# Checked baggage being cut from Boston Section of Lake Shore?



## lordsigma (Dec 1, 2018)

I just spotted on Amtrak’s online reservation system beginning in January the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited shows no checked baggage service available. No official announcement or indication of this by Amtrak, but not a good sign. While a removal of the Boston section baggage would not be surprising I am very concerned this may lead to agent cuts at my local station (SPG.) If this indeed is real, I will be sending out emails to my local leaders advocating for the staff there and am hoping that staffing at SPG will be retained absent the checked baggage service for the lake shore.


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 1, 2018)

And this is where we all expected to see the best use of a baggage/dorm.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 1, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> If this indeed is real, I will be sending out emails to my local leaders advocating for the staff there and am hoping that staffing at SPG will be retained absent the checked baggage service for the lake shore.


I suggest you get typing. h34r:


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 1, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I suggest you get typing. [emoji185]


Not sure if you can elaborate, but should one expect a total closure or a reduction in positions in this case? The former would seem rediculous given the other state supported service (and recently expanded) present, and this isn’t a tiny station but who knows these days... 
I guess I’m just trying to figure out where to start with this.


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 1, 2018)

I interpreted his comment as referring to the LSL's checked baggage, not Springfield staffing, at least not yet.


----------



## PVD (Dec 1, 2018)

I just tried a sample booking from South Station, so that would appear to be correct.A comparable booking from NYP still shows bags.


----------



## amtrakpass (Dec 1, 2018)

Are there any other initial terminals of long distance trains with no checked baggage service? Are they going to shut down Boston baggage department completely? I can't see almost any savings when they already have the cars. And no checked baggage service really makes it harder for elderly or folks with mobility challenges to make a trip in my opinion. Even if people are technically available at a station, it is also lot easier to just check bags than ask for help for many people.  To me checked baggage is a pretty low cost service to offer and with all the cars available they should just offer it as many places as possible.


----------



## PVD (Dec 1, 2018)

The overnight NER are the only other Boston trains with checked bags. I don't know how the scheduled times for the arrival and departure of those trains fits in with the schedule of manpower. What do they really save?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 1, 2018)

amtrakpass said:


> Are there any other initial terminals of long distance trains with no checked baggage service? Are they going to shut down Boston baggage department completely? I can't see almost any savings when they already have the cars. And no checked baggage service really makes it harder for elderly or folks with mobility challenges to make a trip in my opinion. Even if people are technically available at a station, it is also lot easier to just check bags than ask for help for many people.  To me checked baggage is a pretty low cost service to offer and with all the cars available they should just offer it as many places as possible.


It is not low cost if there are better uses for the baggage car.  They probably looked at the consist and said "why are we using two baggage cars on these trains when there is hardly any luggage in the Boston section? We can cut this down to one car since one just like we did last summer and free up a few baggage cars."

Maybe that is the way it went. Reducing staff (like they've done elsewhere in the country) would just be a bonus.  I'd have to guess this would be the end of baggage lite at WOR.


----------



## amtrakpass (Dec 1, 2018)

Where exactly are these excess baggage cars going  to be assigned to add service too then? Or are they just going into axel count service or storage? My view if you are going to call a crew and run a train anyway shortening a consist by one car is is not a real savings and it is a reduction in quality of service which has greater long term implications than just adding or subtracting a car.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 1, 2018)

amtrakpass said:


> Where exactly are these excess baggage cars going  to be assigned to add service too then? Or are they just going into axel count service or storage? My view if you are going to call a crew and run a train anyway shortening a consist by one car is is not a real savings and it is a reduction in quality of service which has greater long term implications than just adding or subtracting a car.


While I have no idea what if anything will happen to the baggage cars, your statement is not really true. When they shortened the Silver Star by losing the dining car, they cut an engine...which is another savings. If they keep whittling down the lake Shore, maybe they will assign it one engine on a permanent basis. 

Additionally, shortening a train may help with crew consist, meaning they need less manpower on the train, which is contractual.  That represents savings.

Continuing on this trend, what if they DID decided to cut or scale back the baggage personnel in BOS and/or Springfield? That would be a savings.

It could also mean a few less tons on the train which could also lead to fuel savings on the diesels.  That would represent a savings.

As for quality of service, I agree...but if people aren't really rebelling about a boxed lunch, I doubt a few passengers on the LSL being unable to check their parcels or bikes is going to make or break the train....which is what they are likely counting on.


----------



## amtrakpass (Dec 1, 2018)

While we have to agree to disagree on our perspectives then. If you are saying it is was a good move to cut the diner off the silver Star because they could cut an engine, and to go for boxed lunches was a good move to reduce crew size. 

It would be one thing if they were adding multiple Boston-Albany trips per day. But they are not. And I have not seen any serious proposals to add service from Amtrak with the current regime. They are just cutting services to make it less appealing and will eventually find there is nothing left to cut except the whole train.


----------



## TiBike (Dec 1, 2018)

FWIW, I checked some dates in December and January. Between Boston and Albany, the LSL is still showing 6 bike spaces available on all dates. Although, as others have mentioned, it shows no checked baggage in January.

It would be nice to think they've figured out a way to fit a bike on a long distance train without a baggage car. But I'm betting that they just haven't finished coding the changes into the system. I'd be happy to lose that bet   .


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 1, 2018)

amtrakpass said:


> While we have to agree to disagree on our perspectives then. If you are saying it is was a good move to cut the diner off the silver Star because they could cut an engine, and to go for boxed lunches was a good move to reduce crew size.


I have not stated that it was a good idea....or a bad idea. I'm merely pointing out that cutting one car can lead to savings and I listing some examples.

Obviously, someone thinks the idea is worth exploring and personally, I can think of other uses for those bags. I've wanted bags on the Pennsylvanian and the Colonial for YEARS! Hell, if they added it to the Colonial, Boston could have early corridor baggage service.

Who the heck am I kidding? They'll never add it to those trains.


----------



## daybeers (Dec 1, 2018)

I think the main issue here is if Amtrak silently removes the baggage car from the Boston section of the LSL, it just gives them more reason to start reducing more amenities on that train and others.



lordsigma said:


> I just spotted on Amtrak’s online reservation system beginning in January the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited shows no checked baggage service available. No official announcement or indication of this by Amtrak, but not a good sign. While a removal of the Boston section baggage would not be surprising I am very concerned this may lead to agent cuts at my local station (SPG.) If this indeed is real, I will be sending out emails to my local leaders advocating for the staff there and am hoping that staffing at SPG will be retained absent the checked baggage service for the lake shore.


I live in Connecticut, but would very much like to write whomever you are writing to also. Could you pass along some names and/or emails?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 1, 2018)

daybeers said:


> I think the main issue here is if Amtrak silently removes the baggage car from the Boston section of the LSL, it just gives them more reason to start reducing more amenities on that train and others.
> 
> I live in Connecticut, but would very much like to write whomever you are writing to also. Could you pass along some names and/or emails?


Will do. I am going to wait until there is an official announcement. I would be shocked at a full unstaffing as SPG has well above the ridership that Amtrak was supposedly using for unstaffing , I would imagine reduction of a position or two is probably more likely. However there are no dedicated baggage staff at Springfield. There are just station agents and they handle the baggage, but also provide ticketing/customer service/assistance for all the state supported trains as well. The baggage for the lake shore really is a small thing these days and most of the business is from the state supported trains. Also not sure of what's in the contracts for the state-supported service. Perhaps MassDOT has veto power over such decisions?

My first email will be to Congressman Neal who is about to become the chairman of Ways and Means and I think it would be an understatement to say that he is a supporter of the revitalization of Springfield union station.


----------



## neroden (Dec 2, 2018)

I'd write immediately; this is a sneak move on the part of the idiot in charge of Amtrak, so don't wait for an official announcement.  Write to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and suitable members of Congress simultaneously.  Explain how you use baggage service

For example, my girlfriend generally ships her wheelchair in checked baggage.  Without checked baggage, they'll just have to find a place to put it in the passenger compartments of the train; that's an ADA accomodation, no choice on Amtrak's part.  Hope they have room, because they have to kick out paying passengers and remove seats to make the space if they don't.  Just federal law there, they have no choice.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 2, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> While I have no idea what if anything will happen to the baggage cars, your statement is not really true. When they shortened the Silver Star by losing the dining car, they cut an engine...which is another savings. If they keep whittling down the lake Shore, maybe they will assign it one engine on a permanent basis.
> 
> Additionally, shortening a train may help with crew consist, meaning they need less manpower on the train, which is contractual.  That represents savings.
> 
> ...


Can one P42 really pull a 13 or so car train?


----------



## PVD (Dec 2, 2018)

If it is relatively flat terrain, and stations are far enough apart so that getting up to speed is less of an issue, physically, yes. I don't know if there is a company practice or standard that would apply, if there is, someone will point it out for sure. A P32-DM  took the Lake to Albany when the whole train went to NYP. If I recall, not that long ago, they were running singles from Albany to Chicago for a period of time.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 2, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Can one P42 really pull a 13 or so car train?


Sure it can. It won’t accelerate worth a damn and it might not be able to cruise at 79, but it will run. That’s why Auto Train can get away with two engines - no station stops and 70 mph MAS, with schedule room for cruising at 55 or 60 in run 8 for most of the run.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 2, 2018)

Amtrak706 said:


> Sure it can. It won’t accelerate worth a damn and it might not be able to cruise at 79, but it will run. That’s why Auto Train can get away with two engines - no station stops and 70 mph MAS, with schedule room for cruising at 55 or 60 in run 8 for most of the run.


Even taking into account the limited horsepower of one engine providing HEP? Because while the Auto Train is a good 50 cars long and only uses two locos, only 17 cars require HEP, which can be provided by just one P42, therefore the other unit can send the full 4,250 horsepower to the wheels (meaning a total of around 6,750 horsepower for traction). If you have just one engine, there’s a grand total of only about 2,500 horsepower going to the wheels, for the whole train. And remember that the stops on the Lake Shore are also relatively close together, making acceleration even more important.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 2, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Even taking into account the limited horsepower of one engine providing HEP?


Sure. With max HEP load, horsepower available for traction gets down to about 2500 or so. That is still a higher HP/ton ratio than your average freight train, but it is low enough for you to be in run 8 most of the time and possibly substantially below MAS. In other words it will handle like Auto Train or a freight train and not a passenger train, which will kill the schedule. Not to mention you now have a single point of failure on the head end that is being worked harder than normal. Just enough of a terrible idea to sound just right for Amtrak.


----------



## GBNorman (Dec 2, 2018)

Judging from a video linked at another site, the Boston (448-449) section is placed at the head of the 48-49. Absent the Bag as a "buffer", hope the Boston Sleeper passengers enjoy "hear the whistle blow".

I continue to hold the "Boston Section" discontinued by the "Gunn-men" was only restored during the Boardman regime owing to political pressure. It lacks any economic sense whatever in that the transfer is within "people hours" and that Boston must stock commissary items, such as linens, not needed by any other train.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 2, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Judging from a video linked at another site, the Boston (448-449) section is placed at the head of the 48-49. Absent the Bag as a "buffer", hope the Boston Sleeper passengers enjoy "hear the whistle blow".


I was thinking the same thing. Won’t be fun spending the night directly adjacent to two P42s. :unsure:


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 2, 2018)

GBNorman said:


> Judging from a video linked at another site, the Boston (448-449) section is placed at the head of the 48-49. Absent the Bag as a "buffer", hope the Boston Sleeper passengers enjoy "hear the whistle blow".
> I continue to hold the "Boston Section" discontinued by the "Gunn-men" was only restored during the Boardman regime owing to political pressure. It lacks any economic sense whatever in that the transfer is within "people hours" and that Boston must stock commissary items, such as linens, not needed by any other train.


I wonder if they will once again eliminate
The “Boston section” and instead run a shuttle train between Boston and Albany.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 2, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> I wonder if they will once again eliminate
> The “Boston section” and instead run a shuttle train between Boston and Albany.


Considering the 448/449 'shuttle' train they ran BOS-ALB while they were extending the platforms at ALB and putting in the 4th track was without sleeper for a good portion of the time, they ran bag, BC/Cafe, and 1 or 2 coaches.  In Jan, Feb, and March, there was only 1 coach!  The single coach is the norm during the winter, shuttle and  'regular' train.  Except for people going to Florida during the winter, Amtrak and airline business drops off noticeably.  Given the apparent regional-trains-only mentality of Anderson, I guess I wouldn't be surprised if a 'stripped down' shuttle of a BC/Cafe and 1-2 coaches is the future of 448/449.


----------



## PVD (Dec 2, 2018)

Max HP for generation of HEP on a standard P42 at a full 800KW is closer to 1100 leaving around 3100 for traction. P32 DM were able to pull at reasonable speed,  and they are 1000 HP less total. but it does take a while to get to speed. They got to 90 mph+. Single engine/no redundancy is a real issue.


----------



## PVD (Dec 2, 2018)

A permanent shuttle would mean the shuttle train would likely legally require state support.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 2, 2018)

PVD said:


> A permanent shuttle would mean the shuttle train would likely legally require state support.


Even better, from Andersons' point of view!


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 3, 2018)

PVD said:


> Max HP for generation of HEP on a standard P42 at a full 800KW is closer to 1100 leaving around 3100 for traction. P32 DM were able to pull at reasonable speed,  and they are 1000 HP less total. but it does take a while to get to speed. They got to 90 mph+. Single engine/no redundancy is a real issue.


No. With HEP mode off, the full 4250 HP is achieved at 1047 RPM on the prime mover. In HEP mode, the prime mover runs at a constant 900 RPM, so a maximum of only 3540 HP could theoretically be available for traction with 0 KW HEP load. With a full 800KW load, max available for traction becomes 2525 HP. A 13 car Lake Shore would be a pretty hefty load.

The dual modes have 12 cylinder prime movers that are capable of 3200 HP with HEP off. With HEP on, this drops to about 2700 no load and 1800 full load. This may seem low especially considering that they need to run 110 mph, and it does take a while to get up there, but they can do it with an Empire Service or one of the medium distance trains (all 5 to 6 Amfleets, low HEP load). They struggle to get up past 100 mph with the Lake Shore, and that is only 8 cars. They do load faster than the P42s and their AC traction motors can handle that better from a standing start.


----------



## PVD (Dec 3, 2018)

I overlooked the the 900 rpm  constant and subtracted down from max. That would be a slow mover with a decent HEP load. I've been on a long LSL with a DM just above 90, it does take a while.


----------



## TamarackTom (Dec 3, 2018)

Just finished my trip on the LSL from Boston to Chicago.  I was the only sleeper passenger from Boston to Springfield and there were only 4 people total the entire trip.  In both directions, the train was over 2 hours late arriving. Considering this seems to be a chronic problem, Amtrak is probably thinking more than just eliminating the baggage car.


----------



## Triley (Dec 3, 2018)

neroden said:


> I'd write immediately; this is a sneak move on the part of the idiot in charge of Amtrak, so don't wait for an official announcement.  Write to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and suitable members of Congress simultaneously.  Explain how you use baggage service
> 
> For example, my girlfriend generally ships her wheelchair in checked baggage.  Without checked baggage, they'll just have to find a place to put it in the passenger compartments of the train; that's an ADA accomodation, no choice on Amtrak's part.  Hope they have room, because they have to kick out paying passengers and remove seats to make the space if they don't.  Just federal law there, they have no choice.


Are you talking about if she's in coach or sleepers?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 3, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Can one P42 really pull a 13 or so car train?


I dug up this post I made prior to you joining the board, so enjoy the video  Cpotish:



> On 11/7/2015 at 4:25 PM, Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 3, 2018)

neroden said:


> I'd write immediately; this is a sneak move on the part of the idiot in charge of Amtrak, so don't wait for an official announcement.  Write to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and suitable members of Congress simultaneously.  Explain how you use baggage service
> 
> For example, my girlfriend generally ships her wheelchair in checked baggage.  Without checked baggage, they'll just have to find a place to put it in the passenger compartments of the train; that's an ADA accomodation, no choice on Amtrak's part.  Hope they have room, because they have to kick out paying passengers and remove seats to make the space if they don't.  Just federal law there, they have no choice.


Oooooh.....I'm willing to bet Amtrak has an idea of where they can put extra things if the need arises, considering there is typically quite a bit of space available on this leg of the trip. h34r:



TamarackTom said:


> I was the only sleeper passenger from Boston to Springfield


h34r:


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 3, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I dug up this post I made prior to you joining the board, so enjoy the video  Cpotish:


Thank you muchly, and I surrender.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Dec 3, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I dug up this post I made prior to you joining the board, so enjoy the video  Cpotish:






Amtrak706 said:


> No. With HEP mode off, the full 4250 HP is achieved at 1047 RPM on the prime mover. In HEP mode, the prime mover runs at a constant 900 RPM, so a maximum of only 3540 HP could theoretically be available for traction with 0 KW HEP load. With a full 800KW load, max available for traction becomes 2525 HP. A 13 car Lake Shore would be a pretty hefty load.
> 
> The dual modes have 12 cylinder prime movers that are capable of 3200 HP with HEP off. With HEP on, this drops to about 2700 no load and 1800 full load. This may seem low especially considering that they need to run 110 mph, and it does take a while to get up there, but they can do it with an Empire Service or one of the medium distance trains (all 5 to 6 Amfleets, low HEP load). They struggle to get up past 100 mph with the Lake Shore, and that is only 8 cars. They do load faster than the P42s and their AC traction motors can handle that better from a standing start.


Thirdrail, would you say my post concerning the different horsepower and RPM ratings is accurate? I am always interested in more information when I can get it.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 3, 2018)

I have drafted a letter that I will likely be sending to my local congressman about this matter. I am currently in a holding pattern just waiting to see if there is any additional information over the next few days before I send it. In the interest of civility, anyone interested in seeing/discussing it please PM me. I know there are differing viewpoints on AU about these sorts of things so I don't want to push it on anyone that may not be interested or that may disagree with my viewpoint on the issue. Thanks to everyone who has responded to this for the insights and interesting discussion.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 4, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> I have drafted a letter that I will likely be sending to my local congressman about this matter. I am currently in a holding pattern just waiting to see if there is any additional information over the next few days before I send it. In the interest of civility, anyone interested in seeing/discussing it please PM me. I know there are differing viewpoints on AU about these sorts of things so I don't want to push it on anyone that may not be interested or that may disagree with my viewpoint on the issue. Thanks to everyone who has responded to this for the insights and interesting discussion.


Sent.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 5, 2018)

I believe P32s have more available since with the HEP, the RPMs initially climb to 800 for a short time before the separate inverter (either 3 or 5 but I believe it is 3) takes over the HEP.

I could be wrong because all I care about is the train moving...preferably with HEP.


----------



## caravanman (Dec 5, 2018)

It was mentioned that by removing a car from the consist, it enabled that train to run with only one engine.

I notice that in India, trains often run with 20 coaches and one engine, sometimes diesel, sometimes electric loco's.

I _thought _that the two loco's on Amtrak trains were to have backup if one failed, rather than for motive power?

Ed.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 5, 2018)

caravanman said:


> It was mentioned that by removing a car from the consist, it enabled that train to run with only one engine.
> 
> I notice that in India, trains often run with 20 coaches and one engine, sometimes diesel, sometimes electric loco's.
> 
> ...


Depends on the train weight and track profile. On lines with 2-3% grades such as the _Southwest Chief and __California Zephyr_, the additional loco(s) are a necessity if the train is to maintain the advertised schedule.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 6, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Depends on the train weight and track profile. On lines with 2-3% grades such as the _Southwest Chief and __California Zephyr_, the additional loco(s) are a necessity if the train is to maintain the advertised schedule.


We're talking about a present-day 4-5 car train #448/449 already down to one coach for the winter (probably put back for the holiday season, though), and potentially dropping the baggage car as well.  That leaves it at 2 or 3 cars, total.  One locomotive should have absolutely no problems whatsoever regardless of grade over the Berkshire Mountains in Western MA.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 6, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> We're talking about a present-day 4-5 car train #448/449 already down to one coach for the winter (probably put back for the holiday season, though), and potentially dropping the baggage car as well.  That leaves it at 2 or 3 cars, total.  One locomotive should have absolutely no problems whatsoever regardless of grade over the Berkshire Mountains in Western MA.


We are talking about whether it would be possible to use a single locomotive west of Albany, where the LSL typically runs with 12 or more cars. Of course a single P42 can handle the Boston section alone.


----------



## neroden (Dec 6, 2018)

Massachusetts is talking about frequent service from Boston to Springfield, and indeed Pittsfield.  If anyone in Amtrak management thinks they can end the Boston-Albany run, they are sorely mistaken; the Senators from Massachusetts have proven quite capable of putting restrictions on Amtrak in the past.


----------



## jis (Dec 6, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> We are talking about whether it would be possible to use a single locomotive west of Albany, where the LSL typically runs with 12 or more cars. Of course a single P42 can handle the Boston section alone.


It all depends on what schedule ones wants it to run to. If the schedule is relaxed a little, there is no reason that a single P42 could not handle even 15 cars. All you get is slower acceleration, and possibly lower sustained speed. But it should be able to run faster than typical freight trains on that route anyway.


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 6, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> We are talking about whether it would be possible to use a single locomotive west of Albany, where the LSL typically runs with 12 or more cars. Of course a single P42 can handle the Boston section alone.


Yes, from Albany south a dual-mode locomotive is required for the electrified trackage in NYC. Since two P42s are required west of Albany, and they'll have to be turned and fueled after their run, why not send them back to Boston together so that they can be serviced together?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 6, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Since two P42s are required west of Albany, and they'll have to be turned and fueled after their run, why not send them back to Boston together so that they can be serviced together?


That is the point, ehbowen. The terrain west of Albany doesn’t necessarily require two diesels. 

They actually cut it down to one diesel last summer.


----------



## Siegmund (Dec 6, 2018)

caravanman said:


> _I thought _that the two loco's on Amtrak trains were to have backup if one failed, rather than for motive power﻿?


I'm not aware of cases were Amtrak, of its own free will, ran backup engines. There are certainly cases where the host railroad insists upon it.

When the Pioneer and Desert Wind were still running, Union Pacific used to have a rule that all trains must have two engines in winter, and the Pioneer ran with 2 F40s pulling 3 or 4 Superliners when it had to (and dropped the extra unit the instant UP allowed them to in the spring.)

It will vary run-by-run whether the 2nd engine is added for acceleration, or for grades, or for some other reason. My memory of F40s is that  a single unit occasionally pulled as many as 9 single-levels, and 6ish Superliners. 

The combined CZ/Wind/Pioneer was limited by grades in Colorado, and started carrying a 3rd F40 when it started carrying a 2nd dining car. This was, far as I know, the only train Amtrak ever ran that routinely required 3 units. In the 1990ish timeframe, the summer consist looked like bag-bag-transdorm-CZ sleeper sleeper coach coach diner lounge; Pioneer coach, sleeper; Desert Wind coach sleeper, diner. Running that 2nd diner through to Chicago started between 1988 and 1990. When the Pioneer started going through Wyoming, there was no longer a need for the 3rd engine between Denver and Salt Lake - I can't help wondering if that was a factor in Amtrak's willingness to split in Denver. It wasn't to improve CZ timekeeping by switching it twice, and wasn't because of Idaho's or Wyoming's enthusiastic political support...heh.

CZ always ran with 2 engines west of Salt Lake, even when it was just bag-trans-sleeper-coach-coach-diner-lounge, while the Builder ran with 1 west of Spokane, same consist minus the lounge.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Dec 6, 2018)

Siegmund said:


> I'm not aware of cases were Amtrak, of its own free will, ran backup engines. There are certainly cases where the host railroad insists upon it.
> 
> When the Pioneer and Desert Wind were still running, Union Pacific used to have a rule that all trains must have two engines in winter, and the Pioneer ran with 2 F40s pulling 3 or 4 Superliners when it had to (and dropped the extra unit the instant UP allowed them to in the spring.)
> 
> ...


The EB runs (at least in the past) with 3 engines east of SPK. Where do they get the 3rd engine in that case? And when the EB runs with only 2 engines east of SPK, where do the third engine (either one of the SEA engine or the PDX engine) go to? And how do the switching work at SPK (I've seen the ALB switching, but slept thru the SPK switching)?


----------



## Siegmund (Dec 6, 2018)

Spokane switching westbound is the easiest thing in the world:

Combined train stops alongside the platform. Lead unit pulls ahead and out of the way. Uncouple just ahead of the lounge car. The former 2nd unit remains in place, becomes the Seattle section's engine, and departs. The original lead unit backs onto the lounge car and departs for Portland ~20 minutes later.  HEP is off for 10ish minutes in the Portland section.

Eastbound I have been asleep. Portland section still arrives first, and the end result is still the Portland engine being on the point after departure. But it must require at least one extra move-- I don't know if that extra move is the Seattle section going past the parked Portland section and backing into the platform ahead of it, or something else. Nor do I know if the Portland engine "hides" east or west of the station while waiting for the Seattle section to pass it.

I doubt that the combined Builder has ever *needed* 3 units. It routinely ran with 2 F40s in the 80s and early 90s, and routinely runs with 2 P42s now, summer and winter. In seven trips and several dozen sightings, the only time I've ever seen a 3rd unit, it was a BNSF freight unit leading a 4-hours-late westbound, presumably after a failure somewhere west of Spokane.

There was a gap of several years when I neither saw nor rode it -- approximately 2005-2013. Were there times when the Seattle section was heavy enough to need 2 units? Do not know. If it had 2 seattle sleepers and 3 seattle coaches, perhaps it would.  I don't recall ever seeing 3 seattle coaches, either - it would be a rarity to need them, since there are always 2 portland coaches which tend to have lots of extra capacity, and anyone not actually going past Spokane on the Seattle section is likely to get placed in them.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 6, 2018)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> The EB runs (at least in the past) with 3 engines east of SPK. Where do they get the 3rd engine in that case? And when the EB runs with only 2 engines east of SPK, where do the third engine (either one of the SEA engine or the PDX engine) go to? And how do the switching work at SPK (I've seen the ALB switching, but slept thru the SPK switching)?


The EB actually runs with two engines east of SPK, not three. As to the switching operations in SPK, it’s relatively simple. On the westbound, it goes as follows:


The leading locomotive uncouples from the rest of the train

The Seattle section, pulled by what was the trailing locomotive, uncouples from the Portland section

That first locomotive backs in and attaches to the Portland section

Both sections go on their way

And of course, on the eastbound:


The Portland section locomotive uncouples

The Seattle section backs onto the Portland section

What was the Portland section locomotive, couples to the front of the combined train

Off to Chicago

EDIT: Darn it. Didn’t see Siegmund’s reply when I posted.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 6, 2018)

Siegmund said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > _I thought _that the two loco's on Amtrak trains were to have backup if one failed, rather than for motive power﻿?
> ...


Amtrak does actually have certain locomotives designated as “pair only”, meaning that they are considered unreliable enough that they can only run together. But as I understand it, for the most part Amtrak only runs multiple locos for the motive power, and not simply so that there is a back up.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 6, 2018)

I saw 448 tonight. It was running with a single diesel.


----------



## PVD (Dec 6, 2018)

2 units on 448/9 to/from Boston is totally unnecessary, Albany to Chicago is a different story.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 7, 2018)

Amtrak has run, and continues to run LD trains with a single locomotive, especially those that are 'flat land' running.  They've run the LSL multiple times ALB-CHI with one locomotive.  After all, it *IS* the famed Water Level Route of the New York Central!   It's a Catch-22 to run with a single loco.  In particular, it all comes down to numbers:  How much is saved every day in fuel and maintenance costs if the 2nd locomotive is not used.  And how much is the cost in dollars if the one unit fails enroute?  Unfortunately, it would seem that passengers are not a major consideration in the latter calculation...especially if your name is Anderson.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Dec 7, 2018)

Siegmund said:


> I doubt that the combined Builder has ever *needed* 3 units. It routinely ran with 2 F40s in the 80s and early 90s, and routinely runs with 2 P42s now, summer and winter. In seven trips and several dozen sightings, the only time I've ever seen a 3rd unit, it was a BNSF freight unit leading a 4-hours-late westbound, presumably after a failure somewhere west of Spokane.


In December 2016 I was on the eastbound EB that had three P42s that left Portland and Seattle on December 10, 2016. After the merger in SPK, it was of the following consist, as I recall: 3 P42's, Viewliner baggage car, Trans dorm, 2 Seattle sleepers, Diner (Seattle), 2 Seattle coaches, Lounge (Portland), Portland coach-bag, Portland coach, Portland sleeper (in that order). It was particularly snowy during my trip.


----------



## Triley (Dec 7, 2018)

Siegmund said:


> I don't recall ever seeing 3 seattle coaches, either - it would be a rarity to need them, since there are always 2 portland coaches which tend to have lots of extra capacity, and anyone not actually going past Spokane on the Seattle section is likely to get placed in them.


This part isn't true at all, as that's not how the ticketing works on this train. Since according to Amtrak there are two trains that operate Chicago to Seattle (7 and 27), you must go in the coaches for the side of the train you purchased your ticket for.





cpotisch said:


> Amtrak does actually have certain locomotives designated as “pair only”, meaning that they are considered unreliable enough that they can only run together. But as I understand it, for the most part Amtrak only runs multiple locos for the motive power, and not simply so that there is a back up.


Yes. It can happen to the electrics too.


----------



## jis (Dec 7, 2018)

I was under the impression that electrics were run in pair for a little while when one of them had just come out of a major maintenance.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 7, 2018)

jis said:


> I was under the impression that electrics were run in pair for a little while when one of them had just come out of a major maintenance.


That's true of any of the road power. After it comes out of major maintenance. software updates or overhaul, it will run with another unit as a test. There are other engines that may have a running repair that may operate as a pair.

Other than that, there are only a few trains that actually require multiple units for the terrain. Most of it is for the schedule.


----------



## Acela150 (Dec 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> The EB actually runs with two engines east of SPK, not three. As to the switching operations in SPK, it’s relatively simple. On the westbound, it goes as follows:
> 
> 
> The leading locomotive uncouples from the rest of the train
> ...


IINM, The engines that take the train from CHI to SEA stay on the train in SPK. And there is a unit for the train to Portland in SPK. No locomotive swapping needed. 



PVD said:


> 2 units on 448/9 to/from Boston is totally unnecessary, Albany to Chicago is a different story.


The main reason for 2 units on 448/449 is that the Boston section of the LSL is on the front of the train. And the two units will take the entire train from ALB. 

Overall for both the LSL and EB if they add a unit or remove a unit from a train it would dramatically extend the dwell time.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Dec 8, 2018)

Triley said:


> This part isn't true at all, as that's not how the ticketing works on this train. Since according to Amtrak there are two trains that operate Chicago to Seattle (7 and 27), you must go in the coaches for the side of the train you purchased your ticket for.


In my experience, if not travelling west of Spokane the ticketed train number has no influence on the assigned car. For example, on my recent trip to Essex all coach passengers going to Essex were placed in the Portland section, while all on the return were placed in the Seattle section.


----------



## PVD (Dec 8, 2018)

It is clearly a time saver if you are sending 2 to Chicago, what I was trying to point out is that the choice of 1 or 2 to Chicago has a lot more points to debate than Albany to Boston. When it was temporarily a shuttle, it had no reason to use 2.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

There is a push for expanded Boston - Springfield service possibly extending out to Pittsfield. If they desired to go the Amtrak corridor route for this service I could see the Boston section being eliminated and converted to a Shuttle that would operate as part of that corridor and timed to meet 48/49 especially if it was decided to have Albany as the west end of the corridor.


----------



## neroden (Dec 8, 2018)

News.  On 448 today, checked luggage at Boston was "pick up at trainside".  Which worked.  Hopefully this means they are keeping checked baggage.


----------



## AG1 (Dec 8, 2018)

I have always "picked up at trainside" at Boston, both LSL and  66. One of the smaller bags is mine. I agree there isn't much baggage on the ALB-BOS route, although this was an April trip, not peak travel season..


----------



## neroden (Dec 8, 2018)

There was an entire cart of transfer bags coming off 448 (presumably for 67?), so discontinuing checked bags at Boston would be a big mess.

Get the bag dorms delivered, Mr Anderson!


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

According to website last day of checked baggage is 1/6


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 8, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> There is a push for expanded Boston - Springfield service possibly extending out to Pittsfield. If they desired to go the Amtrak corridor route for this service I could see the Boston section being eliminated and converted to a Shuttle that would operate as part of that corridor and timed to meet 48/49 especially if it was decided to have Albany as the west end of the corridor.


As long as they are going to Pittsfield, why not go all in and continue on to Albany? It’s not much further and you get connections two five other routes.


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 8, 2018)

As long as Massachusetts is funding service, it's in their interest to promote travel within the state, and to better integrate the western part of the state with the Boston MSA, instead of providing a route for people to spend money in New York.  Although the point is probably moot in all of our lifetimes anyway, given how long it will take to negotiate capacity increases from Worcester to Springfield with CSX, then to fund them, then to build them...then do the whole thing again to Pittsfield, except this time with more challenging topography.


----------



## TiBike (Dec 8, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> According to website last day of checked baggage is 1/6


They still have bicycle and pet slots for sale, though. Probably a glitch, but it's been long enough that you'd think they would have caught it. Maybe it's real?


----------



## AG1 (Dec 8, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> There is a push for expanded Boston - Springfield service possibly extending out to Pittsfield. If they desired to go the Amtrak corridor route for this service I could see the Boston section being eliminated and converted to a Shuttle that would operate as part of that corridor and timed to meet 48/49 especially if it was decided to have Albany as the west end of the corridor.


The expansion talk about Boston to Springfield is for MBTA commuter rail service , not Amtrak.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

AG1 said:


> The expansion talk about Boston to Springfield is for MBTA commuter rail service , not Amtrak.


I don’t think those details have been determined yet. Right now they are studying different options and nothing has been decided. MBTA has been talked about, as well as Amtrak converting some of the Springfield Shuttles into New Haven - Boston. The first determination will be the western terminus - either Springfield or Pittsfield and trip time. The method of operations and operator will surely be decided later after they determine station stops, trip time, etc.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> As long as they are going to Pittsfield, why not go all in and continue on to Albany? It’s not much further and you get connections two five other routes.


If they decided to go with Amtrak as the operator And wanted to go as far as Pittsfield I wouldn’t be surprised if they went all the way to Albany. But it may only terminate at Springfield and in that case they may do a New Haven - Boston option. They may also do neither and operate it as MBTA commuter service.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 8, 2018)

Sorry, when you say “converting some of the New Haven-Springfield Shuttles to New Haven - Boston”, would that be via Springfield, or the standard route through Providence?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Sorry, when you say “converting some of the New Haven-Springfield Shuttles to New Haven - Boston”, would that be via Springfield, or the standard route through Providence?




Using the inland route via Springfield. Up until the early 2000s or so, Amtrak used to operate at least one if not two inland route trains to Boston.  That being said, it still has nothing to do with cutting a baggage car on the Lake Shore since the Lake Shore is long distance service and any reiteration of the inland route would either be part of state supported services or (if they're lucky)  NEC service.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> As long as they are going to Pittsfield, why not go all in and continue on to Albany? It’s not much further and you get connections two five other routes.


They are going to have to reduce the travel time in order to be competitive.  Right now, the trip between Boston and Albany is painfully slow.  

Both Cape Air and the bus compete on this route.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> They are going to have to reduce the travel time in order to be competitive.  Right now, the trip between Boston and Albany is painfully slow.  Both Cape Air and the bus compete on this route.


The study will be examining and proposing six alternatives some of which will include Pittsfield. The goal is under 2 hours for all of them between SPG and BOS and at least one option will be for 90 minutes or less travel time between SPG and BOS. Really all that’s certain is that they want to look at Springfield - Boston service. Ultimately what comes of it, as has been discussed, could be a number of things. It may be full inland route NHV- BOS, it may be Springfield - Boston only , Pittsfield - Boston, or possibly MBTA just not far enough in the process to speculate which way they go.

The goal is 8 round trips SPG-BOS I believe. It’s also possible they do a combination of things who knows. Perhaps four round trips on the full inland route, and four Pittsfield or Albany to Boston? (Timed in a way to maximize SPG-BOS service which is the main priority.) anything is possible at this point.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 8, 2018)

Don’t you think that the new Hartford Line makes an Amtrak inland route less likely?


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

Getting back to the main topic though, I sent an email communication to my local congressman about the checked baggage cut. I am not necessarily expecting a response but we’ll see.


----------



## jis (Dec 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Sorry, when you say “converting some of the New Haven-Springfield Shuttles to New Haven - Boston”, would that be via Springfield, or the standard route through Providence?


Via Springfield - on the Inland Route.


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 8, 2018)

AG1 said:


> I have always "picked up at trainside" at Boston, both LSL and  66. One of the smaller bags is mine. I agree there isn't much baggage on the ALB-BOS route, although this was an April trip, not peak travel season..
> 
> View attachment 11440


This is exactly why I thought the concept of baggage/dorms was so brilliant.  Put the crew in the car to open up revenue rooms and still have adequate space for the luggage.  Why Amtrak wanted so many straight baggage cars when they don't generate any revenue was a mystery to me.  I was hoping they had a potential deal with the US Postal Service but nothing ever came out of that suggestion.

Additionally baggage/dorms could have climate controlled baggage sections which would have opened up the potential for carrying more pets (i.e., dogs bigger than those that can fit in a small carrier).  This would have tapped a whole new market for Amtrak.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 8, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> Don’t you think that the new Hartford Line makes an Amtrak inland route less likely?


I know CTDOT wants the Boston connection and would like to see full inland route trains they have said it outright. It's all going to depend on what comes of the study. Honestly I think the smartest thing would be to start it off with a few expanded Amtrak Shuttles to Boston stopping at SPG, WOR,  FRA, BBY, and BOS. Palmer, a town to the east of Springfield, wants service badly. You could consider including them in this initial service or not. From there MassDOT could look at expanding the service with the additional trains continuing west of Springfield instead of south towards New Haven and look at other stations they may want to build. Keep in mind that the goal is SPG-BOS in a reasonable amount of time. Too many stops east of SPG will make it harder to achieve that.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 8, 2018)

cocojacoby said:


> This is exactly why I thought the concept of baggage/dorms was so brilliant.  Put the crew in the car to open up revenue rooms and still have adequate space for the luggage.  Why Amtrak wanted so many straight baggage cars when they don't generate any revenue was a mystery to me.  I was hoping they had a potential deal with the US Postal Service but nothing ever came out of that suggestion.
> 
> Additionally baggage/dorms could have climate controlled baggage sections which would have opened up the potential for carrying more pets (i.e., dogs bigger than those that can fit in a small carrier).  This would have tapped a whole new market for Amtrak.


It would make more sense to expand the number of roomettes in the coming bag-dorm cars and use only 30% of the total car floor space for baggage.  If memory serves, they have 8 roomettes planned in the bag-dorm cars, and if the diners go to all 'contemporary choice' meals, the ONE diner/aka first class lounge car  and cafe/lounge car attendant would have the entire car to themselves.  I would prefer to expand the car to 12 roomettes w/shower and after the 2 OBS crew rooms, sell the other 10 and make them a revenue-producing car. 

But then, if I had a crystal ball, I'd put my money on Anderson cancelling the bag/dorm cars as well as the sleepers and getting a refund from CAF.  THAT would be the second 'big step' in cancelling LD trains...ancient sleeping cars with minimal maintenance and new baggage cars being used as 'axle count'.  Unhappy passengers don't come back!


----------



## Siegmund (Dec 8, 2018)

Baggage-dorms, or some other sort of half-baggage-half-revenue-space car, make a great deal of sense, on almost every route except the few with heaviest baggage usage. Combines were used 150 years ago on light-load trips, and Amtrak made good use of Coach-Baggage cars when Superliner I came out. I am a little surprised that full baggage cars and transition sleepers are still a thing out west, actually... if I had been king, those would have been baggage-sleepers. 

Re Inland Route service... yes, there was through Boston-Springfield-Washington service "forever". I would have guessed 3 trips a day, but the Museum's 1990 timetable revealed only two. Along with a multitude of trains splitting in New Haven with through cars to Springfield. I had sort of hoped that, if the desire was to eliminate the New Haven switching, they'd do something like extend additional trains northward, perhaps alternating Boston-Springfield-New York and Boston-Providence-New York hourly. (Yes, I know that possibility mostly died with electrification of the shoreline route.)


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 9, 2018)

Siegmund said:


> Re Inland Route service... yes, there was through Boston-Springfield-Washington service "forever". I would have guessed 3 trips a day, but the Museum's 1990 timetable revealed only two. Along with a multitude of trains splitting in New Haven with through cars to Springfield. I had sort of hoped that, if the desire was to eliminate the New Haven switching, they'd do something like extend additional trains northward, perhaps alternating Boston-Springfield-New York and Boston-Providence-New York hourly. (Yes, I know that possibility mostly died with electrification of the shoreline route.)


And it takes a lot longer.  I went via the inland route once just to experience it and it seemed to take forever.

Always thought the old Night Owl could have been rerouted via the inland route and that would have generated more baggage and express business than the shoreline.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 9, 2018)

Email sent to RPA on checked baggage.


----------



## neroden (Dec 12, 2018)

They're announcing no checked baggage to Boston as of January 7th.  They're also claiming that they'll strictly enforce the carry-on policy (which they won't, zero chance of that).


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 12, 2018)

neroden said:


> They're announcing no checked baggage to Boston as of January 7th.  They're also claiming that they'll strictly enforce the carry-on policy (which they won't, zero chance of that).


Has it been announced publicly or is this internal?


----------



## chrsjrcj (Dec 12, 2018)

Someone asked Amtrak about it on Facebook a few days ago, and they confirmed. Sorry, I do not have the link. It was a comment in an unrelated post.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 12, 2018)

chrsjrcj said:


> Someone asked Amtrak about it on Facebook a few days ago, and they confirmed. Sorry, I do not have the link. It was a comment in an unrelated post.


I saw the same thing in a post in the AU Facebook group. It’s definitely happening.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 12, 2018)

neroden said:


> They're announcing no checked baggage to Boston as of January 7th.  They're also claiming that they'll strictly enforce the carry-on policy (which they won't, zero chance of that).


Yes, because they've done a WONDERFUL job at enforcing the carry-on policy so far.  <_<


----------



## TiBike (Dec 12, 2018)

The website is still out of sync. Amtrak is still taking reservations for bikes on 449 on 7 January and beyond. And if you click on the "Baggage Information" link, you get:

"Checked Baggage
"Each passenger can check up to 4 bags - 2 free of charge and 2 for $20 per bag, each not to exceed 50 lbs. (23 kg), 75 linear inches (length + width + height)".


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 12, 2018)

I received this response from the RPA. Im assuming that they simply sent this as an explanation indicates that they don't have much of an issue with the decision:

The Chicago to New York checked baggage car will continue to operate round-trip on Trains 48/49, but the Boston to Chicago round-trip checked baggage car on Trains 448/449 will be removed starting Monday, January 7, 2019. With this change, checked baggage will no longer be offered to/from Springfield to/from Worcester and to/from Boston on Trains 448/449. Passengers will have to carry-on baggage for those origins and destinations. A roomette has been removed from sale in the sleeper car on the Boston section of the Lake Shore to accommodate the additional carry-on baggage of sleeper car passengers. Passengers boarding 449 in Boston who desire to check baggage for Chicago and points west can still check them, but delivery to the customer at the endpoints will be delayed 24 hours due to the requirement to route them on Train 67 from Boston. The same 24 hour delay would apply to passenger bags checked inbound to Boston via connections to Train 66. Express Shipping will continue to/from Boston via the baggage car on 66/67 that can connect Express at Washington to/from all other national Express network locations. Springfield will no longer have any trains with baggage cars operating through that location and therefore will have to embargo all Express Shipping to/from that location.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 12, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> I received this response from the RPA. Im assuming that they simply sent this as an explanation indicates that they don't have much of an issue with the decision:
> 
> The Chicago to New York checked baggage car will continue to operate round-trip on Trains 48/49, but the Boston to Chicago round-trip checked baggage car on Trains 448/449 will be removed starting Monday, January 7, 2019. With this change, checked baggage will no longer be offered to/from Springfield to/from Worcester and to/from Boston on Trains 448/449. Passengers will have to carry-on baggage for those origins and destinations. A roomette has been removed from sale in the sleeper car on the Boston section of the Lake Shore to accommodate the additional carry-on baggage of sleeper car passengers. Passengers boarding 449 in Boston who desire to check baggage for Chicago and points west can still check them, but delivery to the customer at the endpoints will be delayed 24 hours due to the requirement to route them on Train 67 from Boston. The same 24 hour delay would apply to passenger bags checked inbound to Boston via connections to Train 66. Express Shipping will continue to/from Boston via the baggage car on 66/67 that can connect Express at Washington to/from all other national Express network locations. Springfield will no longer have any trains with baggage cars operating through that location and therefore will have to embargo all Express Shipping to/from that location.


I suppose for sleeper passengers having the "unused sleeper" open for baggage makes this less of an issue...for people that really don't want to deal with their bags they can ask for baggage assistance at the station and have the agent or red cap drop it in that roomette. This is ASSUMING they don't mess with staffing at the stations. And this would only help Springfield and Boston.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 12, 2018)

One less roomette won’t make the remaining roomettes any cheaper.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 12, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> One less roomette won’t make the remaining roomettes any cheaper.


Very true. And it also likely won’t be able to fit every sleeper passenger’s previously-checked bags. Not ideal at all.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 12, 2018)

I do have to say, my main concern right now is the noise that Boston sleeper passengers will be put through. The train is (currently) pulled by two P42s, and with no buffer between the locos and Boston sleeper...  :unsure:


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 12, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I do have to say, my main concern right now is the noise that Boston sleeper passengers will be put through. The train is (currently) pulled by two P42s, and with no buffer between the locos and Boston sleeper... :unsure:


And that's why I will NEVER ride in the Boston sleeper again!  One may say 'they don't blow the horn that often...'  Wanna bet???  Traveling eastbound from CHI, departing there at 9:30, I generally try be in bed about an hour later.  In Indiana, and even Ohio, there's a highway crossing about every 2 miles it seems...although it's probably 5 miles or so in reality.  And if you're in the front car, the horn will definitely keep you awake.  At least I can take out my hearing aids, which helps greatly, but I STILL hear the horn when I'm within 3 cars of the locomotive on any train...including the Superliners!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 13, 2018)

I’m planning a transcon trip for February using points and I was looking at doing SEA-CHI-BOS, but I absolutely hate being right next to the engines. I like hearing the horn blow, but from a bit of a distance, not close enough where you have to wear ear plugs. Riding in the dorm car on the CONO is very loud - can’t imagine this would be any better.


----------



## PVD (Dec 13, 2018)

A possible option is a NY sleeper to/from ALB, then change to BC or Coach ALB to/from BOS if it doesn't screw up pricing to any great degree. For most people, the ALB to BOS stretch is not during sleeping hours, of course, that is an individual factor.


----------



## Triley (Dec 13, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> But then, if I had a crystal ball, I'd put my money on Anderson cancelling the bag/dorm cars as well as the sleepers and getting a refund from CAF.  THAT would be the second 'big step' in cancelling LD trains...ancient sleeping cars with minimal maintenance and new baggage cars being used as 'axle count'.  Unhappy passengers don't come back!


It doesn't work like that, he just can't go and cancel the order and expect a full refund. There is a contract in place... Blow money on this, and Amtrak will NEVER receive funding for equipment again...

And please don't say "Well isn't that the goal?" I don't like the guy either, but give the guy some credit, he's not trying to kill the entire company.



Siegmund said:


> Baggage-dorms, or some other sort of half-baggage-half-revenue-space car, make a great deal of sense, on almost every route except the few with heaviest baggage usage. Combines were used 150 years ago on light-load trips, and Amtrak made good use of Coach-Baggage cars when Superliner I came out. I am a little surprised that full baggage cars and transition sleepers are still a thing out west, actually... if I had been king, those would have been baggage-sleepers.


If a transition to Superliner bag/sleepers were made, express service would be lost, since pallets wouldn't be able to be loaded, assuming the setup would be similar to a bag/coach.



cocojacoby said:


> Always thought the old Night Owl could have been rerouted via the inland route and that would have generated more baggage and express business than the shoreline.


Providence is a pretty large stop to lose out... they'd generate a lot more baggage, express shipments, and passengers, than would be shifting 67/66 over the inland route. On weekdays some 100-150 people board in Providence to commute to Boston, in addition to another 50 or so at other shoreline stops. (A monthly between Providence and Boston is $425, so estimate that 2/3rds of them have a monthly, that's ~$28000-$42000 in guaranteed revenue generated because of the train's existence there.



NativeSon5859 said:


> I’m planning a transcon trip for February using points and I was looking at doing SEA-CHI-BOS, but I absolutely hate being right next to the engines. I like hearing the horn blow, but from a bit of a distance, not close enough where you have to wear ear plugs. Riding in the dorm car on the CONO is very loud - can’t imagine this would be any better.


Imagine what it's like to be on the few side!




. I had a real hard time sleeping the one diner trip I worked. I got to Chicago, face planted my bed even with my shoes and jacket still on, and passed out for an hour and a half, before getting up for dinner and going back to bed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 13, 2018)

Triley said:


> It doesn't work like that, he just can't go and cancel the order and expect a full refund. There is a contract in place... Blow money on this, and Amtrak will NEVER receive funding for equipment again...And please don't say "Well isn't that the goal?" I don't like the guy either, but give the guy some credit, he's not trying to kill the entire company.


I don't think anyone is seriously saying Anderson is trying to kill the entire company.  For instance, I've yet to see anything that implies he's willing to abandon the Northeastern Corridor.  That being said it does seem that he couldn't care less what happens to the current long distance network so long as Amtrak's fuzzy bean counting math looks good.


----------



## Triley (Dec 13, 2018)

Devil said:


> I don't think anyone is seriously saying Anderson is trying to kill the entire company.  For instance, I've yet to see anything that implies he's willing to abandon the Northeastern Corridor.  That being said it does seem that he couldn't care less what happens to the current long distance network so long as Amtrak's fuzzy bean counting math looks good.


Oh I agree with you completely. It's just that a lot of people blame him for and accuse him of everything negative that's happened recently, even when many of those things he had no involvement in.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 13, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> I’m planning a transcon trip for February using points and I was looking at doing SEA-CHI-BOS, but I absolutely hate being right next to the engines. I like hearing the horn blow, but from a bit of a distance, not close enough where you have to wear ear plugs. Riding in the dorm car on the CONO is very loud - can’t imagine this would be any better.


As PVD indcated above, book the 48, not 448 sleeper CHI-ALB then ride coach in 448 ALB-CHI.  I do exactly that when I ride 448/449-48/49 from Springfield MA.  I'm far away from the horns and at most 1 car away from the FKA diner and cafe car.  It also gives the benefit of riding coach (not business class!) for the extra legroom (more than BC unless they've substituted a NEC full BC car for regular coach which they did to me in September!) and the ability to enjoy both sides of the train while going through the Berkshire Mtns between ALB and SPG.

As a side note: Amtrak (Julie) just called me to advise me that my April trip on 448 will NOT have a baggage car!  Surprise,  surprise, surprise! (with apologies to Gomer Pyle aka Jim Nabors)


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 13, 2018)

This really is a shame. I had been planning on getting a Roomette from BOS to CHI at some point, but I don't know how I'd make it work with that much noise. Death by a thousand small cuts.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 13, 2018)

Look at the bright side. At least you still have your contemporary dining service to look forward to. 

I think that should be a slogan. Amtrak's Contemporary Dining! It's better than the stew!!!


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 13, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Look at the bright side. At least you still have your contemporary dining service to look forward to.
> 
> I think that should be a slogan. Amtrak's Contemporary Dining! It's better than the stew!!!


How about "Contemporary dining: Food so bad you won't even think about the horn!"


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 13, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> How about "Contemporary dining: Food so bad you won't even think about the horn!" [emoji3]


Do coach BOS - ALB, sleeper ALB - CHI.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 13, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Look at the bright side. At least you still have your contemporary dining service to look forward to.
> 
> I think that should be a slogan. Amtrak's Contemporary Dining! It's better than the stew!!!


Actually, I LIKE Dinty Moore stew!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 14, 2018)

I agree, the Stew is better than the Sugar and Starch Bombs served on the Lake Shore and Cap!


----------



## AKA (Dec 14, 2018)

I concur



bratkinson said:


> Actually, I LIKE Dinty Moore stew!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 14, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> Actually, I LIKE Dinty Moore stew!


&



Bob Dylan said:


> I agree, the Stew is better than the Sugar and Starch Bombs served on the Lake Shore and Cap!


&



AKA said:


> I concur


Even if you love the taste and texture of canned stew do you think it's a good _value_ for a ticket that typically costs several hundred dollars and often exceeds first class airfare?


----------



## AKA (Dec 14, 2018)

The fact that I like Dinty Moore stew has nothing to do with Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 15, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> I suppose for sleeper passengers having the "unused sleeper" open for baggage makes this less of an issue...for people that really don't want to deal with their bags they can ask for baggage assistance at the station and have the agent or red cap drop it in that roomette. This is ASSUMING they don't mess with staffing at the stations. And this would only help Springfield and Boston.






VTTrain said:


> One less roomette won’t make the remaining roomettes any cheaper.


I'm now wondering if this roomette will be unavailable from BOS-ALB or BOS-CHI.I'm thinking BOS-CHI although at Alb, there would be nothing from stopping them from loading any extra carry-on luggage into the baggage car and freeing up the sleeper for use.


----------



## Anthony V (Dec 15, 2018)

Now that it's been confirmed, what can we do to STOP the service cut this thread is about? I hope we can do something to stop it!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 15, 2018)

I hate to sound defeatist but I doubt there is anything you can really do unless the state of Massachusetts or the city of Springfield steps in. After all,  you can still ship bags from BOS-ALB, with a delay. You can still ship bags from BOS-CHI, with a delay.  PIT and BBY never had baggage service so you're only losing baggage lite at WOR and all baggage service at SPG.  Considering a large swath of the country has lost their baggage service (or never had it to begin with), it will be hard to justify the hard economics of keeping 3 baggage cars for the sole purpose of servicing SPG and checking bikes at PIT.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 15, 2018)

One unfortunate thing is that a checked baggage area was included in the new Springfield station that will never get used. Amtrak still isn't using the new station although I heard an indication it may finally be happening sometime soon. The new high level platform should be done sometime in the spring.


----------



## neroden (Dec 16, 2018)

I sleep very well in the 448/449 sleeper, but then train horns put me to sleep almost instantly.

So, I went SYR-BOS recently.  The boiled eggs in the cafe car make a huge difference -- I can live without the dining car.  It would be *nice* to have the dining car, but I *don't have to bring my own food*.  I bought four packets of boiled eggs on one trip.  The cafe car menu is, in general, a very substantial improvement over what they had a year ago.  There's also a salad I can eat.  Again, neither eggs nor salad were available a year ago.  Another advantage: I have ingredients lists for everything in the cafe car.

I honestly think the way forward in the short term for food is to continue to improve the cafe car menu.  The cafe car was doing brisk business. Food needs to be supplied between Albany and NY, however. If Amtrak ever gets its accounting straightened out, they should try reinstating fresh-cooked food on the LSL (which was the most profitable of the dining cars on the eastern system, with over half its business from coach and lots of NY and Chicago passengers willing to buy lots of wine). 

I'm not sure what bicycle demand is like on the LSL route, but it may be significant enough to justify running a bag-dorm rather than a sleeper.  The Boston section of the sleeper is rarely full east of Albany... bicyclists are not interested in having their bicycle arrive later than they do to their destination, so diverting bikes via NY isn't an option.

But where the heck are the bag-dorms?!?


----------



## PVD (Dec 16, 2018)

Is the bag load light enough to permit use of the B-D on the NY section? I don't know, just throwing it out there.


----------



## me_little_me (Dec 16, 2018)

amtrakpass said:


> Where exactly are these excess baggage cars going  to be assigned to add service too then? Or are they just going into axel count service or storage? My view if you are going to call a crew and run a train anyway shortening a consist by one car is is not a real savings and it is a reduction in quality of service which has greater long term implications than just adding or subtracting a car.


Another candidate for converting to a bus for the Southwest Chief. :giggle:


----------



## neroden (Dec 16, 2018)

PVD said:


> Is the bag load light enough to permit use of the B-D on the NY section? I don't know, just throwing it out there.


Depends on time of year.  Jan-Feb, yes.  Thanksgiving or mid-June, no.

We did an analysis of seasonality of train routes a while back.  Amtrak really should be adjusting consists by season.


----------



## PVD (Dec 16, 2018)

Thanks.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 16, 2018)

PVD said:


> Is the bag load light enough to permit use of the B-D on the NY section? I don't know, just throwing it out there.


I doubt it. In peak season, the NY section of the LSL alone can reach up to seven revenue cars, and with the loss of checked baggage on 448/449, all checked bags west of ALB will have to use it. On the really busy days, I have seen cases where the two sections of LSL totaled out at up to 12 revenue cars (four sleepers, seven coaches, and the split Business/Cafe car). That is of course very rare, with the typical combined consist being three sleepers, four coaches, and the BC car, but I still don't think a bag-dorm would be enough for even that.


----------



## PVD (Dec 16, 2018)

The interesting thing is even being on a very crowded Lake, when my sleeper was next to the bag, looking in, it didn't seem like it was that full. Lots of bags in the overheads and piled up at the ends of the cars. That was only one trip so it is by no means defining, but I'd love to see actual counts.


----------



## neroden (Dec 16, 2018)

The new baggage cars have a pretty efficient layout, but you'd need a full baggage car for the Thanksgiving load on the LSL, period.  Also for the mid-june load.  Syracuse baggage alone occupies about 1/8 of a baggage car on a peak day.  By contrast, on a non-peak day in January, you probably wouldn't even fill a half-bag.

I think there's something non-obvious happening.  Off-peak-season travellers take substantially less baggage than peak-season travellers.  So the baggage load is even more peaky than the passenger load.

This raises an interesting commercial possibility: "checked baggage for the holidays".  That didn't make sense with dedicated baggage employees (who would be doing nothing most of the year), but with trainside baggage handing done by conductors, it actually might make sense.  During the peaks, with the carry-on space crammed full, add a baggage car and offer what airlines used to call "checked carry-ons" or "gate-checked" bags.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 16, 2018)

neroden said:


> This raises an interesting commercial possibility: "checked baggage for the holidays".  That didn't make sense with dedicated baggage employees (who would be doing nothing most of the year), but with trainside baggage handing done by conductors, it actually might make sense.


I wish they would consider running it seasonally on the Boston section rather than permanent removal. In off season run a single bag dorm on the New York only. On peak season run the regular bag on New York and bag dorm on Boston. Boston will still have its baggage service via 65/67 so it doesn’t require modifying anything there, Springfield doesn’t have dedicated baggage personnel the regular agents did the baggage, and Worcester and Pittsfield did trackside baggage so operationally it would be no big deal. But seems unlikely. It should be noted that many stations don’t have dedicated baggage personnel, only really the major ones do. 
At manned stations not big enough to warrant checked baggage personnel and red caps, the regular agents that work the counter also do checked baggage, baggage assistance, and helping passengers with wheelchairs, etc.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 16, 2018)

lordsigma said:


> I wish they would consider running it seasonally on the Boston section rather than permanent removal. In off season run a single bag dorm on the New York only. On peak season run the regular bag on New York and bag dorm on Boston. Boston will still have its baggage service via 65/67 so it doesn’t require modifying anything there, Springfield doesn’t have dedicated baggage personnel the regular agents did the baggage, and Worcester and Pittsfield did trackside baggage so operationally it would be no big deal. But seems unlikely. It should be noted that many stations don’t have dedicated baggage personnel, only really the major ones do.
> 
> At manned stations not big enough to warrant checked baggage personnel and red caps, the regular agents that work the counter also do checked baggage, baggage assistance, and helping passengers with wheelchairs, etc.


Perhaps this is a long term plan....when the bag dorms enter service. In the meantime, you have two FULL baggage cars on the LSL, meaning you need 6 bags...now.  As I indicated, I can think of better uses for those baggage cars.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 17, 2018)

Somehow, I don't see 'peak season' baggage cars on 448/449.  Exactly HOW would they make that known to potential passengers?  And, as mentioned above, WHO would be handling the baggage at Springfield?  (I suspect they'll cut at least one position there).  Adding a coach or even a sleeper to a train isn't something a passenger would be aware of (other than railfans noticing an extra coach or sleeper).  Most passengers have no idea whatsoever if there will be 3 coaches or 4 or even 5 on a train.  So why would Amtrak management want to potentially confuse passengers by 'advertising'/publishing/changing the online booking process to show that checked baggage available on certain dates only?

I think the reason for the end of the BOS baggage car is strictly a numbers game.  All following numbers are 'reasonable guesstimates'  on my part:

Let's assume the extra fuel needed to haul an empty baggage car is 30 gallons (what's that 1 ton goes how many miles on 1 gallon of fuel?  How heavy is a V2 baggage car?  Do the math for 200 miles BOS-ALB)  Wear and tear, miscellaneous, and general maintenance adds perhaps $10 per trip on said baggage car...inspections...maintenance...cleaning?  Don't forget insurance costs in case it gets damaged in a wreck (I know, Amtrak is self-insured).  30 gals x $3.00/gal = $90 + 10 = $100 x 2 trips per day = $200/day x 365 = $73,000.

Now throw in the cost of one full time position at SPG whose primary job is baggage handler and that position can be eliminated.  I've seen as many as 3 on-duty Amtrak ticket clerks/baggage handlers at Springfield.  It might have even been 4 every now and then.  Eliminating one position works out to: $50/hr (30/hr + benefits + corporate RRR matching, etc) or about $100,000/year total cost to Amtrak.

Grand total *'savings'* per year: *$173,000* per year

Loss of 1 roomette per trip for sleeper passenger baggage:  $345/trip BOS-CHI (low-bucket fare just checked with Amsnag.  There will be one less low-bucket fare in the BOS sleeper from now on!)   x 2 trips/day x 365 days = *$251,850!!!*

*Obviously, the loss of revenue is of ZERO concern to Amtrak HQ!!!  All they care about these days is 'savings', and NOT growing the business!!!!*

As has been said in various forums and magazines by various people: *"Ride  'em' while you can!!!*


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 17, 2018)

From the response I got from the RPA, no job cuts are planned as far as they know this is about equipment, fuel, etc. I am at Springfield often and it’s usually one or two on duty. If you saw 3 or more it may have been near shift change time in the middle of the day.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> Let's assume the extra fuel needed to haul an empty baggage car is 30 gallons (what's that 1 ton goes how many miles on 1 gallon of fuel?  How heavy is a V2 baggage car?  Do the math for 200 miles BOS-ALB)  Wear and tear, miscellaneous, and general maintenance adds perhaps $10 per trip on said baggage car...inspections...maintenance...cleaning?  Don't forget insurance costs in case it gets damaged in a wreck (I know, Amtrak is self-insured).  30 gals x $3.00/gal = $90 + 10 = $100 x 2 trips per day = $200/day x 365 = $73,000.
> 
> Now throw in the cost of one full time position at SPG whose primary job is baggage handler and that position can be eliminated.  I've seen as many as 3 on-duty Amtrak ticket clerks/baggage handlers at Springfield.  It might have even been 4 every now and then.  Eliminating one position works out to: $50/hr (30/hr + benefits + corporate RRR matching, etc) or about $100,000/year total cost to Amtrak.
> 
> ...


Your numbers leave out a lot of details and are using assumptions that may be incorrect...such as:

1)We don't know if the sleeper car is only being used from BOS-ALB.  If that is the case, you're not really losing the revenue ALB-CHI and the ridership from BOS-ALB is marginal so you're not likely to use that space anyway.

2) The cost of keeping three lightly used bags on a train that already has a bag. These cars can be used to generate or stimulate revenue somewhere else in the system, leading to extra revenue..

3) Costs savings for crew consists (contractual). This is a biggie and I've noticed little subtleties that make it harder to claim these productivity savings. For one train, it may not seem like much, but throughout the system, it is indeed adding up.

4) In theory, if they bothered to enforce the carry on policy (while stripping you of the ability to check bags), that would also add revenue while cutting expenses.

5) There is no way that dragging a baggage car  across the roughly 1040 miles between BOS-ALB costs $10 is wear, tear and general maintenance.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 17, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> Somehow, I don't see 'peak season' baggage cars on 448/449.  Exactly HOW would they make that known to potential passengers?  And, as mentioned above, WHO would be handling the baggage at Springfield?  (I suspect they'll cut at least one position there).  Adding a coach or even a sleeper to a train isn't something a passenger would be aware of (other than railfans noticing an extra coach or sleeper).  Most passengers have no idea whatsoever if there will be 3 coaches or 4 or even 5 on a train.  So why would Amtrak management want to potentially confuse passengers by 'advertising'/publishing/changing the online booking process to show that checked baggage available on certain dates only?
> 
> I think the reason for the end of the BOS baggage car is strictly a numbers game.  All following numbers are 'reasonable guesstimates'  on my part:
> 
> ...


How did you conclude that any of these numbers are correct? Sounds like you just pulled a bunch of numbers out of thin air and said “Yeah, that could be right”, and then posted it.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 17, 2018)

For starters it assumes that the last roomette is sold out on every trip of the year.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 17, 2018)

One other interesting local development that may be a similar situation - it appears the Vermonter is running with only one engine this winter (normally they run two in the winter)

I guess they’re getting serious about saving fuel.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

They haven't routinely operated with two diesels in the winter since the train was rerouted.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

Yeah, in the four or so trips I took since after the rerouting, I have never ahd two engines, and this is over several years and one trip in the depth of Winter.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 17, 2018)

neroden said:


> . ...If Amtrak ever gets its accounting straightened out, they should try reinstating fresh-cooked food on the LSL...


You are aware that even on trains with full meal service (like nearly all popularly priced restaurants off the rails), most of the food is not "fresh cooked?"


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 17, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> They haven't routinely operated with two diesels in the winter since the train was rerouted.


Remind me what the reroute was? I know that the Vermonter at one point ran with a locomotive on each end, and then switched to a cab car, and now just physically turns at each terminus, but what was the actual change to the route? Did the actual route/stations change or was it just an operational change that didn’t affect passenger?


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Remind me what the reroute was? I know that the Vermonter at one point ran with a locomotive on each end, and then switched to a cab car, and now just physically turns at each terminus, but what was the actual change to the route? Did the actual route/stations change or was it just an operational change that didn’t affect passenger?


Moving from the route via Palmer MA back to the old Guiford (B&M) Line directly to the north from Springfield.

The route via Palmer required engine at both ends since there was a reversal of direction of running at Palmer MA.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 17, 2018)

jis said:


> Moving from the route via Palmer MA back to the old Guiford (B&M) Line directly to the north from Springfield.
> 
> The route via Palmer required engine at both ends since there was a reversal of direction of running at Palmer MA.


Thanks. So sort of like how the Surfliners have to reverse out of LAX when they stop there, because there aren’t any through tracks?


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Thanks. So sort of like how the Surfliners have to reverse out of LAX when they stop there, because there aren’t any through tracks?


Well the tracks are pointed in the wrong direction at Palmer, in a manner of speaking. Going towards St. Albans, the Vermonter would pull into Palmer coming in from Springfield traveling East, and then it had to depart West to go north from there. Of course the tracks continue east towards Boston, and also you exit east to go South towards New London.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 17, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> They haven't routinely operated with two diesels in the winter since the train was rerouted.


Good to know didn’t realize.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 19, 2018)

From a security perspective, I am surprised that Amtrak will allow a customer to transport a bag on a train that is different than the train that the passenger is actually traveling on.


----------



## PVD (Dec 19, 2018)

A problem with a checked bag on a train is not likely to have the catastrophic effect that it might have on an airplane. With the exception of a bag coach or cabbage, checked bags aren't in a car carrying people enroute. Positive bag matching is only partially used even in the airline industry, it is not absolute. Typically, transferred bags are not matched, so even in a domestic flight scenario  PPBM  would only be for the first leg of a multi leg flight.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 19, 2018)

PVD said:


> A problem with a checked bag on a train is not likely to have the catastrophic effect that it might have on an airplane. With the exception of a bag coach or cabbage, checked bags aren't in a car carrying people enroute. Positive bag matching is only partially used even in the airline industry, it is not absolute. Typically, transferred bags are not matched, so even in a domestic flight scenario  PPBM  would only be for the first leg of a multi leg flight.


The primary issue with checked luggage on Amtrak is that it receives no known scanning whatsoever.  On the other hand, there are easier ways to damage a train and Amtrak's low level of citizen awareness means it's unlikely to generate the sort of fear a terrorist would typically be seeking.  Amtrak has had at least two terrorism related events, one of which is long since forgotten while the other barely even registered in the public consciousness.


----------



## VTTrain (Dec 19, 2018)

PVD said:


> A problem with a checked bag on a train is not likely to have the catastrophic effect that it might have on an airplane. With the exception of a bag coach or cabbage, checked bags aren't in a car carrying people enroute. Positive bag matching is only partially used even in the airline industry, it is not absolute. Typically, transferred bags are not matched, so even in a domestic flight scenario  PPBM  would only be for the first leg of a multi leg flight.


I had that same thought - except that the baggage car is often in a location that is sensitive (e.g. a tunnel) or near people (e.g. while loading at a terminus).

The difference with PPBM and flying is that one should assume that their bag is on the aircraft that they are flying.  The bags are also screened.  

I'm not saying that it's the most appealing security target - I'm just saying that I am surprised that they are allowing this policy.


----------



## cocojacoby (Dec 19, 2018)

VTTrain said:


> From a security perspective, I am surprised that Amtrak will allow a customer to transport a bag on a train that is different than the train that the passenger is actually traveling on.


Kind of have to.  For instance if you are traveling from Boston to Miami on the Silver Service you need to bring your bags to South Station the night before since they need to go overnight on the "Night Owl" since there is no through baggage available.  Not very convenient for most people.


----------



## PVD (Dec 19, 2018)

Considering the 1000s of miles of thinly patrolled track, and the daily accidents at crossings it is much easier to cause a major wreck having greater economic impact without dealing with bags. 2017 saw 2107 RR crossing collisions with 274 fatalities and 804 injuries. (operation lifesaver numbers). A friend, working for Homeland Security (now retired) used to respond to a steady stream of crossing accidents and derailments, even minor "just in case"   Put a tank car with dangerous chemicals on its side, and you can cause a (potential) disaster of immense proportions.


----------



## neroden (Dec 20, 2018)

MARC Rider said:


> You are aware that even on trains with full meal service (like nearly all popularly priced restaurants off the rails), most of the food is not "fresh cooked?"


When I say "fresh cooked food", it's code for "fried eggs", which were in fact fresh-cooked


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 21, 2018)

neroden said:


> MARC Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that even on trains with full meal service (like nearly all popularly priced restaurants off the rails), most of the food is not "fresh cooked?"
> ...


It might make sense to just say “fried eggs” then, because I imagine plenty of people here do not automatically know your code words.


----------



## twropr (Dec 21, 2018)

Can anyone remember approx. when Amtrak attempted to discontinue trains 448/449 and what NY and MA to prevent AMT from following thru?  I raise this question because of the possibility that baggage service discontinuance might be the beginning of a new plan to discontinue the train and replace it with buses.

Andy


----------



## neroden (Dec 22, 2018)

I am certainly not old enough to remember that.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 24, 2018)

twropr said:


> Can anyone remember approx. when Amtrak attempted to discontinue trains 448/449 and what NY and MA to prevent AMT from following thru?  I raise this question because of the possibility that baggage service discontinuance might be the beginning of a new plan to discontinue the train and replace it with buses.
> 
> Andy


A bit off, maybe.

The sleeper was a guarantee of Amtrak when MA funded the Mail+Express terminal in Springfield. Not 100% but do recall.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 3, 2019)

BTW, it is now listed on the service alerts page, so it is now completely official. 



> Lake Shore Limited
> 
> 
> 
> ...


https://www.amtrak.com/service-alerts-and-notices


----------



## TiBike (Jan 4, 2019)

The online reservation system still shows roll-up bicycle service availability, on 7 January and beyond. Six slots – the usual for a V2 baggage car – are available between Boston and Albany. It shows three slots available from Boston to Chicago, and three slots between NY Penn station and Chicago.

I still gotta believe that this is an error – somebody forgot to change it. Not surprisingly, it doesn't look like there are a lot of (or even any) bikes moving between Boston/Chicago or NY/Chicago right now, so there's little or no immediate damage. But I wonder what Amtrak would do if I bought a bike ticket today and rolled up in Boston on Monday?


----------



## daybeers (Jan 4, 2019)

A sad outcome, indeed, but not surprising.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 5, 2019)

TiBike said:


> The online reservation system still shows roll-up bicycle service availability, on 7 January and beyond.











TiBike said:


> But I wonder what Amtrak would do if I bought a bike ticket today and rolled up in Boston on Monday?


How bikes many can fit into a Viewliner sleeper? We may find out sooner than we find out how many licks it takes to get into the center of a tootsie pop (which I believe is three) ^_^


----------



## TiBike (Jan 6, 2019)

They're still allowing five pets in the cars between Boston and Albany, so bikes shouldn't be a problem. Bicycles don't bark all night, bite other passengers or crap on the floor. Bicyclists, on the other hand...


----------



## neroden (Jan 7, 2019)

TiBike said:


> The online reservation system still shows roll-up bicycle service availability, on 7 January and beyond. Six slots – the usual for a V2 baggage car – are available between Boston and Albany. It shows three slots available from Boston to Chicago, and three slots between NY Penn station and Chicago.
> 
> I still gotta believe that this is an error – somebody forgot to change it. Not surprisingly, it doesn't look like there are a lot of (or even any) bikes moving between Boston/Chicago or NY/Chicago right now, so there's little or no immediate damage. But I wonder what Amtrak would do if I bought a bike ticket today and rolled up in Boston on Monday?


*Do it.  I wanna see what happens.*

(Use a really cheap bike.)


----------



## John Santos (Jan 8, 2019)

Last night I made a reservation for August on the LSL (Boston) to CHI -> SWC to TUS.  For add-ons, the Amtrak web site asked me if I wanted to include a bike and, oh by the way, bikes were sold out.  I don't know if this means there are a limited number of bike slots available but my particular train was sold out, or if all bike slots are listed as "sold out" for all 448/449 for the indefinite future.  Maybe because baggage and bikes are still available on the 48/49, it was easier to change the web site to mark all bike slots on the Boston section as sold out than to remove the option completely.

(This didn't affect me as I'm not planning to bring a bike.)

I will have two wheelie duffel bags, a large and a medium, and would like to check the large one through, but I've lugged them in the past, and I can fit both of them in the overhead in a VL roomette.  I'll leave the big one (camping gear) on the luggage rack downstairs on the TE/SL unless they let me check it in Chicago.  One time as I was boarding the EB in Chicago, the SLA volunteered to put it in a luggage area over the front truck of the sleeper.  At least, that's where I thought she put it, she wasn't gone long enough to bring it all the way to the baggage car, I think.  (I half expect someone to tell me I'm wrong, there is no such storage area, she must have put it in the baggage car, but there wasn't any baggage tag on it when I got to Seattle, just my name tag...) Then, about a mile north of CUS, we stopped because a door/hatch on the side of one of the cars (mine, I think) was OPEN!  The SLA reassured me that my duffel bag hadn't fallen out and couldn't possibly have fallen out, but I was a little paranoid all the way to Seattle, where it was fine.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 8, 2019)

John Santos said:


> I don't know if this means there are a limited number of bike slots available but my particular train was sold out, *or if all bike slots are listed as "sold out" for all 448/449 for the indefinite future.*


It's the latter.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 9, 2019)

BTW, it turns out (rather unsurprisingly) that Amtrak.com will not even let you bring a bike if you are booked on 448/449 between ALB and CHI, even though 48/49 is the same train and still does allow it. So any bikers traveling for that portion of the route will now have to book 48/49, at least until they can program it to allow bikes for that stretch.


----------



## PVD (Jan 9, 2019)

It is pretty safe to figure that as far as the system is concerned, it is a train with no baggage car.


----------



## railiner (Jan 9, 2019)

Not a problem...book from Chicago to Albany....claim your bike, and........start pedaling.....


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 9, 2019)

railiner said:


> Not a problem...book from Chicago to Albany....claim your bike, and........start pedaling.....


Jokes aside, I think you missed what I was saying. If you’re travelling on 448/449 between CHI and ALB (or intermediate points), it still does not allow you to bring a bike, as it doesn’t “know” that it’s the same train as 48/49, which does have a baggage car and bike racks. So let’s say you are travelling from Chicago to Albany; if 48 is sold out or much more expensive than 448 and you therefore have to book the latter, you won’t be able to bring a bike, despite the fact that the NY section baggage car is on the same train and could be used.


----------



## PVD (Jan 9, 2019)

I have actually experienced that sans bicycle. I was at a NYS Hockey function in Lake Placid, and needed to go to Colorado for the national meeting and I drove to Albany, left my car, and took the LSL. One way I  booked the Boston sleeper.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 9, 2019)

A video posted in Amtrak Fans and one on YouTube (seen below) show that the Boston section is not only running without a baggage car, but also with only coach, and one P42! So not only do we no longer have checked baggage and bike racks between Boston and Albany, and that it will be deafening in the Boston sleeper, but prices are also going to go up for coach because there now is half the capacity! Yay! :angry:


----------



## Amtrak706 (Jan 9, 2019)

This also means that the combined train will likely run with the same single P42.

I live next to the Hudson Line and I can see Amtrak going by from my window. I have noticed that 48 has only had three coaches (down from four) for the last few days, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this had to do with the single unit operation north of Albany. I don’t know about 49 as this time of year it’s dark by the time it gets to me.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 9, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> This also means that the combined train will likely run with the same single P42.
> 
> I live next to the Hudson Line and I can see Amtrak going by from my window. I have noticed that 48 has only had three coaches (down from four) for the last few days, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this had to do with the single unit operation north of Albany. I don’t know about 49 as this time of year it’s dark by the time it gets to me.


I figured that the combined train would run with the single unit, since the actual Boston section by itself never needed two locos. I’m not pleased to hear that the New York section has apparently shrunk as well. The LSL is already quite pricey, so the removal of two coaches definitely isn’t going to help bucket-wise (especially for the Boston section, which has literally lost 50% of coach capacity). This all really is a shame.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Jan 9, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I figured that the combined train would run with the single unit, since the actual Boston section by itself never needed two locos. I’m not pleased to hear that the New York section has apparently shrunk as well. The LSL is already quite pricey, so the removal of two coaches definitely isn’t going to help bucket-wise (especially for the Boston section, which has literally lost 50% of coach capacity). This all really is a shame.


And I know for a fact that the NY section of the LSL does not usually shrink in the winter, so it’s probably not that. I have been watching them come by since about 2004. There were a few years where the Boston section was a stub train that did not run through to Chicago, and during that time 48/49 usually had five coaches and three sleepers. This ended 2009 ish and they have almost always run with four coaches since then. There is the odd missing car now and then that has been set out somewhere, but that only lasts for a few days at most before it gets replaced.


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 10, 2019)

Actually, the BOS section of the Lakeshore Ltd USUALLY runs with a single coach in January through March or so.  The times I've ridden it during Jan-Mar, it's only half to two-thirds full.  I've never seen it sold out BOS-SPG on any trip any time of the year (I avoid holiday periods, though).  Why drag a 2nd coach when it would be less than 1/2 full as would the 1st coach?  Yes, some group could show up at the last minute and pack the car, but surprise groups have long done that on Amtrak and its predecessors.

As for the sleeper up front, I was hoping it would be at the rear, and the BOS section moved to the rear of the train when joined to #49 at ALB, and the NY section sleepers in the front...separated by the baggage car.   I have little doubt the unfortunate BOS section sleepers that haven't said 'never again' because of the disgusting boxed meals will almost 100% abandon the train once they listen to the horn 'full blast' all night long, especially eastbound through Indiana and Ohio!  Obviously, Anderson has never spent a night 'close to the horns'.  Oh...take a look at those P42's...they have horns facing BOTH directions!  I'm sure Anderson is wishing all BOS sleeper passengers 'sweet dreams' these days!


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 10, 2019)

So the sky isn’t falling and it’s business as usual.  Good to know!  It sounds like an efficient use of resources to me.

Frankly, I would never buy a ticket for the Boston sleeper because it is so close to the locomotive.  I’d book business class and then switch to the New York sleeper in Albany.


----------



## PVD (Jan 10, 2019)

VTT's method is perfectly reasonable, the ALB-BOS stretch is daytime anyway, not when the majority of people use the beds. The BC section is usually pretty calm and relatively private.

Its much easier to put the Boston section on the front, the NY power is coming off, you just back up the BOS section to join, from Chicago pull Boston up, and back on the NY power.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 10, 2019)

bratkinson said:


> Actually, the BOS section of the Lakeshore Ltd USUALLY runs with a single coach in January through March or so.  The times I've ridden it during Jan-Mar, it's only half to two-thirds full.  I've never seen it sold out BOS-SPG on any trip any time of the year (I avoid holiday periods, though).  Why drag a 2nd coach when it would be less than 1/2 full as would the 1st coach?  Yes, some group could show up at the last minute and pack the car, but surprise groups have long done that on Amtrak and its predecessors.


I'm looking at a bunch of videos of 448/449 taken before the 7th, and I can tell you that it had been running with two coaches. So it definitely lost a coach, even though I guess that could theoretically not be directly connected with the loss of the baggage car and second loco.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 10, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I'm looking at a bunch of videos of 448/449 taken before the 7th, and I can tell you that it had been running with two coaches. So it definitely lost a coach, even though I guess that could theoretically not be directly connected with the loss of the baggage car and second loco.


The question is whether or not losing a coach is normal.  Videos taken before the 7th may reflect the consist for holiday travel.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 10, 2019)

Chiming in, the winter right sizing has taken place. I brought it up in the Silver Star with two cafe car thread. 

This has taken place for the last few years. Unless otherwise needed, the eastern long distance trains will generally have three coaches.

The LSL used to carry four coaches west of Alb to accommodate local travel from the NYP section. This year, they are cutting the local coach at ALB with the P32.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 10, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Chiming in, the winter right sizing has taken place. This has taken place for the last few years.


So at least as far as BOS-ALB there is nothing new to see here.  Thanks for that clarification.

I agree that it makes a lot of sense for Amtrak to only have the equipment that they need.  Hauling perpetually empty seats doesn't do anyone any good.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 10, 2019)

VTTrain said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at a bunch of videos of 448/449 taken before the 7th, and I can tell you that it had been running with two coaches. So it definitely lost a coach, even though I guess that could theoretically not be directly connected with the loss of the baggage car and second loco.
> ...


Videos I saw were taken on the 5th and 6th (of January), respectively. So the fact that they got rid of the second coach, on the first day of the new baggage-car-free, single loco service, to me indicates that this is more than just a winter downsizing.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 10, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Videos I saw were taken on the 5th and 6th (of January), respectively. So the fact that they got rid of the second coach, on the first day of the new baggage-car-free, single loco service, to me indicates that this is more than just a winter downsizing.


You may be confusing correlation with causation.  We know that the elimination of the coach is normal for January.  The real question will be whether or not the coach comes back after the winter.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 10, 2019)

VTTrain said:


> You may be confusing correlation with causation.  We know that the elimination of the coach is normal for January.  The real question will be whether or not the coach comes back after the winter.


I’m just saying that the fact that the Boston section lost that coach on the same day as its baggage car and second loco, to me suggests a correlation between the two, especially considering the NY section also apparently lost a coach.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 10, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I’m just saying that the fact that the Boston section lost that coach on the same day as its baggage car and second loco, to me suggests a correlation between the two, especially considering the NY section also apparently lost a coach.


I agree there is a correlation.  (That was my point.). We don’t know yet if there was causation.  Only time will tell.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 10, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I’m just saying that the fact that the Boston section lost that coach on the same day as its baggage car and second loco, to me suggests a correlation between the two, especially considering the NY section also apparently lost a coach.


The winter right sizing generally occurs the week after New Years. Again, EVERY eastern LD train lost equipment starting Saturday.  So, it makes sense to eliminate the baggage car and a locomotive when you're planning consist changes.

Speaking of which, I haven't paid much attention but the LSL has run with two diesels for the last few days. It is likely an engine didn't make a trip.  

The coaches will likely return in March....as usual.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 11, 2019)

Interesting. It appears that the combined Lake Shore is still running with two P42s, yet the Boston section is only using one. I guess they've decided that the fuel savings of only using one P42 between Boston and Albany makes up for the extra switching work in ALB?


----------



## cocojacoby (Jan 13, 2019)

2 baggage cars on that second video?


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 13, 2019)

cocojacoby said:


> 2 baggage cars on that second video?


Yeah, but they're both at the back, so I assume one is is just deadheading.


----------



## Amtrak706 (Jan 14, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The winter right sizing generally occurs the week after New Years. Again, EVERY eastern LD train lost equipment starting Saturday.  So, it makes sense to eliminate the baggage car and a locomotive when you're planning consist changes.
> 
> Speaking of which, I haven't paid much attention but the LSL has run with two diesels for the last few days. It is likely an engine didn't make a trip.
> 
> The coaches will likely return in March....as usual.


Every single NY section of 48 I’ve seen come by my window since they got rid of the Boston baggage car has had three coaches. I’ll defer to your knowledge Thirdrail, but all I know is that I’ve never seen this before, and I’ve lived near the Hudson Line and watched them come by since the early 00s. It’s always been four coaches even through winter.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 15, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Every single NY section of 48 I’ve seen come by my window since they got rid of the Boston baggage car has had three coaches. I’ll defer to your knowledge Thirdrail, but all I know is that I’ve never seen this before, and I’ve lived near the Hudson Line and watched them come by since the early 00s. It’s always been four coaches even through winter.


I believe you, but considering the LSL is actually still running with two locomotives west of Albany, I don't see any reason why they would do this, other than lower demand in the off-season. Originally I thought it was being cut it to one P42 the whole way from Boston to Chicago, which would explain the shortening of both sections, but that's not what's happening. :wacko:


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 15, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Every single NY section of 48 I’ve seen come by my window since they got rid of the Boston baggage car has had three coaches. I’ll defer to your knowledge Thirdrail, but all I know is that I’ve never seen this before, and I’ve lived near the Hudson Line and watched them come by since the early 00s. It’s always been four coaches even through winter.


Perhaps it's a 'safety net' in case the lead unit has a HEP failure for any reason.  Winter in an unheated train can be far more harmful to Amtrak than cooking in summer.  Back in the 70's, I had a couple of trips where I went to bed fully dressed and could see my breath.   At least I had the warmth of a blanket on top of me.  I doubt the coach passengers fared so well.


----------



## west point (Jan 15, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> I believe you, but considering the LSL is actually still running with two locomotives west of Albany, I don't see any reason why they would do this, other than lower demand in the off-season. Originally I thought it was being cut it to one P42 the whole way from Boston to Chicago, which would explain the shortening of both sections, but that's not what's happening. :wacko:


Why is demand lower in winter?  That is an important question not asked or answered.  Agree demand is somewhat lower in winter but should increase in winter to Florida!  Our unsubstantiated thoughts are there is no Amtrak advertising for LD trains which should be done in winter time.  That advertising can spill over to summer!  ACL and SAL actually had to add equipment and trains in winter. As well they both borrowed other equipment from RRs that did have a excess of winter time equipment.  We do recognize that Amtrak can schedule more medium and light maintenance on equipment in winter but there is no justification for so many pieces being sidelined.  Because it is winter ground HEP has to be kept connected and horrors what if ground power has a long time supply failure.  If Beech has a failure? ?  Getting enough locos connected in time is problematic.


----------



## VTTrain (Jan 15, 2019)

west point said:


> Why is demand lower in winter?


On the Lake Shore Limited?  Most likely because demand plummets for leisure travel to Chicago, New York and points in between during the winter.  I am sure that there are other factors but that has to be a big one.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 15, 2019)

VTTrain said:


> On the Lake Shore Limited?  Most likely because demand plummets for leisure travel to Chicago, New York and points in between during the winter.  I am sure that there are other factors but that has to be a big one.


Indeed. Think about it. The Lake Shore Limited literally runs all the way up through upstate New York, and then on to Chicago. Pretty much all those towns are known for being absolutely frozen in the winter. Meanwhile in the summer, they are absolutely lovely.

The trains to Florida are a completely different story, since the weather down there is most pleasant in the winter, and you have all the snowbirds making their way back and forth around that time. They Silvers and the LSL have VERY different markets, and VERY different routes.


----------



## PVD (Jan 15, 2019)

In addition, the NY portion of the Lake is covered by Empire Service and the Leaf. Unless you are going past Buffalo, you have choices.


----------



## cpotisch (Jan 15, 2019)

PVD said:


> In addition, the NY portion of the Lake is covered by Empire Service and the Leaf. Unless you are going past Buffalo, you have choices.


But that factor doesn't really change seasonally.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jan 15, 2019)

Amtrak706 said:


> Every single NY section of 48 I’ve seen come by my window since they got rid of the Boston baggage car has had three coaches. I’ll defer to your knowledge Thirdrail, but all I know is that I’ve never seen this before, and I’ve lived near the Hudson Line and watched them come by since the early 00s. It’s always been four coaches even through winter.


It started in 2017.  You must have missed it. Additionally ,they tried single diesel operation for summer operation in 2016.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 16, 2019)

Don't forget the Seaboard Airline, Atlantic Coastline, and Seaboard Coastline for that matter. They didn't just scramble to find cars for their existing trains they ran full size seasonal extras. The Florida Special ran 15 plus cars but was only a winter train. And it had a lovely on board experience.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 7, 2019)

I was aboard 449 for the past 2.5 hrs in business class and was floored at what I saw. In their 'great wisdom', Amtrak decided to provide space aboard 448/449 for bicycles! They took out 2 of the 6 booths and replaced them with 4 bike racks! Just how many bikes do they expect to load/unload between BOS and ALB? The full baggage car has racks out of NYP, so that's not a problem for them.

But as the photo I took from in front of the counter shows, the remaining 4 booths are crew use only. The rearmost booth on the left is conductor 'stuff'. The rearmost on the right is <choose one or more: additional conductor stuff, Amtrak company stuff formerly put in the baggage car, additional cafe supplies, pseudo-checked baggage for BOS sleeper passengers> + 1 conductor; the next booth has one conductor; and the closest booth is reserved for the cafe attendant.

So where do the coach passengers get to enjoy their just-purchased food? Why, at their seats, of course! Heaven forbid they could possible use the 'first class passenger lounge/food' car! It looks like Anderson has discovered a new way to discourage passengers from using long distance trains.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 7, 2019)

Just unbelievable! I just wonder if that Boston section of the Lake Shore is long for this world!


----------



## TiBike (Apr 7, 2019)

Awesome! Amtrak might finally be getting over its long distance bike derangement syndrome. [emoji468][emoji467][emoji106]


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 7, 2019)

Apparently, there's enough demand for bikes these days. We lost 5 minutes at Schnectady to pull down and load a bike on the NY section baggage car on the rear. With my newest scanner, I usually keep my 'ears on' in my roomette. That's how I knew about the bike.


----------



## daybeers (Apr 7, 2019)

omg that makes me so angry! Can you please call Customer Relations and tell them what happened? I don't care if there was stuff they used to store in the baggage car or whatever kind of excuse there is, the crew should only take up _*one booth*_. Amtrak really needs to get its stuff together regarding this and the bike situation.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 7, 2019)

Typical. The Starlight lost ten minutes loading my bike a couple trips ago. No good reason, plenty of staff standing around doing nothing. Conductor seemed to be the only one who had the high degree of training needed to rack a bike, and she was in no rush whatsoever. 

Putting racks in a passenger car - cafe or otherwise - makes it possible for passengers to deal with it themselves. Even without elite level training.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 7, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Awesome! Amtrak might finally be getting over its long distance bike derangement syndrome. [emoji468][emoji467][emoji106]


Sounds like food service derangement to me.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 7, 2019)

On some (maybe all?) Metro North M8 commuter cars, I've noticed bike racks that one hooks the front wheel on about 5.5 feet above the floor. There's only 2 hooks, but they're close enough together to only lose 1 row of seats. Amtrak should be able to do something similar and get 3 bikes in the space of 1 booth. Should number 4 show up, keep it in the vestibule until ALB, the move it to the NYP baggage car.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 7, 2019)

bratkinson said:


> On some (maybe all?) Metro North M8 commuter cars, I've noticed bike racks that one hooks the front wheel on about 5.5 feet above the floor. There's only 2 hooks, but they're close enough together to only lose 1 row of seats. Amtrak should be able to do something similar and get 3 bikes in the space of 1 booth. Should number 4 show up, keep it in the vestibule until ALB, the move it to the NYP baggage car.


I suspect that they will remove all the seats from the business class section to accommodate more bikes.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 8, 2019)

The bike racks replaced a few booths in the cafe car. It can be done more efficiently, and maybe it will be in the future. Based on the picture and the description, the problem is staff assuming their comfort is more important than passenger convenience, not bicycle racks.


----------



## cocojacoby (Apr 8, 2019)

This seems rather stupid. Why not remove a few seats from a coach and create a coach/baggage?

Ironically, a recent photo of 448 on another site showed a baggage car in the consist. So I don't know what hell Amtrak is up to but this solution is unconscionable.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 8, 2019)

TiBike said:


> The bike racks replaced a few booths in the cafe car. It can be done more efficiently, and maybe it will be in the future. Based on the picture and the description, the problem is staff assuming their comfort is more important than passenger convenience, not bicycle racks.


I think there are two separate issues here.

The first, as mentioned above, is the crew taking over space that should be available for passenger use. The operating crew should have their work space back in one of the coaches as was the practice before Amtrak and in the early days of Amtrak. In that way they can better monitor passengers, be more accessible to passengers and provide better service but we know that service is no longer an important element. Of course for all that I know, Union negotiations may mandate that the crew has work space in the café car. 

Second is that the Boston - Chicago cafe car, with its limited menu is already inadequate to provide proper food service on the Lake Shore and with the removal of more table space it only gets worse. From my observations 48-49 usually has 6 fairly packed coaches between Albany and Chicago which have to be served from this small (and getting smaller) food service cafe. Pretty poor service.

So it seems that Amtrak is further degrading service to most coach passengers in favor of the few passengers who wish to travel with their bike. There is a solution. I have seen it on the Boston section of the Lake Shore in years past. It is called a baggage car.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 8, 2019)

Oh can we put in a table or two for the crew in that baggage car too?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 8, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Awesome! Amtrak might finally be getting over its long distance bike derangement syndrome.



Ummm....before everyone goes pieces, those cars have been around for years. I had to dig though my posts on another board but here is the article from 2013 announcing one of the tests:


*Bikers Hope Amtrak Will Expand Rack Access Soon*



> Several New York bicyclists recently participated in demonstration rides hosted by Amtrak in a step toward one day allowing bikes on passenger trains.
> 
> Late last month, Amtrak invited 36 New York bicyclists to bring their wheels on a northbound train as part of an ongoing effort to accommodate bikes on trains traveling around the state. This particular train had a special demonstration cafe car equipped with rack space for four bicycles. Bicyclists signed up to board at a particular stop on the Ethan Allen line and then disembarked at the next stop.



The cars were also tested in Michigan and Vermont. Once they made some adjustments, these cars were deployed throughout the single level system in tandem with the requests of states. Some states have dropped thee program, so have continued it.

The bottom line is nothing new. It is something they use in areas without baggage cars.




bratkinson said:


> So where do the coach passengers get to enjoy their just-purchased food? Why, at their seats, of course!



Well, that is what they are for.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 8, 2019)

Things are looking up! I visited the cafe car and paid for my breakfast and noticed the improvement.

The 'conductors stuff' on the left was gone, but on the table was some conductors' paperwork. The red crates on the right turned out to be cafe supplies, in addition to the cabinets where a bathroom used to be and in the overhead luggage racks. Surprise, surprise, a conductor was sitting opposite the red crates which were open. Surprise of the day when I saw a lone passenger eating at the 2nd table.

And, of course, the table nearest the center of the car...the cafe attendant. At least ONE passenger got to eat their meal at a table. In the diner, which I walked through after chatting with the LSA...nobody! In looking at her list of sleeper passengers while we chatted (I can read upside down), less than 1/2 were lined out indicating they'd come to the diner. Perhaps they should move the cafe to the diner and let the coach passengers enjoy the tables! f

For what it's worth, I didn't see ANY dinners being provided to BOS sleeper passengers west of Springfield, where I got on in business class. Maybe they were served earlier in their rooms? The LSA made a trip to the sleeper, but didn't appear to be taking any food with him. Perhaps they all got fed in the diner after Albany.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 8, 2019)

Rasputin said:


> I think there are two separate issues here.
> 
> The first, as mentioned above, is the crew taking over space that should be available for passenger use. The operating crew should have their work space back in one of the coaches as was the practice before Amtrak and in the early days of Amtrak. In that way they can better monitor passengers, be more accessible to passengers and provide better service but we know that service is no longer an important element. Of course for all that I know, Union negotiations may mandate that the crew has work space in the café car.



While I definitely agree that crew should be dispersed throughout the consists, the seats in the coaches are the actual revenue seats. The cafe space is non revenue and they no longer want the crews hogging revenue space. They want to sell that space. It is one of the main reasons they have done a lot to avoid deadheading crews on revenue trains, particularly high yield trains. They've even altered the partnership regarding freight employees deadheading on revenue trains.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Oh can we put in a table or two for the crew in that baggage car too?



The baggage cars do not have HVAC. I'm assuming the the new bag dorms will have them in the baggage area.


----------



## neroden (Apr 8, 2019)

In my experience, when the crew is "sprawling" in the cafe, they know they're using customer space and if you sit down next to them, they make room. If they don't, they're really out of line and should be reported to Amtrak ASAP.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 8, 2019)

Whatever the history of that car, the fact that Amtrak is putting it on a long distance train appears to be news, and good news at that. Anything that breaks down Amtrak's irrational policy about bikes on long distance trains is a step forward.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 8, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> While I definitely agree that crew should be dispersed throughout the consists, the seats in the coaches are the actual revenue seats. The cafe space is non revenue and they no longer want the crews hogging revenue space. They want to sell that space. It is one of the main reasons they have done a lot to avoid deadheading crews on revenue trains, particularly high yield trains. They've even altered the partnership regarding freight employees deadheading on revenue trains.
> 
> The baggage cars do not have HVAC. I'm assuming the the new bag dorms will have them in the baggage area.



The crew should be back in the coaches where they were traditionally even if it means sacrificing a couple of revenue seats on such high yield trains as the Lake Shore. However I am not in favor of the crew setting up a work station in the baggage car (on those trains that have a baggage car) for fear that they would hide there and be inaccessible to passengers.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 8, 2019)

TiBike said:


> Whatever the history of that car, the fact that Amtrak is putting it on a long distance train appears to be news, and good news at that. Anything that breaks down Amtrak's irrational policy about bikes on long distance trains is a step forward.



AS I have said in the past, it depends on the eye of the beholder. When I went to retrieve the information for my previous post, someone was already complaining about the loss of seats for bike passengers on that board. This thread was bumped based upon a complaint about removing non revenue seats and opened up the thought of a conspiracy to drive passengers away from the train.





Rasputin said:


> The crew should be back in the coaches where they were traditionally even if it means sacrificing a couple of revenue seats on such high yield trains as the Lake Shore. However I am not in favor of the crew setting up a work station in the baggage car (on those trains that have a baggage car) for fear that they would hide there and be inaccessible to passengers.



Well, crew dorms existed for a great deal of Amtrak's history and they're coming back. Additionally, new equipment will have specified places for crew members, much like the Acela sets and some of the cafe cars on the long distance single level fleet.

The passengers never really shied away from marching right up to these locations and knocking, opening the doors without knocking or anything else the felt like doing (including defecating in one, thinking it was bathroom with no toilet.), nor has it stopped them from invading engines (Is this the quiet car?) or non revenue cars in deadhead status with signs saying" Crew members only" or "No passengers beyond this point ."


So, "hiding" won't be an issue.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 8, 2019)

Crew dorms as I have always understood them are spaces for off duty employees to rest and relax. They have nothing to do with the on-duty operating crew occupying significant space in an already inadequate café car. If passengers invade the crew space in a crew dorm or crew lounge they should be dealt with accordingly just as if a passenger attempted to enter the kitchen area.


----------



## lordsigma (Apr 8, 2019)

While the lake shore seems like a train where the bag dorm really makes sense, given the way baggage was cut off this year it would seem likely that is off the table. Not that I would complain about the Boston section getting baggage back just not holding my breath.


----------



## TiBike (Apr 8, 2019)

Thirdrail7 said:


> AS I have said in the past, it depends on the eye of the beholder. When I went to retrieve the information for my previous post, someone was already complaining about the loss of seats for bike passengers on that board. This thread was bumped based upon a complaint about removing non revenue seats and opened up the thought of a conspiracy to drive passengers away from the train.



That's true. I'm not suggesting taking out cafe tables is the best way, or even a good way, to accomodate bikes. But it works. Better ways are possible, particularly on Superliners. It's a step in the right direction; Amtrak just has keep walking .


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 9, 2019)

TiBike said:


> That's true. I'm not suggesting taking out cafe tables is the best way, or even a good way, to accomodate bikes. But it works. Better ways are possible, particularly on Superliners. It's a step in the right direction; Amtrak just has keep walking .


I certainly have no problem with bikes on trains and hope this service continues and spreads. However, I don't think food service or other amenity space should be sacrificed since on many trains that space is in limited supply.

As far as an earlier suggestion that people should be eating their food at their seats anyway implying I guess that the café tables are unnecessary, it appears to me that many people prefer to eat at a table. In addition I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) coach passengers are not allowed to take alcohol back to their coach seat but have to consume alcohol in the cafe or lounge.


----------



## tricia (Apr 9, 2019)

Rasputin said:


> I certainly have no problem with bikes on trains and hope this service continues and spreads. However, I don't think food service or other amenity space should be sacrificed since on many trains that space is in limited supply.
> 
> As far as an earlier suggestion that people should be eating their food at their seats anyway implying I guess that the café tables are unnecessary, it appears to me that many people prefer to eat at a table. In addition I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) coach passengers are not allowed to take alcohol back to their coach seat but have to consume alcohol in the cafe or lounge.



IIRC, it's OK to take alcohol bought in the cafe back to your seat. Just not OK to sit there and drink alcohol you brought on board yourself.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 9, 2019)

tricia said:


> IIRC, it's OK to take alcohol bought in the cafe back to your seat. Just not OK to sit there and drink alcohol you brought on board yourself.


That is good to know if it is the actual policy. I keep getting mixed signals on this question.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 9, 2019)

Yes. The location restriction is on private stock (in private room only), not purchased onboard.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 9, 2019)

The third rail story of someone using the crews area for a restroom makes me think there is a smelly story behind that point.


----------

