said:


> It is convenient, however again, that would require a change in the plumbing for the superliners.


Yes, Superliners have a "wet" end and "dry" end. 1/2 of the car has no plumbing at all, the dry end. So you could not have sinks in the Superliner roomettes without almost completely rebuilding the car.


----------



## Cal (Mar 17, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Yes, Superliners have a "wet" end and "dry" end. 1/2 of the car has no plumbing at all, the dry end. So you could not have sinks in the Superliner roomettes without almost completely rebuilding the car.


And the roomettes, in this aspect, are doing fine as they are. I don't think having in-room sinks is anything we should worry about.


----------



## Bigpaw (Mar 18, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I did a dummy booking a few weeks ago. Baltimore to Chicago was about $350 in a roomette; coach fare was about $150. Thus, the upcharge for the roomette was about $200.





MARC Rider said:


> I did a dummy booking a few weeks ago. Baltimore to Chicago was about $350 in a roomette; coach fare was about $150. Thus, the upcharge for the roomette was about $200.


A year ago I booked a roomette r/t Chicago to Denver trip with my points. I couldn’t pick the date I needed to return because they had changed their schedule to fewer days running. I saw last week that the schedules have changed and I called to change my return trip to the very next day and they told me it would cost me an extra 2000 points. That’s ridiculous, I feel they should just do it without charging me extra since it was their fault in the first place that I had to pick the date that I did. Very aggravating.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 18, 2021)

Bigpaw said:


> A year ago I booked a roomette r/t Chicago to Denver trip with my points. I couldn’t pick the date I needed to return because they had changed their schedule to fewer days running. I saw last week that the schedules have changed and I called to change my return trip to the very next day and they told me it would cost me an extra 2000 points. That’s ridiculous, I feel they should just do it without charging me extra since it was their fault in the first place that I had to pick the date that I did. Very aggravating.



You can always ask to speak to a supervisor who can modify point rules. Once Amtrak cancelled my train because of weather and when I asked to rebook the next available date they said that was a blackout day for points. I pressed them on this and was able to use my points the next day no problem.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 18, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> You can always ask to speak to a supervisor who can modify point rules. Once Amtrak cancelled my train because of weather and when I asked to rebook the next available date they said that was a blackout day for points. I pressed them on this and was able to use my points the next day no problem.an


Slightly off topic, but I think that the Guest Rewards agents are the most competent and helpful customer facing employees Amtrak has. They actually know and do their jobs, which is unfortunately very inconsistent across the rest of the organization.


----------



## Cal (Mar 18, 2021)

Bit off topic, but a heads up!

Tomorrow Simply_Railway is posting the Silver Meteor review with the VII, should be up tomorrow morning. Just if anyone wants to check it out, I am definitely looking forward to it.


----------



## neroden (Mar 19, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m not seeing a roomette on the Lake Shore nyp-chi for less than $300 over the cheapest coach fare and I’ve tried multiple dates.


That's correct. Demand on the LSL is much higher than on the Capitol Limited, so prices on the LSL are much higher than on the CL.

We need a second frequency on the LSL route.



> Nyp to Atlanta I found one for $276
> And NYP to Orlando is $358.


----------



## Anthony V (Mar 19, 2021)

neroden said:


> That's correct. Demand on the LSL is much higher than on the Capitol Limited, so prices on the LSL are much higher than on the CL.
> 
> We need a second frequency on the LSL route.


Yes, especially a second frequency serving Ohio in daylight.


----------



## Sidney (Mar 19, 2021)

Low bucket senior one person roomette from NYP to Orlando is $461. Haven't found anything cheaper


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 19, 2021)

neroden said:


> We need a second frequency on the LSL route



A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.


----------



## Willbridge (Mar 19, 2021)

Anthony V said:


> Yes, especially a second frequency serving Ohio in daylight.


Into the 1960's there was a choice of carriers with a mid-morning departure from Chicago to New York City. But there also were overnight trains from all the midwestern gateways (MSP, OMA, KCY, STL) that fed those mid-morning departures.


----------



## railiner (Mar 20, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.


I like that idea...they could cut about an hour off each schedule, without the switching at Albany. And they could run the Boston train about an hour earlier, and the New York train about an hour or two later, to spread them out a bit more, westbound, and still arrive Chicago early enough to make reliable western connections. Or they could run one of them via Michigan.

If they ran a second train on many of the now once a day routes, it would open up all sorts of possibilities. For one, it would mean that all locations could now have a train at a decent hour. It would make the possibility of doing a round trip between most points possible in a day, encouraging more local use. And having a second train, would reduce the necessity to hold trains for many hours, or having to accommodate misconnects from very late trains.


----------



## jiml (Mar 20, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> A good start would be to seperate the NYC and Boston Sections and run them as seperate trains.


Probably the lowest cost second-frequency addition in the system. Other than food service, the required number of cars and locomotives are already "in play". If successful it could be the model for a couple of other routes...


----------



## fdaley (Mar 20, 2021)

If the Boston-Chicago Lake Shore were run as a separate train on something close to the current schedule, it could easily be timed to allow transfers to/from New York trains at Albany. But there'd be limits to how much you could alter the schedule of the Chicago-New York through train, particularly eastbound, if you want to preserve connections to/from the western trains. The times at Cleveland likely would still be ugly.

But for local travel between the East Coast and the Midwest, if we ever get to restoring the 3-C corridor in Ohio and a Toledo-Michigan connection, it would be useful to have a New York to Chicago train that left New York sometime between 6 and 11 p.m. westbound and arrived between 7 and 11 a.m. eastbound. That would make connections to the western trains dicey westbound and impossible eastbound, but it would provide good times to support and connect with new services in Ohio and Michigan, and it might feed traffic to a second Albany-Boston train. And it would fill gaps in the corridor schedule in upstate New York, where, if you're going anywhere west of Albany, the last train of the night now leaves NYP at 3:40 p.m., and the first eastbound arrival isn't till afternoon.


----------



## jis (Mar 20, 2021)

Departure after 6pm from NYP should work almost OK. 7pm or later would probably be preferred purely from a NYP operational consideration.

Similarly arrival at 7am would be an absolute No no. Arrival would have to be after 9am minimally, and perhaps even a little bit later to get properly past the Commission Hours.


----------



## NES28 (Mar 20, 2021)

People interested in alternatives that could be considered for the Lake Shore corridor should look at the Lakeshore page at www.hsrail.org.


----------



## jiml (Mar 20, 2021)

NES28 said:


> People interested in alternatives that could be considered for the Lake Shore corridor should look at the Lakeshore page at www.hsrail.org.


There's some real "head-scratchers" on that schedule.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 22, 2021)

TC_NYC said:


> But what has wide appeal for consumers forking over $5,000 for people traveling to Europe in Business Class is a product like this. Amtrak should install these seats into Amfleets and sell it as a "business class" in between the huge price gap between Sleepers and Coach.


It is possible that a “business class” type intermediate concept like this might work! Many probably don’t remember, but CN had regular coach and what they called Dayniters which were really leg rest chair cars. But they made the differentiation between basic coach and a better product. I actually like this idea better than the Slumbercoach.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 22, 2021)

sttom said:


> One thing I've said when this subject comes up is that a lie flat seat is more about market expansion than cannibalization of existing demand. Right now, Amtrak has little value to me for long distance trips. I would take the train to LA, Portland, or Denver, but at the present moment, the cost of a sleeper one way is as much as a round trip flight across the country. A lie flat seat for ~$150 for the above mentioned trips would be competitive with flying. Right now, instead of taking Amtrak I pay Southwest ~$150 to fly plus the cost of a couple pre flight drinks to deal with the anxiety of taking off. So that's Southwest up 150 and Amtrak up 0. Will some people choose a lie flat chair over a sleeper? Yes. Will everyone in a roomette downgrade? No. Amtrak has no problem filling sleepers up and if anything, not having to use roomettes as a form of transportation will give Amtrak the latitude to make the sleepers more upscale as you put it since people just riding the train for the sake of transportation will have an option.


I actually agree, although the question is whether car capacity can make such a thing worthwhile. I’m just not a fan of the Slumbercoach though I liked it when it was around.


----------



## sttom (Mar 24, 2021)

toddinde said:


> I actually agree, although the question is whether car capacity can make such a thing worthwhile. I’m just not a fan of the Slumbercoach though I liked it when it was around.



Before Amtrak took over passenger services in the US, there were Tourist sleepers and they ranged in capacity from 24 to 32 people. I'm aware that things were different because of regulations. But, Budd's original concept for the Slumber Coach in 1946 was a 32 duplex roomette style accommodations. Pullman also tried to sell 24 duplex roomette cars as replacements for Tourist Sleepers. Based on these numbers, a middle market sleeping option would need to fall in the 24-32 person range on capacity to make something like this viable. Doing some back of the napkin math on this, a Viewliner could fit somewhere between 30 and 36 beds and 37 to 47 beds in a Superliner. Which is well within the old range of viable. The question is more of Amtrak's management and whether or not they think its worth while to expand the market of long distance trains and potentially launching overnight services similar to NightJet or are they going to make the same mistake that was made in the Obama era of trying to lure the states into paying for more services by dangling capital funds in front of their faces? My guess is they are going with option 2 and are probably going to live the with long distance trains because they are a public service for the most part. Which to me personally is a very underwhelming outcome.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 30, 2021)

sttom said:


> Before Amtrak took over passenger services in the US, there were Tourist sleepers and they ranged in capacity from 24 to 32 people. I'm aware that things were different because of regulations. But, Budd's original concept for the Slumber Coach in 1946 was a 32 duplex roomette style accommodations. Pullman also tried to sell 24 duplex roomette cars as replacements for Tourist Sleepers. Based on these numbers, a middle market sleeping option would need to fall in the 24-32 person range on capacity to make something like this viable. Doing some back of the napkin math on this, a Viewliner could fit somewhere between 30 and 36 beds and 37 to 47 beds in a Superliner. Which is well within the old range of viable. The question is more of Amtrak's management and whether or not they think its worth while to expand the market of long distance trains and potentially launching overnight services similar to NightJet or are they going to make the same mistake that was made in the Obama era of trying to lure the states into paying for more services by dangling capital funds in front of their faces? My guess is they are going with option 2 and are probably going to live the with long distance trains because they are a public service for the most part. Which to me personally is a very underwhelming outcome.


The state thing isn’t going to work. It has to be a federal program. I agree, the night train concept is the way to go. They also need to bring back Amtrak Express and really market it.


----------



## sttom (Mar 30, 2021)

toddinde said:


> The state thing isn’t going to work. It has to be a federal program. I agree, the night train concept is the way to go. They also need to bring back Amtrak Express and really market it.



I completely agree. They tried it for the last ~10 years and all we are is down 1 route, 1 extension cancelled, 1 new route also cancelled. And what is even on the docket now? The New Orleans - Mobile line which might get done, a Chicago - St Paul train and what else? I would rather there be a mandate for "state" services and a subsidy to boot than hoping states like Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina or Texas will cooperate with Amtrak just because the feds might pay for the infrastructure. I know Colorado will be a huge lift without a federal operating subsidy even if the infrastructure gets paid for by someone else. 

It would be better to give the states a chunk of subsidy money and ask them to plan some routes. I would also want reforms to how Amtrak discloses the cost of things to go along with this and mandates that they only work with the state DOT instead of a cluster of local government, but that is what I would advocate for, so grains of salt.


----------



## Mailliw (Mar 30, 2021)

Ditch the 750 mile rule or at least role it back to 500 miles with added flexibility for routes that connect metro areas in different states or cross international borders.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 30, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Ditch the 750 mile rule or at least role it back to 500 miles with added flexibility for routes that connect metro areas in different states or cross international borders.



I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.


----------



## west point (Mar 30, 2021)

The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 30, 2021)

west point said:


> The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.


Its the NEC! That Says it all!


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2021)

west point said:


> The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.


Nothing to explain really. That is how the law is written. The rule is that the 750 mile rule does not apply to the NEC Amtrak spine service.


----------



## John Bredin (Mar 31, 2021)

sttom said:


> I would also want reforms to how Amtrak discloses the cost of things to go along with this and mandates that they only work with the state DOT instead of a cluster of local government, but that is what I would advocate for, so grains of salt.


Why the latter? More moving parts to fail; that is, if a group of cities combine to pay for a service, any one dropping out could be "fatal"? True, but conversely, if a state government is hostile to passenger rail (admittedly, more likely the legislature than the DOT, as DOTs are used to having some role relative to rail) but cities or counties along the route are willing to pay for it, why not? 

The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 31, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> ...


Nothing Else Counts


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 31, 2021)

west point said:


> The NEC certainly violates the 750 mile rule and even a 500 mile rule. So explain that.


The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice. If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services. The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means that there's more interest in Congress about it than there is for services that serve only one or maybe two states, especially when particular state governments are opposed to passenger rail on general principle (or so it seems.)

It seems to me that the goal of Amtrak is to replicate the NEC (or something as close as possible) in other parts of the country. Eliminating the 750 miles rule might help with that, but it raises the question of freeloading. Either the Feds pay for everything, or they only play with the states who are willing to pay.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 31, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice.


How many passengers ride non-NEC Amtrak trains (in a non-Covid year) and how does this compare to the NEC ridership? What situation do you envision that kills the national network but leaves the NEC under Amtrak's control?



MARC Rider said:


> The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means...


Which means the NEC does not come close to having enough votes to protect funding without help from other states?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Mar 31, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services.



Well the NEC as a railroad wouldn’t disappear. The regional services would have to run more express trains.


----------



## sttom (Mar 31, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> Why the latter? More moving parts to fail; that is, if a group of cities combine to pay for a service, any one dropping out could be "fatal"? True, but conversely, if a state government is hostile to passenger rail (admittedly, more likely the legislature than the DOT, as DOTs are used to having some role relative to rail) but cities or counties along the route are willing to pay for it, why not?
> 
> The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.



I'm saying if the feds were to give a guaranteed subsidy for Amtrak to run state services that that funding should have a mandate to be handled by the State DOT rather than a collection of local governments. If they want added service, I think those arrangements should be allowed to be formed. My argument against JPAs and JPA like districts is less about the moving parts, but that the people on the boards of these agencies are ultimately not going to be held responsible for the quality of the rail service. The people on those boards are going to be held responsible for the cleanliness of parks, the repaving of streets and sidewalks and how well the downtown is doing regardless of if a train is running and if its worth while. Should local governments be allowed to give their input during the planning process? Sure. Should the buck stop with them? No. 

I know everyone will say that JPAs led to marginal improvements here in California, and that there is no doubt, even from me who thinks that style of government is bad. But the cycle with them is stagnation from the state, marginal improvement under local control, then back to stagnation or in the case of the San Joaquin, what I see as people actively undermining the service. Whether this is to kill the service, pad their resume, enrich donors or out of sheer ignorance are all troubling to me. The way I look at transportation is one of scope. And the scope of a state rail network is the entirety of the state, which would me the state entity that handles transportation should be the lead agency on planning such a system. Whether or not the state itself allows local input as I said, doesn't matter to me personally, so long as the buck doesn't stop with them when it comes to the integrity of the network. 

Will this lead to a bullet proof system? Probably not. States like Ohio could still attempt to keep their DOT from cooperating with Amtrak even if Ohio would only have to put up with paying for a few people's salary to oversee the system. If that were the case, I would advocate for provisions in any such legislation that would make it so that Amtrak would have to create a quasi subsidiary to plan and run an "Amtrak Ohio" with Ohio's portion of the subsidy and capital funds as it could get away with. Not to mention, Amtrak's accounting magic could come into play with this. Which would mean mandating the costing of these services be disclosed in the same way that they would to a commuter agency they'd be bidding to be the concessioner of. Given how much deferred maintenance there is on the NEC, I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak's leadership wouldn't try to skim money off the top for the NEC if they couldn't bake some of its costs into a business plan for Kansas with opaque accounting.


----------



## jis (Mar 31, 2021)

I think it is a fools errand to restrict Amtrak into working only with State DOTs to the exclusion of all other organizations, for instituting local/regional service. There have been several occasions when State DOTs have proved to be a big stumbling block due to state level politics, when many local communities are willing to fund a train. Florida at present is a prime example as far as the State DOT working with Amtrak is concerned. Rememebr that the continuance of SWC service probably would have been much more diffcult to pull off if it was just left to the State DOTs.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Mar 31, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> The 3C in Ohio didn't "die" because $17 million annual operating expense was financially onerous but for state-level political reasons. Had Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland decided to pay it, the cost for each would not be significant and the line would be running. Presuming each city paid an equal share, or $4.25 million annually, the Public Works budget of Dayton for 2020 (to pick one of the cities) was $102.67 million.



You are making an interesting point. But, being a citizen of the Dayton area, I have a bit of "expertise" concerning your comment. I cannot say for certain that your data as to the Public Works budget is accurate, but assuming it is, $4.25 million does seem to be a small amount concerning the whole budget of $102.67 million. The fact is there are so many unmet infrastructure needs in my community, concerns about water quality issues, etc. that $4.25 million allocated for providing a 3C's rail service would be a difficult "sell" to the citizens of Dayton and Montgomery County. 

No knowledge about the financial condition of Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati, but I think they would have the same difficulty. 

The Amtrak offer for covering the cost of building the infrastructure to provide corridor service in Ohio and covering the first 2 years of operating expenses is what helped to attract the Dayton City Commission's support of the proposal, I think. Not accepting such an offer is like "leaving federal money on the table". Ohio has been reluctant to leave such money on the table on some issues in the past. Over the disapproval of our General Assembly, our Governor was able to accept such Federal money to expand Medicaid when other states have turned it down.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Mar 31, 2021)

Dakota 400 said:


> Ohio has been reluctant to leave such money on the table on some issues in the past. Over the disapproval of our General Assembly, our Governor was able to accept such Federal money to expand Medicaid when other states have turned it down.



Let's not forget Kasich rejecting federal money for 3C during the Obama adinistration. Dewine might be more reasonabe, however. Not so sure about the legislature. (Speaking as a former Ohioan)


----------



## Dakota 400 (Mar 31, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> Let's not forget Kasich rejecting federal money for 3C during the Obama adinistration. Dewine might be more reasonabe, however. Not so sure about the legislature. (Speaking as a former Ohioan)



You are correct. Governor Kasich wanted no part of that money. Had a President been in Office of the opposite party---? Maybe, he would have? We'll never know. Governor DeWine is a more pragmatic governor and he has the "experience" and the intestinal fortitude to do what he believes is in the best interest of Ohioans regardless of how "unhappy" he makes General Assembly members of his own Party.


----------



## jebr (Mar 31, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m all for the 750 mile rule. Amtrak needs to focus on long distance and states need to fund regional rail if they want to.



I disagree. Federal funding is heavily involved in all transportation projects, and passenger rail should be no different. The logistics, especially for capital expenses, are also easier - as far as I'm aware states cannot deficit spend, and even bonding bills have their limits. Expecting states to cover the cost of passenger rail when they don't do that for roads or aviation puts rail on a significantly unequal footing for no real reason.

We can have divisions of Amtrak with separate pools of money dedicated to specific services, and departments of Amtrak focused on specific types of services with that dedicated pool of money for that type of service. Thus, long distance services wouldn't need to compete with regional services for funding or staff time. I'm sure there's some of this structure today, but if it's a concern that division could be easily codified in funding measures. There's no reason to arbitrarily restrict Amtrak to funding projects over 750 miles - we already exempt the NEC anyways, so why not open up that same exemption across the country?


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 31, 2021)

jebr said:


> I disagree. Federal funding is heavily involved in all transportation projects, and passenger rail should be no different. The logistics, especially for capital expenses, are also easier - as far as I'm aware states cannot deficit spend, and even bonding bills have their limits. Expecting states to cover the cost of passenger rail when they don't do that for roads or aviation puts rail on a significantly unequal footing for no real reason.
> 
> We can have divisions of Amtrak with separate pools of money dedicated to specific services, and departments of Amtrak focused on specific types of services with that dedicated pool of money for that type of service. Thus, long distance services wouldn't need to compete with regional services for funding or staff time. I'm sure there's some of this structure today, but if it's a concern that division could be easily codified in funding measures. There's no reason to arbitrarily restrict Amtrak to funding projects over 750 miles - we already exempt the NEC anyways, so why not open up that same exemption across the country?



1) The 750 mile rule is not exactly something that was promulgated at the birth of Amtrak. In fact, Amtrak existed perfectly well for many decades without the 750 mile rule,

2) While it is, of course desirable that the States have some "skin in the game" with respect to funding rail projects, the experience of highways and earlier Amtrak state partnerships indicates that this can be done through the use of matching funds.

3) With respect to the NEC, it should be noted that the NEC states do pay a good deal to help maintain the NEC infrastructure, in fact some of the NEC infrastructure is owned by the States, and the non-Amtrak commuter operators (and the freight RRs) pay Amtrak for track access.

4) NEC-like service on other corridors should be a major goal of Amtrak. If successful, an ever larger proportion of the American public will see passenger rail as a practical alternative to other transportation modes and an essential part of American transportation infrastructure.


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Mar 31, 2021)

It looks like Amtrak released a new map today as well. This is what Amtrak can accomplish by 2035 with help from Congress. Would carry 52 million people a year.




http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf


----------



## jis (Apr 1, 2021)

Methinks this is pretty underwhelming


----------



## sttom (Apr 1, 2021)

What they want to roll out in 15 years should be what they kick out annually for 15 years.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Apr 1, 2021)

One huge gap is along the route of the former Pioneer. Whether it be a corridor from SEA/PDX/BOI or ideally the whole route from SEA to SLC or DEN that part of the map is barren. That being said the Desert Wind could and should be brought back too. The Pioneer and DW trainoffs were huge mistakes. 

Maybe that quadrant of the country would be more efficiently served by a daily long distance train in each direction instead of corridor services. It sure would be more cost effective and hit more cities especially if they both had through cars to Chicago again.


----------



## Ziv (Apr 1, 2021)

I agree with AmtrakFlyer but would carry it a bit further. That map just calls out for a train that would run from Portland to Boise, either Salt Lake City or Cheyenne, then Denver, Oklahoma City, Forth Worth/Dallas and on to Houston. I like Cheyenne as a destination but SLC makes more sense, I imagine. What a train trip that would be! And it hits some good population centers that are underserved by rail. I think it hits cities # 4, 9, 13, 19, 25, 26 and #98 as ranked by population. Had to include Boise in that list... LOL!
Not sure if Amtrak could turn a train at Houston, though.



McIntyre2K7 said:


> It looks like Amtrak released a new map today as well. This is what Amtrak can accomplish by 2035 with help from Congress. Would carry 52 million people a year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## toddinde (Apr 2, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The NEC is the only Amtrak service that is actually a significant part of the total transportation mix along its route. If all the other Amtrak service disappeared, very few people would notice. If the NEC disappeared, there would be traffic jams galore and the airlines would have to scramble to expand their shuttle services. The NEC also contains 16 senators and lots of representatives, which means that there's more interest in Congress about it than there is for services that serve only one or maybe two states, especially when particular state governments are opposed to passenger rail on general principle (or so it seems.)
> 
> It seems to me that the goal of Amtrak is to replicate the NEC (or something as close as possible) in other parts of the country. Eliminating the 750 miles rule might help with that, but it raises the question of freeloading. Either the Feds pay for everything, or they only play with the states who are willing to pay.


The NEC is largely a commuter system. Further, when it’s been off line or out of service, it doesn’t significantly impact regional traffic. Other modes could absorb the NEC. But in many rural communities, the market share of rail is many times the percentage share of NEC cities, and the economic impact on those rural communities is significantly greater. Let’s not play the NEC off against the long distance trains. They are part of a national, interconnected rail system that is vital to the future of the US and our ability to compete in the modern world. Some people in urban areas don’t comprehend fly over country, but under our constitutional system, they have a significant voice. I agree with the point made that end point mentality is bad. The long distance trains are the best way to provide transportation to regional centers that can further be connected by bus. It works.


----------



## jis (Apr 2, 2021)

toddinde said:


> The NEC is largely a commuter system. Further, when it’s been off line or out of service, it doesn’t significantly impact regional traffic. Other modes could absorb the NEC.


I guess it is easy to spew uninformed BS about how NEC can be absorbed by other modes. With such high credibility it should not be surprising if some of us who experienced NEC outage after Sandy would choose to ignore this line of argument from you


----------



## keelhauled (Apr 2, 2021)

toddinde said:


> But in many rural communities, the market share of rail is many times the percentage share of NEC cities, and the economic impact on those rural communities is significantly greater.


This is a very useless data point without comparison to similar communities without Amtrak service. I have a hard time believing that Amtrak is any kind of a significant driver of economic growth compared with factors like geography and natural resources.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 2, 2021)

jis said:


> I guess it is easy to spew uninformed BS about how NEC can be absorbed by other modes. With such high credibility it should not be surprising if some of us who experienced NEC outage after Sandy would choose to ignore this line of argument from you


Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?


----------



## jis (Apr 2, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?


Oh I understood that a long time back. That is why I mostly ignore your arguments, since they are not driven by any rationality but mostly by emotion. Got it? I hope we understand each other fully now, since apparently you had difficulty understanding my position.


----------



## zephyr17 (Apr 2, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?


That has pretty much been the political understanding that has kept both rolling since the 70s


----------



## toddinde (Apr 3, 2021)

jis said:


> Oh I understood that a long time back. That is why I mostly ignore your arguments, since they are not driven by any rationality but mostly by emotion. Got it? I hope we understand each other fully now, since apparently you had difficulty understanding my position.


I know a lot more about it than you do clearly. And you’re not ignoring my arguments because you respond to them with your BS.


----------



## toddinde (Apr 3, 2021)

keelhauled said:


> This is a very useless data point without comparison to similar communities without Amtrak service. I have a hard time believing that Amtrak is any kind of a significant driver of economic growth compared with factors like geography and natural resources.


You can read the studies conducted by the Trent Lott Center at the University of Mississippi, and RPA. You can review ridership statistics and boardings at various Amtrak stations and review the population of the surrounding area. Finally, you can often see the difference between communities with and without rail service.


----------



## railiner (Apr 4, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Let me make it clear to you so you can understand. I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train. Understand?


I understand your feelings on the matter, but rest assured (or don't), if Amtrak liquidated tomorrow, the NEC would go on, probably run by a consortium of the various transit agencies that use it. 
Would your Arizona authorities do likewise on its Amtrak routes? I don't think so.

If you think its shutdown would have no impact...try getting thru the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels, or the GW Bridge when it sometimes happens...


----------



## niemi24s (Apr 4, 2021)

toddinde said:


> I don’t care if another steel wheel ever rolls again between New York and Washington if I lose my long distance train.


Gosh, that'd be terrible. If you lost the TE/SL then you'd have a 5 hour drive to FLG to catch the SWC. Boo-hoo!!

Oh. . . .wait! I'm already that far from _my_ closest station. 

Disregard the Boo-hoo.


----------



## railiner (Apr 5, 2021)

niemi24s said:


> Gosh, that'd be terrible. If you lost the TE/SL then you'd have a 5 hour drive to FLG to catch the SWC. Boo-hoo!!
> 
> Oh. . . .wait! I'm already that far from _my_ closest station.
> 
> Disregard the Boo-hoo.


If the TE/SL was gone, so would the SWC, right?


----------



## toddinde (Apr 5, 2021)

railiner said:


> I understand your feelings on the matter, but rest assured (or don't), if Amtrak liquidated tomorrow, the NEC would go on, probably run by a consortium of the various transit agencies that use it.
> Would your Arizona authorities do likewise on its Amtrak routes? I don't think so.
> 
> If you think its shutdown would have no impact...try getting thru the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels, or the GW Bridge when it sometimes happens...


I agree. The NEC would continue in some form. The NEC has shutdown in the past, unfortunately, and the traffic was absorbed. But that’s really not important because everyone knows the NEC is important. But so are the other trains in the national system. That’s my point. In truth, none are really more important than the others. They all have vital constituencies and our part of our national transportation system.


----------

