# Amtrak replacing 2 northeast regional trains with Palmetto??



## edjbox (Jul 31, 2015)

Heard a rumor that 2 regional trains, one of them being #198, will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded palmetto that will stop in the same places that the two regional trains stopped before. Any more news with this and when will it happen?


----------



## Anderson (Jul 31, 2015)

I'd heard a rumor that something was going to happen with the Palmetto but didn't hear more. This doesn't seem like a bad idea as long as they extend the Palmetto's consist to ensure there's not a squeeze-out. If nothing else, it should significantly bump the Palmetto's bottom line: Add 100 internal pax/day on the NEC at $50/each and you're adding almost $2m to the train's bottom line. This ought to make the Palmetto _quite_ profitable above the rails (IIRC the train is already in the black there) and goose the LD segment's ridership numbers.

Granted, a lot of this is accounting magic...but this would bump Palmetto revenue by about 10%. Southbound there is _no_ reason not to allow these tickets to be purchased (the OTP issue isn't an issue) since Amtrak can space-control the train if they need to. Northbound, the train simply isn't going to make anyone late for a meeting...and if the train is held up, 66 leaves not _too_ much after 198/90 head north; if nothing else, Amtrak should be able to get away with cross-honoring tickets between trains north of WAS.


----------



## neroden (Jul 31, 2015)

edjbox said:


> Heard a rumor that 2 regional trains, one of them being #198, will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded palmetto that will stop in the same places that the two regional trains stopped before. Any more news with this and when will it happen?


Huh. Probably 181/131 in the other direction. (Which is interesting because 181 and 131 don't stop in the same places as each other.)

Anyway, if the Palmetto consist is looooong enough, this seems perfectly sensible. It would add New Carrolton, BWI, Aberdeen, probably *not* Newark DE (unless the new station gets built, it's a pain to stop at), probably *not* Princeton Junction or New Brunswick, definitely Metropark, maybe-maybe-not Newark Airport.

This would help the accounting on the so-called "long-distance" division (I consider all this Congressionally-enforced division of accounting to be absolute nonsense, so I'm all in favor of that). It would also open up a slot on the NEC to extend overnight maintenance windows or let NJT or SEPTA or freight run something, and it would relax the duty cycle of the Amfleets, allowing for more maintenance time.

Perhaps best of all, it would allow one-seat trips to parts of the Carolinas and Georgia from stations such as BWI and Metropark. This will probably be used.

People will be annoyed by the inferior cafe car food selection on the Palmetto as versus the Regionals, though, so they should fix that.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 31, 2015)

Hmmm. I guess this is what someone in the July 1st Recap thread might have been alluding to when this post was made:



Thirdrail7 said:


> Train2104 said:
> 
> 
> > The first Silver Star pair have completed their dinerless runs. Any reports?
> ...


For the record, there are issues and nothing is completed at this time, but keep a sharp watch on the timetables. 198 may indeed be spared. We'll find out soon enough though.

Remember, accounting for the NEC portion of these trains would fall under that route number while only the additional tickets sold south of WAS would go towards the Palmetto's numbers. In other words, the only additional revenue the Palmetto can receive comes from say a PJC-RVR sale or an ABE-SAV sale.


----------



## Palmland (Jul 31, 2015)

I would hope Amtrak includes equipment utilization into their decision to add cars to 89/90. Currently only 3 coaches are in use south of RVR (4 on the train). Is it worth adding add'l coaches that are empty RVR-SAV-RVR? Easy solution: extra switch cars out at Washington.


----------



## PVD (Jul 31, 2015)

Instead of changing electric to diesel for the southern end, you could change engine and add/drop coach(es) together. If loading warranted, you could even do it in PHL. I recently saw a southbound Adirondack go from a P42 to a dual mode in Albany, when they backed it on, it had an extra coach with it for the ALB to NYP run. Seeing the line in the station, it made sense.


----------



## afigg (Jul 31, 2015)

edjbox said:


> Heard a rumor that 2 regional trains, one of them being #198, will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded palmetto that will stop in the same places that the two regional trains stopped before. Any more news with this and when will it happen?


Opening the southbound Palmetto to local NEC traffic and replacing 181/131 might have some merit. But 181 stops at Metropark, New Brunswick, Aderdeen, BWI, New Carrollton, which is a lot of stops, with Aberdeen as a time killing stop. With a 6:10 AM NYP departure, 181 presumably gets a LOT of traffic. If the Palmetto consist is extended, either it drops coach cars off at WAS or has empty cars south of WAS. it will also likely result in some lost total business because some people won't book a named train when they are looking to take a Regional. Yes, this happens.

Northbound, replacing 198 doesn't work for multiple reasons. First off, #198 departs WAS at 9:05 PM. #90 departs WAS at a nominal 8:05 PM. BIG difference. Then, of course, there is the on-time reliability. Checking status maps archives, #90 was more than 30 minutes late into WAS 9 times out of 29 days from July 1 to 29. Moving those passengers to the Palmetto will drive away NEC business. I already sometimes avoid booking northbound Virginia Regionals out of WAS for point runs because I know the odds are higher that those trains will be running late.

With the NEC Regionals getting ever more passengers, any move to take away total seat capacity is not a good one, IMO. Opening the southbound Palmetto to local NEC traffic and leaving 181/131 in the schedule, shifting 181 to a 6:20 NYP departure might actually draw more total passengers. More options, more passengers. Northbound, after the HSIPR upgrades are completed (or mostly completed) in VA and NC, hopefully boosting reliability a bit, maybe then consider opening both the Palmetto and Carolinian to local NEC traffic to boost seat capacity while leaving all the Regionals in the schedule.

One change that should be considered is to add BWI as a stop for both the Carolinian and Palmetto. Even as a D only stop northbound and D for #89. BWI is the busiest stop on the southern NEC that is skipped by the LD trains and the Carolinian. While not adding BWI for the overnight LD trains with sleepers is understandable, why not stop at BWI for the medium and long range daytime corridor trains?

BTW, I assume a major factor in considering this change is that with the new baggage cars, the Palmetto can operate at 125 mph on the NEC, so it can act more like a Regional.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 31, 2015)

afigg said:


> edjbox said:
> 
> 
> > Heard a rumor that 2 regional trains, one of them being #198, will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded palmetto that will stop in the same places that the two regional trains stopped before. Any more news with this and when will it happen?
> ...


Affig, I've brought this up for years on our usual hunting grounds. The positions that you (and I) previously took based upon certain assumptions may no longer be accurate.

First, you're assuming (and why not since this is just a rumor) that there would be no accompanying timetable changes. Secondly, you are spot on that these trains are now able to operate at 125mph, which would allow more stops to be added to the current run while not severely impacting the slots.

Next, the schedule you posted for 198 is a temporary schedule based upon track work that is occurring. 198's true slot and schedule still remains at 2045hrs with a scheduled 0010 arrival time at NYP. It seems to me that you would have to wait for the actual proposed arrival time from the south (because there **may** be other additional changes to the trains that haven't hit the rumor mill yet), the proposed scheduled departure time from WAS and the proposed arrival time in NYP before you can say it won't work from a schedule point of view. This my even hold true when you comment on 90's current OTP (which is always a problem.) If there is a change in schedule, some of that delay time may actually disappear on the corridor.

For those who may not want to schedule a regional that comes from the, you do have the presence of 2128 if you so desired. This train didn't exist until a few years ago.

Remember Affig, more and more trains are originating off corridor these days and more may get extended in the future. This train isn't much different that 84,86,174,176, 94 or 66. On the other side, a lot of trains come through Metro-North territory. Very few NYP-WAS trains remain between these two terminals. Even some of the trains that run between these sections often turn from trains that originated off corridor (84 to 193 as an example.) The off corridor argument isn't as strong as it once was.

As for taking capacity away, 181 is not that much of a powerhouse especially if you leave out the MARC passengers. If you take 3 or 4 coaches of 181's consist and slap it on 89, you are saving yourself 4 cars, a full crew and an engine that can be deployed elsewhere while accommodating passengers on a train that is already underutilized on the NEC. Upon arrival in WAS, you short turn the same cars you dropped in the morning add them to 90 and really utilize the equipment which was previously discharge only. 198 can be tricky since it is known to spike, but you can now sell seats in the previously discharge only section in addition to the added coaches in WAS. It is almost a balance under most conditions. Under extreme conditions, you may need to add another coach.

The other factor that is left out is the presence of the ACS-64s. Years ago, 89/90 and 79/80 were scheduled corridor trains that operated in a similar manner that we are speculating about. 89/90 operated with 12 cars. This necessitated two AEM-7s. You can now accomplish the same thing with one ACS-64..and operate it at higher speeds.

Now, I can see numerous potential problems and I don't think the situation has resolved itself. I do not necessarily endorse this idea nor do I necessarily think it is a bad idea. I think it is worth further discussion and exploration.

For the record, the above is just a casual comment that reflect my personal thoughts on a posted rumor. I'm am responding to a general statement in a general manner. No specific responses to any specific plans are addressed or implied on my part.

I think I need a lawyer. :help:

One more thing Affig, the current schedule are not conducive to stopping 89, 79 and 80 at BWI. These trains often operate on the 2 track (the inside track at BWI) to avoid being sandwiched with MARC traffic. 90 shouldn't be much of an issue.



PVD said:


> Instead of changing electric to diesel for the southern end, you could change engine and add/drop coach(es) together. If loading warranted, you could even do it in PHL. I recently saw a southbound Adirondack go from a P42 to a dual mode in Albany, when they backed it on, it had an extra coach with it for the ALB to NYP run. Seeing the line in the station, it made sense.


Making a move on this train at PHL would defeat the purpose of combining it. You'd cut capacity where you need it most (PHL-WAS) while sending a slow loading diesel that has a maximum speed of 110/100(You never know when a P32-BWH will show up) if it even reaches that speed into 125mph electrified territory. The idea would be to keep the electric on until WAS.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 31, 2015)

Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of replacing Regionals with the Palmetto?


----------



## chakk (Jul 31, 2015)

Paulus said:


> Maybe I missed it, but what is the point of replacing Regionals with the Palmetto?


Save money


----------



## Heading North (Jul 31, 2015)

As someone who was once semiregular on 181 from PJC-WAS and frequently would see the two trains pass each other along the way, it's not a bad idea. And (selfishly speaking) having more destinations from PJC/NBK makes my life easier though I know there are track capacity issues. (The old timetables showed the Pennsylvanian, Montrealer, Federal, etc. making a PJC stop at different times.)

Two issues that might come up: first, while I'd often ride only on Mondays, it could get pretty crowded onboard. Lots of people in the cafe working at tables, many headed for PHL, others for WAS, and some days I'd walk through a coach or two looking for seats. (If folks didn't feel entitled to two seats each in the quiet car, that would help...)

And second, what would the consist be like? NY-WAS passengers on the Carolinian wonder where the quiet car is and other ways it's different from an NEC train. Would there be separate Amfleet I cars for short-distance passengers and separating out those going past WAS in the LD coaches? (If the train were opened up NYP-WAS, could also make for an interesting NEC diner experiment...)


----------



## Anderson (Aug 1, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Hmmm. I guess this is what someone in the July 1st Recap thread might have been alluding to when this post was made:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I thought (and I could be wrong) that when the Crescent, Meteor, and (I think) either Palmetto or Star got opened up for SB tickets between NYP and WAS a few years ago (it was an end-of-fiscal-year experiment...I think it was July or August through the end of September) those riders got credited to the LD trains? I'd need to dig out the MPRs for those months, but I thought that was the case, if only because it seemed to be done to bump the LD trains' numbers (which were barely off of falling for the year until they had a strong finish). I'd have to check back to old MPRs that aren't accessible to me at the moment, but this _seemed_ to be the case at the time.

I could, of course, be wrong in this...but it would seem odd (at least to me) to credit non-Regional traffic to the NEC. After all, this isn't like the Virginia Regionals where there's a funky split in ridership with the state (though I have _no_ idea what the situation is with, say, the Vermonter from the perspective of the MPRs vis-a-vis what Vermont actually gets credit for, and I know the Carolinian has a strange arrangement as well).


----------



## neroden (Aug 1, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Remember, accounting for the NEC portion of these trains would fall under that route number while only the additional tickets sold south of WAS would go towards the Palmetto's numbers. In other words, the only additional revenue the Palmetto can receive comes from say a PJC-RVR sale or an ABE-SAV sale.


Given the correct stops (Metropark, BWI, etc.) I think that could be very significant revenue.

How many people from points-south-of-DC would take a train to catch an international flight directly at BWI, or at Newark Airport? They wouldn't do it if it involved multiple trains, but a direct connection, maybe...

And there are certainly people from New Jersey, used to parking in Metropark or taking the Dinky from Princeton, headed to points south of DC.

Anyway, if they do do this, I strongly advise the following:

(1) Have a quiet car just like the Regionals do.

(2) Have the cafe food selection of the Regionals.

(3) Have Amfleet IIs for the longer-distance passengers.

(4) Keep the baggage car.

(5) Run "short" coaches which detach along with the electric motor at WAS, just as is done at Albany.

The really tricky part would be figuring out which stations to stop at. Metropark definitely, but it's unclear to me which of the other stations would be most valuable. Again I note that 181 and 131 stop at a different set of stations from each other.


----------



## Palmland (Aug 1, 2015)

Why wouldn't an expanded Palmetto just keep its current consist that includes Amfleet I and Amfleet II cars as well as a baggage and cafe. It was my understanding that the Palmetto cafe food was a cut above regional trains (but still pretty mediocre). Just add Amfleet i cars for NEC traffic. A quiet car is a good idea. I'm all for a Metropark stop. I travel the Palmetto often from SC. A Metropark stop would be much more convenient when we visit our son who lives about 20min from there.


----------



## neroden (Aug 2, 2015)

Palmland said:


> It was my understanding that the Palmetto cafe food was a cut above regional trains (but still pretty mediocre).


It was my understanding that it was the standard "national cafe car" menu, which is a cut below the regional train menu. Perhaps someone can clarify?


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 2, 2015)

neroden said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > It was my understanding that the Palmetto cafe food was a cut above regional trains (but still pretty mediocre).
> ...


Palmetto Cafe Menu

Silver Star Cafe Menu


----------



## keelhauled (Aug 2, 2015)

Point of interest...apparently at least the Star's cafe menu has been modified. Compare with the equivalent national cafe car menu (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/198/849/National-Cafe-Menu-0515.pdf, which all the other LD trains seem to still use); the Star's menu is both slightly cheaper and slightly expanded.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2015)

Yeah, the Star's menu looks perfectly adequate for my purposes. However, it would be nice if it were current


----------



## OBS (Aug 2, 2015)

Neither of these menus are accurate....The Silver Star menu is dated 2010...way out of date...

ETA the menu Keelhauled posted is correct...May 2015.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 2, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Point of interest...apparently at least the Star's cafe menu has been modified. Compare with the equivalent national cafe car menu (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/198/849/National-Cafe-Menu-0515.pdf, which all the other LD trains seem to still use); the Star's menu is both slightly cheaper and slightly expanded.


Not sure if it's a mistake or not, but the menu Amtrak posted for the Silver Star is dated 02/10 (see bottom right corner). They may have posted an old menu with old prices.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 2, 2015)

OBS said:


> Neither of these menus are accurate....The Silver Star menu is dated 2010...way out of date...
> 
> ETA the menu Keelhauled posted is correct...May 2015.


You caught it first. Now, if only Amtrak could catch that they have the wrong menu posted for the Silver Star.


----------



## keelhauled (Aug 2, 2015)

Too bad. For a minute there I thought Amtrak had actually tried to make the cafe car better as part of their experiment. Now I'm just sad.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 8, 2015)

Keep an eye on the timetables for changes.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 13, 2015)

New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:


----------



## edjbox (Oct 13, 2015)

I think the website is down because of the schedule change


----------



## StriderGDM (Oct 13, 2015)

edjbox said:


> I think the website is down because of the schedule change


I HIGHLY doubt that.

The website issues appear to be CDN or other content related. A background database change such as this (which happens all the time) shouldn't cause a 2 day (so far) outage.


----------



## edjbox (Oct 13, 2015)

StriderGDM said:


> edjbox said:
> 
> 
> > I think the website is down because of the schedule change
> ...


I know, I was just being funny...

In other news, I found out which regionals the enhanced palmetto will replace

Checking the amtrak app, effective 10/26:

For southbound, regional 181 (mon-fri) and 121(sat) are discontinued. Train 131 will run only on Saturday, taking 121s spot. 131 will no longer operate on Sunday

For northbound, daily train 198 will be discontinued.

My question is, how was the ridership on 181, 121, 131, and 198? Will people adjust?


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 14, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:


Nothing under the schedules page.


----------



## edjbox (Oct 14, 2015)

Acela150 said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > New schedules for 89 and 90 are now available on the website...if it starts working! :hi:
> ...


You have to look at the reservations section for each day, that's how I got my info


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 16, 2015)

There's a service alert for it.


----------



## Palmetto (Oct 16, 2015)

And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.


----------



## keelhauled (Oct 16, 2015)

Palmetto said:


> And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.


The 26th.


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 16, 2015)

IINM this is coming along to free up some equipment.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 16, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > And this is temporary, apparently, in case no one has already pointed that out. Ends some time in February, I think I read.
> ...



It is basically a pilot.....just like the lack of a dining car on the Silver Star. h34r:

Let's take bets on which comes back first. :giggle:


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 16, 2015)

Why exactly was the Palmetto truncated in Savannah as opposed to going through to Florida as before? It now just looks like the Silver Meteor without the Florida part which I assume is more popular than the rest of the route. That would be like cutting the Lake Shore Limited at Albany and not serving New York or Boston. Right now the train has the lowest ridership of any daily LD train.

Maybe it can continue to JAX and then to NOL along the old Sunset Limited route.


----------



## jis (Oct 16, 2015)

Palmetto in all its existence has mostly been a Savannah train, and for a while a JAX train. The tension into Florida was relatively short lived. So when it was "cut back" to Savannah it was actually restored to its original state acknowledging that the other experiments did not quite work out given the equipment and time table constraints.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 16, 2015)

jis said:


> Palmetto in all its existence has mostly been a Savannah train, and for a while a JAX train. The tension into Florida was relatively short lived. So when it was "cut back" to Savannah it was actually restored to its original state acknowledging that the other experiments did not quite work out given the equipment and time table constraints.


If memory serves, I seem to remember funding being part of the issue. Florida didn't really want to contribute towards its operation, so it was cut back to SAV after the Silver Palm fiasco.

Am I close, Jis?

PS; Why are still awake? :giggle:


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

I say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it. I counted three stops south of WAS that is on the Silver Meteor that isn't on the Palmetto, Add those stops to the Meteor and no one completely loses service. You have 15 LD trains in the entire system and one of them ends in Savannah, Ga and basically duplicates another LD train? What's the point? It's not like there aren't two other LD trains from the NEC who stop in Savannah. I'm sure I can name plenty of places/routes that equipment and labor could better serve.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 17, 2015)

Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. Amtrak doesn't want refugees from 89/90 clogging up coaches on 97/98. I could take the same attitude and say let's cut out some of the redundant services on the NEC. Amtrak is most efficient economically speaking when it can find routes that support multiple trains daily.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

xyzzy said:


> Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. Amtrak doesn't want refugees from 89/90 clogging up coaches on 97/98.


Take some coaches from 89/90 and add them to 97/98. Amtrak already said they wanted to add a fifth coach car to the SM in the PRIAA. Would five coach cars handle the extra passengers from the Palmetto? Would six?

Or if it "empties out" near the end, shorten the route (of course then it requires state funding).

I wonder if running two cars from NYP to ATL daily would work. We know about the Crescent carrying many more passengers between NYP and ATL than ATL and NOL. Maybe the second train can split that ridership which would allow the Crescent to run with one fewer coach car.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 17, 2015)

Wait, should we be adding a 2nd or 3rd LD train, or should we be removing the 2nd or 3rd LD train?

Or, yeah, just shorten the route because it empties out near the end. And then when the newly shortened route empties out near the end, shorten it again. And again. And again. (I guess that's the way to get to the goal of eliminating the Palmetto over a longer period of time.)

And for the Crescent, get a new station facility built in Atlanta and the PIP suggested that Amtrak would do just that, cut/add cars in ATL so that the Crescent had more capacity north and less capacity south.


----------



## OBS (Oct 17, 2015)

IIRC, part of the problem with Jax ending point was that it stretched the hours of service and shortened the L/O for the equipment, to the breaking point.

ie if the train was 1-2 hours late into Jax, train was delayed departing the next AM due to equipment maint. and Crew rest....


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2015)

OBS said:


> IIRC, part of the problem with Jax ending point was that it stretched the hours of service and shortened the L/O for the equipment, to the breaking point.
> 
> ie if the train was 1-2 hours late into Jax, train was delayed departing the next AM due to equipment maint. and Crew rest....


My recollection is that this was the reason JAX could not be made to work, specially as CSX time keeping deteriorated over time. Funding from Florida, or lack thereof, of which there never has been any for any of the Atlantic Coast trains was not an issue.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > Loads on 89/90 are quite good, although like any train the SB empties out somewhat at the end of its run. ...
> ...


If a route doesn't have a major anchor market at each end, then if you shorten that route it could still "empty out" near the end. Only the end will come sooner. What to do then? Shorten it some more? At some point you are arguing to cancel the train. So you either extend it to a big market … or … leave it alone.

​Leave the _Palmetto_ alone. There's no need to go whacking off pieces of its route. Actually, Savannah + Charleston work as a fairly large market. NARP shows the Charleston station with typically about 43,000 passengers, compared with NYC at 45,000 or so, while Savannah alone has about 25,000 riders.

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

The duplication with other trains is between NYC and NC, where SB it runs within an hour of the _Carolinian_, which doesn't seem to be hurt by the competition. NB is a little better, with about a 3 hour difference. In any case, from D.C. and Richmond thru the Carolinas, the_ Palmetto_ does very good business in small cities like Fayetteville and Florence.

A few years ago Joe Boardman showed a Congressional Committee figures that ranked the _Palmetto _above the overnight trains for operating results. (Well, the Auto Train, sui generis, does even better.) The _Palmetto _is doing fine as is. It ain't broke; no need to fix it.

Usually the conversation around here is how to get the LD overnight trains with their costly diners to perform as well as the day-train _Palmetto._


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> ​Leave the _Palmetto_ alone. There's no need to go whacking off pieces of its route. Actually, Savannah + Charleston work as a fairly large market. NARP shows the Charleston station with typically about 43,000 passengers, compared with NYC at 45,000 or so, while Savannah alone has about 25,000 riders.
> 
> http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf


The Silver Meteor also serves these markets and the Silver Star serves Savannah.


----------



## A Voice (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I say either extend it to Florida or get rid of it. I counted three stops south of WAS that is on the Silver Meteor that isn't on the Palmetto, Add those stops to the Meteor and no one completely loses service. You have 15 LD trains in the entire system and one of them ends in Savannah, Ga and basically duplicates another LD train? What's the point? It's not like there aren't two other LD trains from the NEC who stop in Savannah. I'm sure I can name plenty of places/routes that equipment and labor could better serve.


I understand what you're suggesting, but with respect, that's a badly mistaken idea. A model of one train per day for each destination is not the type of service we should be seeking. Multiple departures per day between stations attracts far more passengers; On the other hand, if we eliminate one train, all (or even necessarily most) of its passengers do not get transferred to the remaining departures (they just don't go by rail at all).

Most people don't alter their travel plans to suit whenever Amtrak chooses for them to travel (else the half-baked Mercer cuts of the 1990's could've worked. They didn't.); Giving people more options attracts more passengers (look at what has happened over the decades with the San Joaquin route out in California) and increases revenue. If you want a major end-point to avoid such "emptying out" towards the end of the line (that is always going to happen anywhere to some extent), if only one more train set could be scrounged up (yes, I'm aware of the Amfleet shortages), you could extend the train to Orlando. If anyplace has seen exponential growth in leisure travel it is central Florida - yet Amtrak offers less service there today than in the 1970's.

Leave the _Palmetto_ be unless you're improving it, and work on getting more nationwide train service, not less.


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2015)

I agree with A Voice's analysis. There is no reason to get rid of the Palmetto. It provides daytime service to a whole host of folks on a route that otherwise does not have daytime service. Indeed I would go so far as to say we should be looking at insitituting Palmetto like daytime service on routes where it may be feasible, like New York to Detroit, Chicago to Pittsburgh and such. Unfortunately New York to Atlanta has never been within the realm of an operationally feasible daytime service using just two consist. However, Washington to Atlanta is feasible and should be given serious consideration.

As for Palmetto, Savannah is a convenient point to terminate and turn the train given the operational realities of today. The folks who benefit from it are all along the route, not just at Savannah. Focussing too much on end point of runs exposes a certain lack of understanding of how trains are used by their customers. Using the same logic, the Vermonter should be cut back from St. Albans to Essex or even at Springfield perhaps, the former would require running the train empty to St. Albans for servicing and turning, and the latter would remove the entire reason for existence of the train. What would be the point of that?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 17, 2015)

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak.

Look again at the NARP data for the _Palmetto _and the _Piedmont._

http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2014.pdf

Look at the _Palmetto _passenger total for little ole Wilson, N.C., a town which, in my observation, consists of a few schools and churches and a Walmart.

In 2012, only 15,000 used the station there, but by 2014 it showed 28,000 users. What happened? Amtrak grew. Since October 2012, Wilson has been served by two feeder buses, Wilmington-Camp LeJeune- Kinston-Goldsboro-Wilson and Morehead City-Marine Air Station-Greenville-New Bern-Wilson. *Add two daily bus roundtrips and see ridership double? Let's grow!*

Look at the figures for the _Piedmont_.

It had ridership of 67,000 in 2009. Then in June 2010 a second _Piedmont_ train was added (amounting to a third frequency Raleigh-Charlotte when you count the _Carolinian_). So in 2014, after the _Piedmont_'s frequency had doubled, its ridership had had reached 168,000! (Doubling would have been 132,000 riders, giving a bonus over doubling of 36,000 riders, or not two times the base, but two and a half times the base!) Meanwhile the Carolinian totals stayed flat, so the 101,000 added riders were *new *riders, not switchers. *Two times the train frequencies gets two and a half times more riders? Let's grow!*

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!


Well every time I suggest a train to "grow" the system I always get back by several people we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment, or (insert name of rail owner) won't allow it. If you want to grow the network and you don't have the money or equipment, what other option do you have but to cut under performing routes? And if the Palmetto and Cardinal aren't the most under performing routes in the LD system, what are?

Are you satisfied with the current LD system? Is there any Point A to Point B service you would like to see that doesn't exist now? Can you increase ridership and revenue without cutting service? If so, how? Does Amtrak only have the equipment for 15 LD trains? If so, shouldn't those 15 serve the biggest markets or tourist destinations to serve the largest potential audience? Do you know a new LD train that can serve more than the 200,000 passengers the Palmetto does? If so, why shouldn't you replace the Palmetto with it? If you can do better when it comes to R & R than the Cardinal, why not use the train on a route that will increase business?

I know most people hate my ideas but at least I'm trying. Unless you are satisfied with the status quo, what ideas do you have to improve LD service?

Of course I'm fighting for LD service because as I was told before the 750 mile rule. Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati can't be run without state funding and we know that's a dead end in Ohio. So All Aboard Ohio suggested a leg connecting at Cleveland to the Lake Shore Limited.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

The schedule however delays the train getting into CHI and likely breaks or makes connecting in CHI to the SWC, CZ, EB, and TE harder. Similarly, the train leaves CHI too early. One of the posters suggested connecting the TR which All Aboard Ohio suggested from CHI to NYP on a different schedule to allow daytime service in TOL and CLE with the 3C route.

There's plenty of other medium distance routes that I'm sure would be great (CHI-MSP, LAX-Vegas, any train to Louisville, Columbus, and/or Nashville who have no service at all) but without state funding we're up a creek without a paddle. So LD is the only way to go.


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2015)

And without additional federal funding we are up the creek without a paddle on LD too. Sad but true.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Oct 17, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > xyzzy said:
> ...


"The Silver Meteor also serves these markets…"

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

Southbound Fayetteville's 31,000 and the 35,000 riders at Florence (Myrtle Beach) are *served *by the _Meteor _in the gloom of night at 1:22 a.m., 3:05 a.m., 11:12 p.m., and 12:37 a.m.

Southbound the_ Star_ *serves* Savannah at 4:13 a.m. and at 1:22 a.m. northbound.

"Methuselah lived 900 years.

The _Meteor_ stops here 3 a.m.

Now who calls that *service*

when no gal will board it

if the train gonna leave 3 a.m.?"

_Apologies to Cab Calloway and the Gershwins._

The _Palmetto _is doing fine as is. It ain't broke. No need to fix it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Cleveland and Toledo say hi. Don't you think they deserve a train at a better time than Fayeteville, NC?


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2015)

Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.

Specifically though for Cleveland and Toledo, even if equipment could be found, it will be another matter getting agreement from NS and CSX to run such a service on their clogged up trunk lines. That is the bigger problem at present IMHO. What with the Horizons getting released from the midwest, it may be quite possible to cobble together two 5 car consists perhaps even with a baggage car. Getting locomotives for it may be an issue given the recent spate of locomotives suffering damage.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

jis said:


> Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.
> 
> Specifically though for Cleveland and Toledo, even if equipment could be found, it will be another matter getting agreement from NS and CSX to run such a service on their clogged up trunk lines. That is the bigger problem at present IMHO. What with the Horizons getting released from the midwest, it may be quite possible to cobble together two 5 car consists perhaps even with a baggage car. Getting locomotives for it may be an issue given the recent spate of locomotives suffering damage.


You (and others) keep saying we can't grow overall service (at least the ones I suggest). So if there are growth opportunities out there that are feasible, what are they?

And if not, either rearrange the deck chairs or accept the status quo are the two options.


----------



## jis (Oct 17, 2015)

Why waste money rearranging deck chairs when status quo is not obviously broken. We should concentrate on (a) winning the political battle to get more resources allocated to passenger trains across the country Amtrak or otherwise and (b) develop plans on how to deploy such additional resources as and when they become available.I am with you insofar as we are discussing (b). You lose me when instead of helping out with (a) you go off into the rearrange deck-chairs mode. IMHO that is just a waste of resources that are already too thin. I must admit I am pretty entrenched in those two goals, and I know many others are, and you are unlikely to succeed in changing that at least in those of us who are focused on those two goals.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 17, 2015)

You're right that new or expanded services run up against the need for additional funding, whether from states for shorter trains or from the federal government for longer trains. And your suggestions to rob Peter (eliminate service) to pay Paul (add service elsewhere) will most definitely be shot down by many here.

So, what can we look at doing? Well, for one, Woody's example of Wilson NC is instructive - add Thruway services to grow Amtrak. Paulus has often argued for this as well. These expanded Thruway services can take the form of either running to "off-line" communities, as in the Wilson NC example, or as additional frequencies on the rail corridor. Either expand the reach of the rail system, or prove the need for more frequencies.

Also, look at the new equipment coming in the next few years. As Jis mentioned, that will free up some existing equipment. Could those Horizons be used elsewhere? But, keep in mind, unless you are adding those cars to existing trains, you'll probably need to identify additional state or federal funding to run those new trains. Furthermore, as that new equipment comes on line and track improvements underway finish up, and we add capacity (either in terms of more seats on existing trains or in the potential for additional frequencies) that will hopefully build momentum for further improvements and expansions.

I have a hard time imagining a situation where we see significant expansions of LD service, at least anytime in the near future. I do think it's quite likely that we could see continuing improvements and expansions of corridor service, beyond those underway and planned. I tend to think that is where our time and effort as advocates ought to be directed. Or, at least that's where our time and effort is likely to be rewarded.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/


----------



## west point (Oct 17, 2015)

Yes we have an equipment problem. Yes there is not any money. Money ? Congress critters will not fund anything. The FAA has announced flight delays because not enough funding for controllers at ATL airport and Atlanta center.

There must not be any cutbacks to present stations because of massive costs to restore the service. Look at Sunset east. Instead of trying to reduce service take the time and bagger your congress critters. And the White house as well.

This lack of equipment is really getting bad. substitution of a train to add some cars to Palmetto. Acela substitutions to regular regional trains. Congress kills Amtrak by a thousand small cuts.

. .


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.
> 
> http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/


Not as long as Kaisch is governor. He squashed the Three C proposal (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) as soon as he became governor. He called passenger train supporters "cultists." He's worse than Scott Walker.


----------



## OBS (Oct 17, 2015)

Note to self: Don't vote for John Kaisch for President...


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Oct 17, 2015)

It looks like the Palmetto would arrive at PJC only 6 minutes earlier than 181 does now (181 gets there at 7:05). I see that train almost every morning when I arrive there on my NJT commute, and it always has a good amount of people boarding there. If the Palmetto will definitely stop at PJC, and they don't decide to cut that station out, I think that would work well. In comparing schedules (PJC to WAS), it looks like the Palmetto would get there 15 minutes faster. As of now, it actually looks less expensive than the Regional (although I was comparing a Regional date closer to today).

Having never been on the Palmetto, what is it like? It has to be better than 181, which must use ancient equipment, because it often creaks and squeals its way into the station  . I always wave at it as it leaves and wish it a good and safe trip, figuring anyone who even notices would just assume I was waving to a person inside, not the train! (And this is the only place I would ever admit to talking to a train and waving at it!  )


----------



## A Voice (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> > The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!
> ...


The prohibition of federally funded short distance trains is hardly written in stone (it was arguably a mistake putting it into law); Granted, politically it might be easier to make water run uphill, but for initially starting wholly new routes and frequencies and possibly for trains which cross multiple states (other than just into a nearby terminal such as into Chicago, Portland, etc.), I think you can make a strong case for federal funding. Congress created the law, and it takes only a vote of Congress to change it.

Equipment is a real issue, and will take time to get new cars even if someone wrote the check tomorrow, but it represents a one-time investment in cars which may be operating the next 40 years or more. New routes and train frequencies don't happen overnight anyway even if you have equipment, so that is no excuse for downgrading existing services just to shuffle the cars elsewhere. If you start serious planning and can get funding, you could have the equipment by the time service is ready to begin. Objections that the freight carriers won't allow it often just comes down to negotiations, unless the railroad is being deliberately objectionable; Rarely have proposals for new service even gotten to that point. A daily Sunset comes to mind, but Union Pacific is likely to now be more agreeable.

No, we are most certainly not satisfied with the current long-distance train network in this nation, but nor do we want to change it just for the sake of change. The skeletal system we currently have has been proven to work over decades. You might (or might not) get a marginally better result with a train to Nashville or through Ohio, but once the additional trains are in place in addition to the existing services - rather than in place of them - any added annual subsidy would almost certainly be quite reasonable (even politically) by any objective standard.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they deserve a daytime train. But not if that means discontinuing an existing service on another relatively successful route. This is one issue where you and I disagree and will never agree, no matter how many times you ask your favorite rhetorical question. You have a tendency to pit one route against another. That is a self-defeating proposition. We need to grow overall service, not just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.
> ...


What's wrong with a third option: _ Improve and build upon the existing network _to grow the system, increase revenue, and serve more passengers and communities?



Eric S said:


> You're right that new or expanded services run up against the need for additional funding, whether from states for shorter trains or from the federal government for longer trains. And your suggestions to rob Peter (eliminate service) to pay Paul (add service elsewhere) will most definitely be shot down by many here.
> 
> So, what can we look at doing? Well, for one, Woody's example of Wilson NC is instructive - add Thruway services to grow Amtrak. Paulus has often argued for this as well. These expanded Thruway services can take the form of either running to "off-line" communities, as in the Wilson NC example, or as additional frequencies on the rail corridor. Either expand the reach of the rail system, or prove the need for more frequencies.
> 
> ...


Significant long-distance expansion would likely require a shift in political realities or, perhaps ideally, a dedicated funding source. But that doesn't mean that _some_ expansion cannot take place (Sunset east, for one) alongside greater short-distance services.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Oct 17, 2015)

"But that doesn't mean that _some_ expansion cannot take place (Sunset east, for one) alongside greater short-distance services."

A Voice, I like that sentiment--I think it is a sensible and well-balanced approach.

I think the main goal should be to expand the network of trains, just as a spider expands its web, with different types of trains being able to connect. Perhaps a combination of short-distance, long-distance, state-supported Amtrak, federal Amtrak, and private ventures?


----------



## west point (Oct 17, 2015)

One really important point is equipment utilization. Every one knows the Crescent south of Atlanta does not need as many cars. There are many other examples. The legacy RRs especially during WW-2 switched cars in and out as passenger demand dictated. But car availability dictated it to be done. Now the costs to do that are high and the inability to service those cars at car shops is near unavailable.

This points to a certain number of cars needing service at any point. examples:

1. San Antonia keeps a spare sleeper and coach. The maintenance persons there can do required servicing of Sunset and Eagle trains as well do PM on the spares or fix a replaced Bad Order train car.

2. Atlanta was once a major repair facility for SOU, A&WP, Ga RR, Pullman. Minor for L&N, NC&SL, ACL,SAL. So cars could be added and removed as needed.

3. The present Atlanta station has no area except a short out door stub for minor repairs. Worse still station platform is on main line with no way to get off main.

4. A new station in Atlanta with a loop track / wye needs building with separate station tracks and platforms.

5. Jacksonville could switch out cars but the demand in the Orlando area and Tampa seems to no longer require switching out cars. That is because of the intra Florida demand of north and central Florida south to the Miami coast area.

6. Switching cars in and out of trains is an expensive proposition which is why Amtrak is not doing it more often. .

6. Reasons.

a. Baggage car at front and/ or rear complicates switching.

b. Adding removing specialty cars adds to problem.

c. The P-40 & P-42 are not good locos to switch out cars

d. Many switching locations need access both front and rear necessitating a switch engine.

e. Amtrak does not have enough switch engines to base at locations needed for switch services.

f. Have no idea how much switching road crews are allowed to do under present union contracts.

g. At crew change locations maybe both engineers could operate at each end ?

h. Otherwise full time engineer + extra needed. The legacy RRs could at least use the passenger car switchers for freight duties.

i. Car knockers are needed to connect HEP, car control, & brake lines otherwise conductor will need to do taking him from passenger duties. Then do full brake check.

j. Enough cars stored to justify car knockers car mechanics based at station.

k. Spare parts supplied for cars.

l.. Stub end or extra thru tracks needed to store cars laying over prefer shelter at inclement weather locations.

m. Even switch engines need their 92 day, 183 day and yearly inspections. Do you train car persons to perform, send in loco person from outside, or base loco specialty person ?

With all of the above costs it becomes apparent why Amtrak dispatches trains end point to end point with adding / removing cars . The above costs appear to be higher than costs of operating empty car(s) on certain segments. Those trains that have low loads in the middle of trip certainly do not need add / removing cars such as Florida trains and any extended Palmetto..

With these items in mind the first route to get add / remove cars would be the Crescent at Atlanta. Next might be the Cardinal at Huntington, WV.

Some day trains would work if the 750 mile limitation was changed to 600 miles such as WASH - ATL. ( 678 miles )


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 17, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think All Aboard Ohio's proposal is feasible? Remember this is coming from Ohio and we all know there's no money coming from the state.
> ...


From the report:

"What if if the State of Ohio didn’t have the responsibility to create (or chance to prevent) the new trains and instead there was a federally-driven and -funded planning process to identify the feasibility of these and other possibilities as well as a federal grant program to pay for new train services to and through Ohio?"


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 17, 2015)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> It looks like the Palmetto would arrive at PJC only 6 minutes earlier than 181 does now (181 gets there at 7:05). I see that train almost every morning when I arrive there on my NJT commute, and it always has a good amount of people boarding there. If the Palmetto will definitely stop at PJC, and they don't decide to cut that station out, I think that would work well. In comparing schedules (PJC to WAS), it looks like the Palmetto would get there 15 minutes faster. As of now, it actually looks less expensive than the Regional (although I was comparing a Regional date closer to today).
> 
> Having never been on the Palmetto, what is it like? It has to be better than 181, which must use ancient equipment, because it often creaks and squeals its way into the station  . I always wave at it as it leaves and wish it a good and safe trip, figuring anyone who even notices would just assume I was waving to a person inside, not the train! (And this is the only place I would ever admit to talking to a train and waving at it!  )


181 uses whatever Amfleet I train set is available. 89 will use the equipment from 42 the day before, they just put a Baggage car on it. It's a split consist of Amfleet I's and II's.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


The Sunset East??? THE FAA??? OHIO???



181 typically turned from 158 or 188. Once these changes take effect, 89 will not turn from PD42. However, it will remain a mixed AM1/AM2 train with 3 additional AM1s on the head end to accommodate the local travel. The baggage car and business class will go to the rear. On weekdays, it will add stops at MET, NBK, PJC and BWI. On weekends, it will add stops at MET, BWI and NCR.

90 will add stops at NCR, BWI and MET daily.

This should be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 17, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> From the report:
> 
> 
> "What if if the State of Ohio didn’t have the responsibility to create (or chance to prevent) the new trains and instead there was a federally-driven and -funded planning process to identify the feasibility of these and other possibilities as well as a federal grant program to pay for new train services to and through Ohio?"


There was a federal grant to pay for the 3C (Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati) corridor. Gov. Kasich turned down that federal grant.


----------



## west point (Oct 17, 2015)

3 extra coaches on front of Palmetto? That makes it easy just keep cars attached to electric motor. Pull forward then back up to Ivy city on another track. One question. How far into the 1st avenue tunnel bores does CAT go ? Will 3 cars be the limit for the motor or is there room for a longer number cars for example at Thanksgiving ?. Of course southbound diesel could switch motor back to CAT.

Northbound. Detach diesel then back electric with cars attached.


----------



## OBS (Oct 17, 2015)

The week of Thksgiving, there will be separate 198 and 181 operated on the busiest days...


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 17, 2015)

west point said:


> 3 extra coaches on front of Palmetto? That makes it easy just keep cars attached to electric motor. Pull forward then back up to Ivy city on another track. One question. How far into the 1st avenue tunnel bores does CAT go ? Will 3 cars be the limit for the motor or is there room for a longer number cars for example at Thanksgiving ?. Of course southbound diesel could switch motor back to CAT.
> 
> Northbound. Detach diesel then back electric with cars attached.


It (barely) holds 4 cars and a motor if you're utilizing the rear pantograph. If there is a compelling reason and enough notice, they can reverse the consist, add additional equipment (5, 6 10 cars as an example) and run away from the local section. However, that results in a double drill which isn't the best practice, particularly in the winter.

I doubt you'll see more than 4 local coaches for that reason.


----------



## west point (Oct 17, 2015)

Third rail: That's darn close. Yes the double drill southbound sounds better although in winter ...


----------



## neroden (Oct 19, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> if the Palmetto and Cardinal aren't the most under performing
> 
> routes in the LD system, what are?


Talking about avoidable costs, here, the answers are:
* Sunset Limited (mainly because it's 3 a week -- needs to be daily)

* California Zephyr. Yes, really, it takes the most yearly subsidy in the system. (After you remove the misleading "allocation" of overhead.)

FWIW I'm pretty sure Denver-Chicago is a highly successful route, but Salt Lake - Reno is deeply underperforming.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If you want to grow the network and you don't have the money or equipment, what other option do you have


Get more money.
The new Viewliner II sleepers should generate some more money, for example.

Charging fees for pets should generate some more money.

Making *all* tickets e-tickets should eliminate some expensive backend processing costs.

Running trains on time generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Running trains faster generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Having nicer stations generates more money. (Some of these projects are in progress.)

Campaigning hard to state and federal governments to provide more money also may provide more money. (This is funding several of the projects which I mentioned above.)

Running the Cardinal daily would change it from a money-loser to a money-maker, on an avoidable-costs basis.

Thorugh cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would generate a bunch of money.

Running two daily Pennsylvanians would, according to very rough estimates, cost about the same as running one, so it would serve more poeple with the same amount of money.

You get the idea. Financial soundness allows for expansion.



WoodyinNYC said:


> The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak. No cutbacks. Let's grow!


----------



## west point (Oct 19, 2015)

A thought on capacity. Does the peak travel times ability to accommodate passengers cause spill over ? So if I can travel say Thanksgiving on a long distance train am I more likely to try other non peak times ? Difficult to answer..


----------



## Ryan (Oct 19, 2015)

I think a lot of that is driven by the quality of the trip. If they end up on a good train (on time, friendly crew, good food), they'll see train travel as "Hey, this is pretty nice!" And want to come back.

Make the train late, replace the crew with non-performers and kill the food and that turns into "Amtrak sucks, I'm never getting on a train again".


----------



## Palmetto (Oct 19, 2015)

Ryan said:


> I think a lot of that is driven by the quality of the trip. If they end up on a good train (on time, friendly crew, good food), they'll see train travel as "Hey, this is pretty nice!" And want to come back.
> 
> Make the train late, replace the crew with non-performers and kill the food and that turns into "Amtrak sucks, I'm never getting on a train again".


Gee, that's how I feel about a bus ride


----------



## AmtrakLKL (Oct 20, 2015)

neroden said:


> The new Viewliner II sleepers should generate some more money, for example.Charging fees for pets should generate some more money.
> 
> Making *all* tickets e-tickets should eliminate some expensive backend processing costs.



The first deliveries of sleepers are just under a year out, and I'm not holding my breath on that schedule.

As is typical of change at Amtrak, all the employees are moaning and groaning about how horrible pets onboard will be. But from what I've heard about the Chicago/Illinois pilot, it hasn't been an issue at all. Now that passengers can officially bring their pet, they don't have to buy a fake service animal papers online and throw a conniption fit when someone dares question them. It also raises ancillary revenue and may even boost ticket revenue with new passengers who wouldn't otherwise travel without their pet. With the current 7 hour travel limit, I'm not sure if pets will happen LD trains given there can be many hours between scheduled station stops not including delayspets

All Amtrak Thruway buses are now eTicket eligible. About the only transportation left is third-party common carriers such as Greyhound where Amtrak sells seats in connection with a train segment. Amtrak just started to convert these routes to eTicket as well with final rollout coming by the end of 2015. The third-party carriers won't have Amtrak scanners, but there will be some system logic in place to automatically lift those tickets. Once that is complete I believe all transportation will be eTicket. Some ancillary charges still generate paper tickets, though.


----------



## Palmetto (Oct 21, 2015)

Do pets get a seat check? No, I'm not kidding.


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

Palmetto said:


> Do pets get a seat check? No, I'm not kidding.


No they get a carrier tag  They don't get a seat so they couldn't possibly get a "seat" check.


----------



## neroden (Oct 21, 2015)

AmtrakLKL said:


> All Amtrak Thruway buses are now eTicket eligible. About the only transportation left is third-party common carriers such as Greyhound where Amtrak sells seats in connection with a train segment. Amtrak just started to convert these routes to eTicket as well with final rollout coming by the end of 2015. The third-party carriers won't have Amtrak scanners, but there will be some system logic in place to automatically lift those tickets. Once that is complete I believe all transportation will be eTicket. Some ancillary charges still generate paper tickets, though.


"Transportation certificates" and every other form of voucher need to go to e-ticket form. I know "transportation certificates" are still paper and that has to end. Along with all the weird obscure ticket types (I know Amtrak finally did 10-rides, how about all the types of commuter passes, how about open sleeper tickets, etc.) Then Amtrak has to wait a year for all of the old paper ones to be used. THEN Amtrak can get rid of all the back-end paper processing.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 21, 2015)

So when I saw this thread I was excited, hoping to see another Regional extended to Savannah. I don't mind adding the extra stops if the OTP South of WAS can be maintained. I would be really happy to see more trains in Savannah. I mentioned in another thread that the parking lot at SAV has been pretty consistently full for weeks now. I would love to see the Northwest side of the station full, too!


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

I have dreamed about a section of the Carolinian getting detached from it and being sent to Savannah, but it will require some timetable tweaking to make it work. Alternatively the midday Piedmont consist could be used for a Raleigh - Savannah service via Columbia. But all of this becomes very hard to justify absent any participation from SC or GA.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 21, 2015)

jis said:


> I have dreamed about a section of the Carolinian getting detached from it and being sent to Savannah, but it will require some timetable tweaking to make it work. Alternatively the midday Piedmont consist could be used for a Raleigh - Savannah service via Columbia. But all of this becomes very hard to justify absent any participation from SC or GA.


I would rather see Charlotte/Atlanta daytime service before Raleigh/Savannah.


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

it would be nice, but it is almost impossible to achieve that without finding an additional consist, just due to the way the timings of the current Piedmonts work out.


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 21, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...



TR7 you getting your popcorn ready??


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 22, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I have dreamed about a section of the Carolinian getting detached from it and being sent to Savannah, but it will require some timetable tweaking to make it work. Alternatively the midday Piedmont consist could be used for a Raleigh - Savannah service via Columbia. But all of this becomes very hard to justify absent any participation from SC or GA.
> ...


As long as the dream machine is on, I'd love to see a highly efficient Nancy Hanks III join ATL-MACON-SAV.

Amtrak continues to succeed in Georgia in spite of the state.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> As long as the dream machine is on, I'd love to see a highly efficient Nancy Hanks III join ATL-MACON-SAV.
> 
> Amtrak continues to succeed in Georgia in spite of the state.


I am with you on that one Venture, both the dream train (I'd make it Atlanta - Macon - Savannah - Jacksonville) and the comment about Amtrak and Georgia.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 22, 2015)

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > As long as the dream machine is on, I'd love to see a highly efficient Nancy Hanks III join ATL-MACON-SAV.
> ...


Oooo - I like the idea of extending it to JAX. But, then you can't have just one trainset with a same day turnaround. But with dreams, all things are possible!


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

True that. Similar situation with a daytime Raleigh - Savannah train as a continuation of a Piedmont too.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

Thirdrail7 said:


> 181 typically turned from 158 or 188. Once these changes take effect, 89 will not turn from PD42. However, it will remain a mixed AM1/AM2 train with 3 additional AM1s on the head end to accommodate the local travel. The baggage car and business class will go to the rear. On weekdays, it will add stops at MET, NBK, PJC and BWI. On weekends, it will add stops at MET, BWI and NCR.
> 
> 90 will add stops at NCR, BWI and MET daily.
> 
> This should be interesting to say the least.


The major problem I see with this is the inconsistent choice of station stops. Stopping at BWI and MET is great. Stopping at NCR on weekends and northbound weekdays but skipping NCR and stopping at NBK and PJC on southbound weekdays.... is just *confusing*.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 23, 2015)

neroden said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > 181 typically turned from 158 or 188. Once these changes take effect, 89 will not turn from PD42. However, it will remain a mixed AM1/AM2 train with 3 additional AM1s on the head end to accommodate the local travel. The baggage car and business class will go to the rear. On weekdays, it will add stops at MET, NBK, PJC and BWI. On weekends, it will add stops at MET, BWI and NCR.
> ...



That's one of the reasons I said it will be interesting, particularly if a crew works the train on a weekday and weekend. Eventually, that leads to entertainment.

However, the major problem is if 90 runs extremely late or 89 has a problem with the through section.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Oct 23, 2015)

If the Palmetto is a couple of minutes late and my NJT train is on time next week, I may see the Palmetto at PJC and will take an informal poll of how many people board there. Also, I need to go to Philly next Thursday and am thinking of taking the Palmetto from TRE, so will let you all know how full it looks, etc., if I do that.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

Honestly, why don't they just pick one set of stops and leave it at that? :huh:


----------



## Acela150 (Oct 24, 2015)

Because on the railroad nothing makes sense...


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Oct 26, 2015)

Good morning--here is my report on the first day of the Palmetto stopping at PJC:

It was 11 minutes late into PJC and was led by AC-S #620. Its consist was several (sorry, didn't count exactly) Amfleet Is, the café car, several Amfleet IIs, the business car, and one of the new baggage cars. The conductors were directing people who were going short distances to the Amfleet Is. Ironically, if you paid more to sit in business class, you would be in an Amfleet I instead of a more comfortable Amfleet II.

There were at least 50 people on the platform, and after the train departed, there were just a handful left. So, at least on the first day, a lot of people got on at this small station (I think more than I have seen get on 181).

In my opinion, PJC would be a good Amtrak stop for more trains. It would get the Princeton intellectuals, who take trains as a matter of course, and the rich Princeton-area businesspeople going to DC or even New York. The crowds waiting to take NJT into New York at rush hour are huge at PJC, and if they are going to put up with NJT for an hour, I'm sure they would gladly take Amtrak, either north or south, if the trains were offered.


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2015)

It is good to see at least one LD (though daytime) stop at more NJ stations. NJ-ARP has campaigned for such for a while now.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Oct 26, 2015)

One long train. It was about 20 mins late into WIL which meant I wouldn't see it as my SEPTA train came in, as I usually do. So I got to my office window just as it was still pulling into the station.

If you zoom in you'll see the engine on the right side of the pic and the bag car on the left side.


----------



## neroden (Oct 26, 2015)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> In my opinion, PJC would be a good Amtrak stop for more trains.


Frankly, I think every Amtrak train should stop at Princeton Junction. And the Dinky should be upgraded to a light rail line with multiple stops which runs through downtown... but Princeton U administration is irrationally hostile to train service, so I doubt I'll ever see this.


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2015)

Stopping every Acela in the middle of the few and far between real high speed segment would seem like an overkill. There is good reason to stop some Regional trains at Princeton Junction. but stopping every train there is plain silly. I agree that the dinky should be modified to become a light rail system with stops in town


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 26, 2015)

jis said:


> It is good to see at least one LD (though daytime) stop at more NJ stations. NJ-ARP has campaigned for such for a while now.


Perfect ... for the New Jersey ite who wants to go to Savannah!!!


----------



## Eric S (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is good to see at least one LD (though daytime) stop at more NJ stations. NJ-ARP has campaigned for such for a while now.
> ...


Because that train runs nonstop from Princeton Junction to Savannah?


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is good to see at least one LD (though daytime) stop at more NJ stations. NJ-ARP has campaigned for such for a while now.
> ...


Or to the 15 or 20 other stops between NJ and Savannah. I think you are too focused on end point to make any general sense of anything. Just IMHO.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 26, 2015)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Name one relevant stop between NJ and Savannah that is worth stopping at that isn't served by another train at a reasonable hour.


----------



## A Voice (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Florence, South Carolina to name just one, served by the _Meteor_ at 3:05 a.m.. But I would imagine the residents of Yemassee, Charleston, Kingstree, Dillon, and Fayetteville all consider their communities to be "worth stopping at". By what criteria are those cities any less important or less deserving of reliable passenger rail service?


----------



## Ryan (Oct 26, 2015)

The standard "ZOMG people who live in small markets don't deserve decent train service" crap that he peddles.


----------



## neroden (Oct 26, 2015)

jis said:


> Stopping every Acela in the middle of the few and far between real high speed segment would seem like an overkill.


OK, fine, every Regional. 
The station would have to be rebuilt with platforms on the express tracks, obviously. Long-term thing, and it is only worthwhile if Princeton University and Princeton Government fix their longstanding hostility to public transportation.

Princeton *Junction* as the center of a vibrant bus & light rail system would be a "stop lots of trains here" kind of stop. But with the repeated attacks on the Dinky, cutbacks in bus service, and refusal to build any housing in town, Princeton is set on a bad course.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Name one relevant stop between NJ and Savannah that is worth stopping at that isn't served by another train at a reasonable hour.


Well, Charleston for one. Metro of about 728,000 people. Assuming "relevant" means major city/metro area. Although dismissing small cities/metro areas as "irrelevant" is rather offensive.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 26, 2015)

A Voice said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


It's all about R & R (Ridership and Revenue). If you have limited trains available, you want to maximize both.


----------



## jebr (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> It's all about R & R (Ridership and Revenue). If you have limited trains available, you want to maximize both.


Not necessarily. It's also possible to put some emphasis or money towards coverage demands (basically, making sure an entire geographical area has some service.) This is evident in many cities by looking at lower-frequency bus routes...most of these are in place not because they're the most ridership or revenue-generating uses of the buses, but because there's a desire to spend some money to ensure everyone has at least some service. It'd be foolish to presume there isn't some of that in play when Congress considers funding Amtrak long-distance routes, especially across the mountain west.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 26, 2015)

jebr said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > It's all about R & R (Ridership and Revenue). If you have limited trains available, you want to maximize both.
> ...


Translation: The Cardinal.


----------



## neroden (Oct 26, 2015)

If coverage gets you political support (which it often does), great. If it doesn't, well, what's the point? You're spending money subsidizing people who will vote to cut your budget, which is silly.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 26, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > It is good to see at least one LD (though daytime) stop at more NJ stations. NJ-ARP has campaigned for such for a while now.
> ...



Actually, people are starting to utilize the additional stops on 89 for through travel. This is not entirely surprising since 89 and 79 made local stops and had a decent amount of through travel, particularly from BWI and MET.

Once there is more notice, the numbers will continue to grow.


----------



## AmtrakLKL (Nov 3, 2015)

90 is operating 2.5 hours late today. An on-time section will operate WAS-NYP as train 1090.


----------



## west point (Nov 3, 2015)

Extra section of 90 is meeting your passenger's needs. The passengers will long remember if Amtrak tells them what happened.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 3, 2015)

AmtrakLKL said:


> 90 is operating 2.5 hours late today. An on-time section will operate WAS-NYP as train 1090.





west point said:


> Extra section of 90 is meeting your passenger's needs. The passengers will long remember if Amtrak tells them what happened.




Let the good times roll...or something like that.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jan 23, 2016)

Is there a particular reason why the Palmetto still has the baggage car on the rear but the Carolinian kept the baggage car on the front?

Also, when should the Palmetto return to its normal consist with the baggage car on the front?


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2016)

Because it provides baggage service? Or is that a trick question?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 23, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Is there a particular reason why the Palmetto still has the baggage car on the rear but the Carolinian kept the baggage car on the front?


Yes.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Also, when should the Palmetto return to its normal consist with the baggage car on the front?



The Palmetto's bag is normally on the rear end. It has been this way for a few months. A casual search of this board (using Palmetto and Baggage car) will tell you why. If you are unable to find the reason, come back and we'll do all of the research for you.


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2016)

Is it to keep the last passenger car from too much to and fro swaying?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 23, 2016)

jis said:


> Is it to keep the last passenger car from too much to and fro swaying?


As I recall, which could be wrong, the baggage car is on the rear because they combined the Palmettos with regionals and they need to add/remove the regionals in Washington with the engine swap.


----------



## Acela150 (Jan 23, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Is it to keep the last passenger car from too much to and fro swaying?
> ...


HEY!!!! That makes a ton of sense...


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jan 23, 2016)

Acela150 said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


So, then that's not why Amtrak is doing it?


----------



## Acela150 (Jan 23, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > AmtrakBlue said:
> ...


No going down the wrong path now..


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jan 27, 2016)

How long is this gonna go on? This combining the Palmetto with the NE Regionals?


----------



## Acela150 (Jan 29, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> How long is this gonna go on? This combining the Palmetto with the NE Regionals?


They're not really combined. They just cut a train and added cars between NYP-WAS on 89 and 90 to accommodate those passengers. Part of the reason is the 188 and 55 incidents. The cars are added and taken off at WAS.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 31, 2016)

It is permanent.....until they change it. :giggle: The cafe is on the rear against business class these days. That is also permanent...until they change it. :help:


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 31, 2016)

Eric S said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Name one relevant stop between NJ and Savannah that is worth stopping at that isn't served by another train at a reasonable hour.
> ...


I don't know how large Florence SC and Fayetteville NC are, but every time I've ridden the Palmetto, there are a lot of passengers waiting to board, maybe almost as many as at Charleston.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Feb 1, 2016)

I use Florence a lot. It pulls the Columbia market as it is a much easier drive then Charleston. And the stations in a better neighborhood. And Fayetteville pulls the Wilmington market probably.


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It is permanent.....until they change it. :giggle: The cafe is on the rear against business class these days. That is also permanent...until they change it. :help:


That it is.. Saw 90 go by me last night while I was on the Conrail Shared Delair Branch. It's an odd looking consist with the Amcan I's and then the II's and cafe and then Biz Class car followed by the new VL bag.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 3, 2016)

With this going on, is there a particular reason why the baggage car is on the rear rather than up front like it generally is?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Feb 3, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> With this going on, is there a particular reason why the baggage car is on the rear rather than up front like it generally is?


See post #120. http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65076-amtrak-replacing-2-northeast-regional-trains-with-palmetto/?p=643948


----------



## mgl1978 (Feb 16, 2016)

It checked the booking. It looks like you can also check a bike on 89/90 between Washington and New York. This might be helpful to some riders who want to bring their bikes with them.


----------



## edjbox (Apr 3, 2016)

Saw the pictures of the palmetto wreck today and noticed it still has the longer combined consist. How long will this long consist remain?

(Also hope everyone injured recovers and sad for those workers who died)


----------



## KnightRail (Apr 3, 2016)

edjbox said:


> How long will this long consist remain?


Ongoing with no end date.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 3, 2016)

edjbox said:


> Saw the pictures of the palmetto wreck today and noticed it still has the longer combined consist. How long will this long consist remain?
> 
> (Also hope everyone injured recovers and sad for those workers who died)


Here:



Thirdrail7 said:


> It is permanent.....until they change it. :giggle: The cafe is on the rear against business class these days. That is also permanent...until they change it. :help:


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Aug 19, 2019)

90 has always been problematic but it has taken on new levels this summer. Its OTP performance has been hindered not only by trackwork but by the heat restrictions. As such, they've been running the three add on cars as independent train 1090 if the train is over an hour late north of RMT. That means an additional crew, an additional locomotive, a loss of business class revenue for the corridor and the loss of any café revenue over the corridor. They aren't even allowing the sale of the through seats on 90, which reduces capacity.

198 is looking good right about now.


----------

